Loading...
LUBA2003-194 - John Frewing (5) MAR3I '05 P'1 2:23 L UEFA CASE NO- - • BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN FREWING ) LUBA NO. 2003-194 PETITIONER ) Supplemental v ) Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD ) RESPONDENT. ) _1- In L-t,'r pG,Y- -fit Book 1 LED COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2005 If * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON ) John Frewing, ) LUBA NO. 2003-194 Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) Supplemental ) Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) Respondent. ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Land Use Board of Appeals—File No. 2003-194 3 WEIGHT DIMENSIONAL d., UPS Next Day Air WtIC:HI ENTER"LTR" MIT IF LETTER 'f SHIPPER'S ( n UPS Worldwide Express COPY 1�'8, : \r� S h i i n Document a '0� 'a 7 �el.ra-TndM gtr p � g WORLDWIDE �(a NEXT DAY a EXPRESS Tff Imo) See instructions on back. Call 1-800-PICK-UPS(800-742-5877) vL 1 ur AIR (INTERNATIONAL) lit:sh"vILI Wca.DINDEEKTRESSSHRierTs S or additional information. DOCK contelroxdoa lraad towrd.vote ONLY TRACKING NUMBER J073 990 13 2 7 5 El ATURDAY SATURDAY `a� PICKUP El DELIVERY $ il!! SHIPMENT FROM ei•1514/50(555 Si"" pOnt !!!! SHIPPER'S UPS ACCOUNT NO. OPTIONAL ❑ C DECLARED 44 VALUE $ $ UPS SERVICES va°aheouvowi'toq�iw•x AMOUNT ACCOUN1 .3_3 2 4 0. 0 3 ii8 R y . w !' I I REFERENCE NUMBER ❑ C Q D .a $ $ iioredad re mad+m•eMa /00 2 aJ v —/ O 6 ADDITIONAL ❑ c coreor AMOUNT 1111 NAME TELEPHONE HANDLING An Additional Handiing Charge wets for certain tarns See instructions j�LaT1^�/ 142 ;ttcy 503-639-4171 CHARGE TOTAL n r- xy lull .OMPANY 1 CHARGES ; $ ITY OF .TIGARD r BILL Bi1LTH/ 1 Bru RICE NER PARTY Cmo CHECK Ott 3TREETADDRESS METHOD Smovan r-�xTa,�,,,,o �l CARO AmencanE.Prw j OF I I Dine ��i 13125 SW -[ALL PAYMENT 11 E E tit-. ❑ Ili :ITY AND STATE ZIP CODE LR¢aoACCao.rao e5 55C7 K.5J lib" rIGARD OR 972238144 ORECENErz s/THIRD Niters UPS PGCr.No.OR MAJOR OgEoT CARD NO. eSA MON fills EXTREMELY URGENT DELIVERY TO I / tr� TAME c_ TELEPHONE ` I "s�h® q s. (o aid of f A p p eki THIRD PARTY'S COMPANY NAME in :OMPANY STREET ADDRESS S.SV l:' ;.sal ,u C— i i • ;TREET ADDRESS 1� DEPT./FLOO�R//A CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE 11111 /94f0 C ( (4Ti 1i4 CoMM i 13u 1 I 1�3 nil ;ITV ND STATE(INCLUDE COUNTRY INTERNATIONAL) ZIP CODE T*. a..a.isa.a.w.•.rw �.•n.......,.....•.*.......a...... iro.r•...•.�....r.•. i S�l ,� , UR 973 !p 551511••_.....�_��.• �....a�...•,i.�a...••... i!Ii. ,.E I III 111 I 1111 III 1111 1111 III 010191120/2/99 S .. ..... _.rL • Final land use decision for City of Tigard - Notice of Final Order by the City Council, Appeal of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, SUB 2003-00010, PDR 2003-00004, ZON 2003-00003, VAR 2003-00036, and VAR 2003-0037. Supplemental Hearing Record (CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO. 03-58 AND AMENDED BY 03-61) CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 2003-194) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the supplemental public hearing record. Ca:642rue Catherine Wheatley, City Record Date Certified to be a True Copy of riginal on file d (L s-c Ci t !'-��•'.'► Y Recorder - City of Tigar: dooseif" ;ncl,tt4e 4.ct D {€41-t° C612-C-d C44-1 C1V‘ rlY wi� RPc�ds tiQ trw ate, Land Use Board of Appeals- File No. 2003-194 TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement Certifying the Supplemental Record i Table of Contents ii Exhibit No. Page 1 November 4, 2003, City Council Meeting Audio 1 Tapes 2 October 28, 2003, City Council Meeting Audio 2 Tapes 3 October 28, 2003, City Council Meeting Visitor's 3 Agenda Sign-In Sheet 4 October 2, 2003, Visitor's Statement by John Frewing 4 5 September 9, 2003, City Council Meeting Audio 5 Tape 6 September 9, 2003, Testimony Sign-In Sheets for 6-7 the Continuation of the Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Public Hearing BOOK 2 7 August 12, 2003, City Council Meeting Audio Tapes 8 8 August 12, 2003, City Council Meeting Minutes — Page 10 9 9 August 12, 2003, Testimony Sign-In Sheets for the 10-15 Ash Ceek Estates Planned Development Subdivision Public Hearing 10 July 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Audio Tapes 16 ii AGENDA ITEM NO. _2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2003 cited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME,ADDRESS&PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED 110 ��ry t--__ t.-� �-...tv c i.i AL_ 3 - - - ! 1(41\I 1-kaAk,fr,1 / S A) - A) ' ' ( a tiLS 2U i f b goy om" � • „ Exhibit 3 Page VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 VISITORS STATEMENT BY JOHN MEWING 10/28/03 Mayor Griffith and City Council Members: Thank you for this two minute opportunity to address you. I respectfully am proposing now that you reopen the hearing record of the Ash Creek Estates matter when it comes before you later in this meeting. Such reopening will allow me to provide clarification and respond to testimony and new evidence by other parties provided at your 8/12 and 9/9 quasi-judicial hearing. If recognized later in this meeting, when you are considering the Ash Creek Estates development, I will repeat this request for reopening of the hearing record and provide my current comments on the late filed material. As the record shows,I DID ask for a continuance of the hearing before you in my written material of August 29, 2003, which, since your hearing was de novo, was timely with respect to the first evidentiary hearing, and you have not responded in any way to this date. State law at ORS 197.763 (a)and(b) require that when requested, the local government decisionmaking body shall grant a continuance of at least seven days in order for all parties to respond to late filed material. I have not completed my review of the 37 pages of findings(which include new evidence) in this proceeding but hope to complete such review in 10 days. You may be concerned about extending your final decision beyond 120 days from acceptance of the application(the 120-day rule). The same state law, which establishes the 120-day rule provides for an exception when the development decision is not wholly within the scope of the local jurisdiction. In this case, the development decision depends also on Division of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers permits not yet issued and therefore the 120-day rule is not applicable. John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Exhibit Page AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: September 9, 2003 Continuation of PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION SU B2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 ZON 2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I-\ADM\GREERICCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY QJ DOC Exhibit Page L AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: September 9, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. NIiKc ShKo10;K -�o?-S Sto 4.41-ra Dc oe a-.2?-3 503- 2 0-36.44 Name, Address& Phone No. Name,Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Exhibit (o Page r] DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-0004/ZON2003- 00003/SLR2003-00005/VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-0003 7) ITEM ON APPEAL: On July 7th, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot single- family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision; Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep (>25%) slopes, a drainage way and wetlands and; adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74th Avenue. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a 4-4 tie vote, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a 4-4 tie vote. Based on the Commission's by-laws and Robert's Rules of Order, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria of the Development Code. LOCATION: 9750 SW 74th Avenue; WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 1 8.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. a. Open the Public Hearing Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing b. Declarations or Challenges The Mayor read the following: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex-pane contact or information gained outside the hearing including any site visits? Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? Councilor Dirksen announced that although he had not made a site visit, he was familiar with the area. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 2003 Page 10 Exhibit cZ Page _a— t1 r1U C_l._to • Q-03 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION SU B2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 Z0N2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony 1:1ADMIGREERICCSIGNUPWH TESTIMONY OJ.DOC Exhibit 9 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent-(Speaking In Favor) Opponent-(Speaking Against) Neutral Na e,Address & Phone No. Name Address Name, Address& Phone No. \phso- .--i j N 1 Cs-- P.o. n 8 4v 11� / -1_15)--A =- 1 E 1 7 rAA� 7 S✓.L- l \,JA �[sAR, , c'r 9)i: / (31Atcl5-4-- 3 7 1Z7.3 .`2- . S7[JD Name, Address&Phone No. 'Name,Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. 1 cjj,...4- KA:- .41!:;:=T6f--- ,--ku-zi qemoVoreb 7-5o St4 ?q- > E. 7100 sw Je* k,r bi-- `rie 1 a72.2-3 -t a O2 17223 1 C9-s)245-r2J38 244-6050 Name,Address& Phone No. Name,Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. V lAlc J2IC A VI2,rren An ey 94x3 sw --4* l, Wkdi- —CIS atibk 4-7123 fly/Arr./6'c ).2 V' Sv3-24 6-6613 me ress& Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. ,f 4c A7S b Lk/PCP-b 7 1 4.2 Sw CWQ Rn-'-1`) ' l 2k 13 3ee k_e .< n.e at- 61111: , J4-"CIA, ° /tP ? -ii-y-E`5-8 Name, Address& Phone N Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. J cm6� R� is lit�ds f, ��lo2t�� Ste) 7005 S� l R quo w U n (et ei, ea 6 c s.vj. f L `A I d OR q 7223 ' !t 04. • l 3 .-246-6 S6/2 I.\ • t tip ct 711:5 me, Address& Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. Paii Se-, ., Pr.,(u t 1 it ccrtn .rc n 11-40 SW q /e— 61 I 0 StA? Ue4CLIr4 a ` `1� }3 Tt cj4 vd or g7z23 -S3� 5v3 -2_46- i2-15 Exhibit C Page 1 1 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent–(Speaking In Favor) Opponent–(Speakinu Against) Neutral N e,A•dre s& P one o. Name, Address& • •ne No. Name, Address& Phone Na ��T'� �D3—a�6�/�L �C '3 I VName, Address &Phone No. N me, Address& Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. k -k.s ;II b er "0 0 S0 V&t i a Qr• 1 s c.,0 d2 9'7113 ( S�3-2,V-53Q Name, Address&Phone No. Name, Address Al `h8 10 SW VEn1 ra(f/ ls�v 6 0Z+ _ ��3-Z�lt- 8Y35 V Name, Address & Phone No. Name, A �Ikdress&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. (G//� 'sai 6o›. e✓3 767.5-,5(,�/ r Ne-J/14 7-7 / /2, L i41/5Q--33;7t sd 3-Z Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. 1.7 4,■, fLoco--, ecil0/4 A1 elf71‘ e r)i - i-$cvcri °I�'S0 g °CI b=3 z'/y. 37 YName Address& Phone No. Name Address&Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. gr4 • SlJ Tv A-441-1-it, Pt 1Cr ;s -op. 9-4)-)-3 165-67 Std Riq , z 5-v gbi7 Skearwc+1,0 9'7/q0 d Exhibit Page 1 _ AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address & Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. } l�-& c, �i.& Nil VIG//t- Le Z 1/1 4 to z Sw V06 L7 tV 9 -7° . &42r4.f�, `- < l 9 /7-1,-/A 4-15 z-O6S-7.- Address & Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. ?61.1 1)tu 1���1 u,,kv pr ?DT?,v Sul u Lin ,.� ,p .a-�ab-76 �e % 53-3 - 6- - cl L61 - 0 657, ` Name, Address& Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. &b SAv{-c r. i---OrJ 5� 7,3/.2,5 S w�ealy r d, 75r)I sko t��DAJ ,,dov, -1 5a A o o n f ' Li-721-3 ' 77 aa-? .moo _ Z362.22oz 563-zL/y .-- qv i Name,Address &Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. h A2v Ot 73rd ill P.n: 1--- Pei044tAlet O- Name,Address&Phone No. ► •me,Address &Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. 1 - ' ' a AM ,. 66O 4 i rail. Ti , , /, ► fgs1,13 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address 1 &�oqe No. Name,Address& Phone No. 41�i C jjaas -wpc 9d ijocid{ -15144 g7 1-2 c)31c -DoZ( Exhibit q Pace -1 3 AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. firitibidu)pire 9T 2-1-3 .603( -y —W0 Name,Address& Phone No. .4 e,Addres- & Ph•ne No. Name, Address& Phone No. fed, �• � T-,- - , - �. 563 -VS- 1-39co• Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. t rex -7.2_7-S 1n) Uevt\vr4 T t y ea, X ?7 503-- ?y4 -5T((( Name,Address& Phone No. Nan , Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Ed /Jobb , id,o ,,, v4tran j . , a . i ! (17 )-.)-3 i'3 - /c ' ooa-/ , Name,Address& Phone No. Name,Address&Phone . Name, Address& Phone No. )1(1%"11:j I ,Airs,,t_sle- tgie - , Name, Address&Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. , ):: jr o MA in=k h P f( gL s sw Y3f /C Q. tty0-cd ) oQ Exhibit q Page I`i AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: August 12, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent-(Speaking In Favor) Opponent-(Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address& Phone No Name,Address$� Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. cJ 1..a... i I kt- 1I}5-S 51^' 0-2. 9}ZZ3 Co39 -35 N Name, Address& Phone No Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. VC 14r6� SGvc��'Q 1 Zv t i5.tO. �iarbar4 OrZ u3- zti(z-i25� , Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. c tP d 5-06 I NE lei vpej Yn 0� 1712-g (45D ) 96V-3 I 6-- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. 'Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name, Address& Phone No. Name,Address & Phone No. Name, Address&Phone No. Name,Address& Phone No. Exhibit 9 Page i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on December 8, 2003, I caused to have served on December 9, 2003, a true and correct copy of this SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 2003-194 by certified mail to the following: John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 Greg Kurahashi Kurahashi & Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 DATED: Cerr))22,1_ k' , 2003 --ea'tkt.0/1-t./Y4 Catherine Wheatley City Recorder, City of Tigard Land Use Board of Appeals—File No. 2003-194 CERTFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on December 8, 2003, I caused to have filed on December 9, 2003, the original of this SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 2003-194 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 550 Capitol N.E., Public Utility Commission Building, Salem, Oregon, 97310, by special delivery. DATED: 12-1041e , 2003. aCtil_CA_Zyle 04.e_ titCo Catherine Wheatley City Recorder, City of Tigard Land Use Board of Appeals- File No. 2003-194 MAR31'O5 Fr1 2:23 LUDO CA`P R1 t1 moo BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON FREWING, ) LUBA NO. 2003-194 Petitioner, Second Supplemental Index vs ) and Record CITY OF TIGARD, ) SUB2003-00010/PDR2003-00004 Respondent. ) ZON2003-00003/SLR2003-00005 VAR2003-00036/VAR2003-00037 Y1 1 L raw D r,p1 1P-T nP APPEALS o( T i 7 2005 KHI115 l.KbW I.UKK 1 bHN 5U.3 14.5 2 /44 Mar 25 , 1_15 No .UU2 I' .U2 LI RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 NW HOYT STREET PORTLAND,OREGON 97209 TELEPHONE(503j 222.4402 Cosy Firurlono • FAX(503)243.2944 WWW,RCCa.COM 6,1Q1 December 11, 2003 1,and Use Board of Appeals Public Utility Commission Building , 550 Capitol Street, NI Salem, OR 97310 Re: JOHN PRBWING, Petitioner, and CITY OF TIGARI), Respondent LUBA No. 2003-194 Enclosed herewith for filing is an original and one copy each or RESPONSE OF CITY OF T1GARD TO PETITIONER'S RECORD OBJECTIONS and SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RI?CORD AND SECOND SUI'PI,HME?NTAL INDEX on behalf of City of Tigard. Sincerely/ 7Let >w Gary stone, City Attorney GF/gl enclosures cc: John Frewing Christopher Koback cl u ,1l\Tlgard\corroNpcndnnoc\rd+elU.Fiew(n5 V,Tigard 131103,wpd KHIi1J UKt.W LUKKIMHN 'VJ 21-1,) 144 Isar 2J ,U5 1U : LI NO .UU1 V .U. L l BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN FRE WIN G, 4 Petitioner, LUI3A No. 2003-194 5 v, RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO PETITIONER'S RECORD 6 CITY OP TIGARD, OBJECTION 7 Respondent. 8 9 Respondent City of Tigard has submitted and is submitting additional materials in 10 response to Petitioner's record objections, and submits this formal response to those objections. 11 The City's response should resolve all objections except Objection No, 5, in which Petitioner 12 seeks hearing transcripts. 13 1. mission of written statement submitted by Petitioner at October 28, 2003, The City 14 acknowledges that the record omitted this item, that should have been included and has filed a 15 supplemental record including this statement, 16 2. Mislabeling in index re Exhibit No, 12 -secoidpl es 145-151. The City acknowledges 17 that the record index should read "Agenda Item 8 (Ash Creek Estates)," but because the actual 18 record contains the correct document and because all parties are aware of what the item is, does 19 not see any reason to resubmit the record or index, However, in order to avoid further disputes, 20 a clarifying statement is being included in the second supplemental record index, 21 3. Page 10 of the City Council meeting minutes from August 12. 2003. The City 22 acknowledges that the record inadvertently omitted this page, It has been included in the 23 supplemental record. 24 4, iho sign-up sheet from the October 28 and Sep njber 9 City Council meeting& The City 25 acknowledges that these materials were omitted and should have been included and has included 26 them in the supplemental record. RAMIE CRII97 CORRIOAN U BACFIRACII, LIP Page 1 RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO pub.N.W.7` 9 209 PET'ITIONER'S RECORD O13TECTIONS TeF rn($03)S2I33 4402 KHI11 J LKt.W I.UKK1uHIV BUJ 24J Ly44 mar 2 U lU ; 4y NO .UUL I' .U4 1 S, Tray ftpts.ofth VariousHearinas. The City is not required to submit transcripts. QAR 2 661-010-0025(])(c), The minutes are not incomplete just because they do not reflect every 3 statement made. Furthermore, the City has included audio tapes of each meeting in the record. 4 If Petitioner wishes to make an argument regarding what was said at any of the meetings, the lack 5 of a transcript does not prevent him from doing so because audio tapes have been provided and 6 the tapes are a sufficient record as to what was said. The City should not be subject to the 7 expense of preparing a transcript when it has provided audio tapes that allow any party to cite to 8 and even transcribe any relevant portion of the meeting. 9 Petitioner argues that the public was not advised of the right to rebut as required by ORS 10 197.763(7). ORS 197.763(7) creates a right, but does not require that a statement be made at 11 the hearing regarding that right. 12 Petitioner makes many arguments that certain statements are needed to support planned 13 assignments of error, Without addressing the merits of any of the arguments, it is clear that 14 Petitioner knows what was said and can make the arguments without citing to a transcript, given 15 that Petitioner can cite to the tapes of the meetings. 16 6. A large map used at the August 12, 2003 bearing, The City agrees that the map is part 17 of the record and will be included with the other oversized exhibits. The map is listed on the 18 second supplemental record index submitted with this response. 19 7, A large map used at the September 9. 2003 hearing, The City agrees that the map is part 20 of the record and will be included with the other oversized exhibits. The map is listed on the 21 second supplemental record index submitted with this response, 22 8. Indexing of the"Set ofMaps." The City agrees that the"Set of Maps"was submitted by 23 the applicant, but does not believe it is necessary to correct the reference in the index, given that 24 it is clear that the maps were submitted by the applicant. However, to avoid dispute, the City will 25 include a clarification in the second supplemental record index. 26 CORRIOANN&Ib ClHRACH, L P Page 2 RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO r;pi n (o(��nn 4710V PETITIONER'S RECORD OBJECTIONS rnAl a ts63)2434944°2 KHI°IU LKtW lUKK1uHIV 5UJ 24.3 1y44 mar 15 1U : 5U NO .UU1 N .U5 1 DATED this day of December, 2003. 2 3 Timothy . • am is, OSIM 31I Gary • Firestone, OSB #85223 4 of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 7 I hereby certify that on December (. 2003, I filed the original and one copy of this 8 RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO PETITIONER'S RECORD OBJECTIONS with the 9 Land Use Board of Appeals,Public Utilities Commission Building, 550 Capitol Street NE, Suite 10 235, Salem, Oregon, 97301-2552, by first class mail, 1l DATED this day of December, 2003, 12 ' 'imothy V. • :mis, OS13 #75311 13 Gary • Firestone, OSB #87221 of Attorneys for Respondent 14 City of Tigard 15 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17 I hereby certify that on December 7/, 2003, I served a true and correct copy of this 18 RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO PETITIONER'S RECORD OBJECTIONS by first class 19 mail on the following parties: 20 John Frewing Christopher P. Koback 7110 S.W. Lola Lane Davis Wright Tremaine 21 Tigard, OR 97223 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97201 22 DATED this day of December, 2003, 23 LgVAP- 24 Timot y , " amiss, •SB 75311— Gary F Firestone, OSB #87221 25 of At •rneys for Respondent City of Tigard 26 izA,ikus CREW CORR IAN&BACHRACH, LI.P Page 3 RESPONSE OF CITY OF TIGARD TO PoAuxl O71Q; 97109 PETITIONER'S RECORD OBJECTIONS TCFAX'11OD)3243 794402 KHI°IlJ lKtW LUKK1LJHN JUJ L40 Ly44 riar LD Li lU :�1 NO .UU4 r . uo Y V ] BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN FREWING, 4 Petitioner, LUBA No, 2003-194 5 v. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL 6 CITY OF T1 GARD, INDEX 7 Respondent, 8 9 1. Additional oversized Exhibits to be submitted at oral argument: 10 A. Map showing tree harvest area and extent submitted at August 12, 2003 hearing. 11 B. Map showing change in tree harvest area and extent submitted at September 9, 12 2003, hearing. 13 2, Amendment to Table of Contents in original Record. Exhibit No. 12 is amended to read: 14 September 9, 2003, Council Meeting Recap for Agenda Item 8 (Ash Creek 15 Estates). 16 3, Amendment to Table of Contents in original Record, The first line of Item A in the list 17 of oversize documents is amended to read: "Set of Maps submitted by Applicant as part 18 of application."7,v 19 DATED this L day of December, 2003 . 20 21 imot�i , ' amis,O3`I3 #75311 Gary . F estone, OSB #85223 22 of At eys for Respondent City of Tigard 23 24 25 26 RAMIE CREW CORRIOAN&BACHRACH, LLI' 1717 14,W,Hoyt knot Page 1 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD Portland,ore It7zoq AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX TOr�z°"puij�z.�li4+°' RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN 503 243 2944 Mar 25 , 05 10 : 51 No .002 P . 07 , Cal 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on December it/ , 2003, I filed the original and one copy or this 3 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX with the 4 Land Use Board of Appeals,Public Utilities Commission Building, 550 Capitol Street NE, Suite 5 235, Salem, Oregon, 97301-2552, by first class mail. • 6 DATED thisl/ day of December, 2003. 7 8 not y ', anus, • B '75311 Gary F, ircstone, OSB #87221 9 of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard 10 11 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 I hereby certify that on December /(, 2003, I served a true and correct copy of this 4 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX by first 15 class mail on the following parties: 16 John Frewing Christopher P. Koback 17 7110 S.W. Lola Lane Davis Wright Tremaine Tigard, OR 97223 1300 S,W, Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 18 frt� Portland, OR 97201 19 DATED this(7 day of December, 2003. 20 21 Timot y V Ra s, OSB #75311 22 Gary F. • restone, OS13 #87221 of Attorneys for Respondent 23 City of Tigard 24 25 26 RAM15 CUM CORRIGAN&BACHIRACH, T.T,P Page 2 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD Porruin,Or.g n Strad 39 7i AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX PAX( 30]);343=1944 MAR31 'OS Pr! 2:2a L(inA CASE NO.AI3ooso BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN FREWING ) LUBA NO.2003-194 PETITIONER ice1)-ck Response of the City of Tigard to v ) Petitioner's Second Objection CITY OF TIGARD ) to Record RESPONDENT. CoYTC? A. " E D COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2005 STATE COURT ADMIN OR 4 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE STATE OF OREGON 3 JOHN FREWING, ) ) 4 Petitioner, ) LUBA No. 2003-194 ) 5 v. ) THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ) AND THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) INDEX ) 7 Respondent. ) ) 8 9 _ INDEX 10 1. Letter from Steve Kay to City of Tigard dated September 26, 2003 (submitted to City Staff, not included in package provided to City Council) 1 11 DATED this Z day of January, 2004. 12 13 i . _ Timot V. Ramis, OSB #75311 Gary restone, OSB #85223 of Attorneys for Respondent 15 City of Tigard 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN&BACHRACH. LLP Page 1 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD P d. go`Sweet Tekphone:(503)222-4102 AND THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX Fax. (503)243.2944 Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Ste 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 September 26, 2003 City of Tigard City Council Members 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Findings For Ash Creek Estates Subdivision,SUB2003-00010 Dear City Council Members: On September 9, 2003,the City Council approved the application for the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, SUB2003-00010. On behalf of the applicant, Windwood Construction,we are submitting findings that demonstrate how the applicant has met the approval criteria identified in the Staff Report. Applicable development criteria, responses to those criteria, and additional suggested Conditions of Approval are provided below. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: CHAPTER 18.350: PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS The Planned Development Process: Section 18.350.030 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: • The approval of the planned development overlay zone; • The approval of the planned development concept plan; and • The approval of the detailed development plan. Findings: As required, the applicant has followed the Planned Development process for this application. This application has been submitted the application for approval of the planned development overlay zone, concept plan, and detailed plan. Applicability of the Base Zone Standards: Section 18.350.070 requires compliance to specific development standards: The provisions of the base zone are applicable as follows: Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot size, lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply except as related to the density computations under Chapter 18.715; THIRD SUPP. REC. - 1 Findings: As allowed under the planned development process,the applicant has requested smaller lot sizes that the required by the R-4.5 zone. Proposed lot widths are 50 or wider and lot depths are 68-153 deep. As required by the Conditions of Approval,the applicant will be required to modify Lot 29 so that it meets frontage standards. The applicant has met the density requirements as discussed later in these findings. Site coverage: The site coverage provisions of the base zone shall apply; Findings: The R-4.5 zone does not have site coverage requirements, therefore this standard does not apply. Building height: The building height provisions shall not apply; Findings: The applicant has not proposed an alternative height standard with this application,therefore the application is subject to the standards of the base zone. Structure setback provisions: Front yard and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360; Findings: The applicant has met this standard by submitting a site plan illustrating building envelopes within the development. Specific requests around the perimeter of the site by the applicant are to maintain a 15-foot rear yard setback on Lots 1-3,a 20-foot front yard setback for Lots 24-27,and a 10- foot south side yard for Lot 29, a flag lot. In the interior of the site,the applicant proposes an 8-foot front yard setback to primary structures and porches. Setbacks to the face of the garage is proposed to remain at 20 feet from the front property line of Lots 12-26. Setbacks to the garage on Lots 1-11 are proposed to be 22.5 feet, where sidewalks are 4.5 feet on to those lots. The side yard setback provisions shall not apply except that all detached structures shall meet the Uniform Building Code(UBC) requirements for fire walls; Findings: The applicant proposed to reduce the side yard setback from 5 to 3 feet, which is the minimum separation required for UBC compliance. No projections including bay windows or chimneys, shall be allowed into the side areas. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Front yard and rear yard setback requirements in the base zone setback shall not apply to structures on the interior of the project except that: (1)A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street; (2) A minimum front yard setback of 8 feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided. Findings: As mentioned previously,the applicant proposes an 8-foot front yard setback to primary structures and porches and setbacks to the face of the garage is proposed to remain at 20-22.5 feet. However, the several of the rear setbacks have been modified with this application. Staff has recommended that the rear yard setbacks for lots with depths of 100 feet or more not be reduced. As required by the staffs Conditions of Approval, the applicant is required to maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback for Lots 27 and 28. With the Condition of Approval,this criterion has been met. 2 THIRD SUPP.REC.-2 Other provisions of the base zone: All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Findings: Required provisions of the base code have been satisfied by the applicant. All other provisions of the base code will be met during the building permit phase. PD Approval Criteria: 18.350.100 Specific planned development approval criteria. The Commission shall make findings that the following criteria are satisfied when approving or approving with conditions,the concept plan. The Commission shall make findings that the criteria are not satisfied when denying an application. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 and 18.430,shall be met; Findings:The applicant has requested to subdivide the property concurrently with the planned development approval, therefore this criterion has been met. The applicant's compliance with Chapters 18410, 18.420 and 18.420 is discussed below. Except as noted,the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guideline. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods,if acceptable to the Commission,that promote the purpose of this section. In each case,the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed on Subsection 3 below. The developer may choose to provide or the commission may require additional open space dedication and/or provision of additional amenities, landscaping or tree planting. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below,density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district. The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following: • A maximum of 3% is allowed for the provision of undeveloped common space. • A maximum of 3% is allowed for landscaping; streetscape development; developed open spaces,plazas and pedestrian pathways and related amenities; recreation area development, and/or retention of existing vegetation; • A maximum of 3% is allowed for creation of visual focal points; use of existing physical amenities such as topography,view,and sun/wind orientation; • A maximum of 3% quality of architectural quality and style; harmonious use of materials; innovative building orientation or building grouping; and/or varied use of housing types. 3 3 THIRD SUPP.REC.-3 Findings: The applicant has requested any modifications to the density standards, therefore this standard has been met. Density will be further discussed under Chapter 18.715 below. CHAPTER 18.730: EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Findings: The applicant has requested modifications to the lot standards under the planned development process,therefore this criterion is not applicable. CHAPTER 18.795: VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS Findings: As required, the applicant has submitted plans which show that visual clearance areas at street intersections will be maintained free from obstructions taller than 3 feet in height. Compliance with vision clearance requirements will be confirmed through the building permit process for all homes to be constructed within the development. Therefore,this criterion has been met by the applicant. CHAPTER 18.745: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Findings:There is no landscaping requirement between the proposed detached single-family development and the adjacent detached single-family developments. However,the applicant is required to landscape 20%of the site because the request for a Planned Development. The applicant has provided a street tree plan for 74th Avenue and has proposed to leave the open space tract in its natural state to meet this criterion. CHAPTER 18.765: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS Findings: The minimum requirement for household living is one space for every dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed 2-car garages and another 2 spaces into each of each garage for every lot within the development, therefore this criterion is satisfied. CHAPTER 18.705: ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION Findings:The applicant has provided access to every lot through a 10-foot driveway that connects to a public or private street. The proposed street improvements are evaluated later in this report. CHAPTER 18.780: SIGNS Findings: No signs are requested with this application. However, the applicant will be required to sign a compliance agreement as a condition of approval in order to facilitate an expeditious court process for citations. In addition,the following criteria shall be met: Relationships to the natural and physical environment: The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing 4 4 THIRD SUPP.REC.-4 trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; Findings: The applicant has proposed to remove the trees within the developable area and retain all trees in the open space tract,except where they are impacted by public facility improvements. Removal of these trees is allowed due to the site's forest timber deferral status. Since the open space tract also contains the natural drainage way,it will be preserved by the proposal. The drainageway will only be slightly impacted by the City required extension of 74th Avenue,but this impact will be minimized by utilizing curb tight sidewalks to limit fill encroachment. An erosion control and grading plan will be required during the engineering approval process to ensure sensitive areas will be impacted by sedimentation or erosion, as well as to mitigate off-site impacts. The erosion control plan will ensure that areas where landform alteration takes place will be replanted. The applicant has also submitted a geotech report,which indicates which areas should and should not be developed. As a Condition of Approval,the applicant will be required to undertake further geotechnical investigations in for Lots 13-15, 22 and 23. The applicant is also conditioned to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed building placement grading plans prior to final plat approval. Therefore,as required,the applicant has met this criterion to the greatest extent possible. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; Findings: The applicant's geotech report indicates areas of slumping and sliding in the proposed open space tract,where development is not proposed. Lots 13-15 and between lots 22 and 23 have steep slopes and groundwater that was encountered during digging of the test pits. As a Condition of Approval,the applicant will be required to undertake further investigations in these areas. There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; Findings: The applicant does not plan to reduce the rear setbacks for Lots 1-12. For the interior of site, the street and front yard setbacks will establish ample distance between the homes. The applicant also proposes 3-foot side yards between interior lots,which complies with UBC standards. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,where possible; and Findings: The applicant has oriented proposed structures in a north-south direction to the extent possible to provide for opportunities to maximize southern glazing exposure. Trees preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal. Findings: As mentioned previously, removal of trees outside the sensitive land area is allowed due to the site's forest timber deferral status. The applicant has preserved trees in the open space tract to the maximum extent possible. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses; 5 5 THIRD SUPP.REC.-5 Buffering shall be provided between types of land uses,e.g.,between single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Findings: The applicant is proposing a detached single-family residential development and adjacent properties are also detached single-family residential developments. Therefore,according to the development code,this criterion is not applicable to this application. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix(Table 18.745.1),the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: • The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; • The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; • The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; • The required density of the buffering; and • Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Findings: There are no buffering requirements between the proposed single-family homes and the existing single-family homes,therefore this criterion is not applicable. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a)What needs to be screened; (b)The direction from which it is needed; and ©)Whether the screening needs to be year-round. Findings: There are no service areas,storage areas,parking lots or mechanical devices proposed with this development,therefore this criterion is not applicable. Privacy and Noise: Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Private outdoor area- multi-family use: Shared outdoor recreation areas - multi-family use: Findings: The applicant is proposing single-family dwelling units. These criteria relate to non-residential or multi-family structures. Access and Circulation: The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; Findings: Lots 1-27 have direct frontage to a local public or private street in the interior of the site. As a Condition of Approval, Lots 28 and 29 will share a common driveway to 74th Avenue,a neighborhood Route. All circulation patterns within a development must be designated to accommodate emergency vehicles; and 6 6 THIRD SUPP.REC.-6 Findings: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue have reviewed the proposal and indicated that the proposed circulation system is acceptable if certain conditions are addressed. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan. Findings: SW 74t Avenue, which fronts the development, is a neighborhood route but has not been designated for bike lanes. This criterion does not apply. Landscaping and open space: Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs(4)and(5) of section a of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; Findings: The open space and drainage tracts of this proposal account for 44%of the site area. That in combination of the landscaping on the site will exceed the minimum 20%landscape criteria. Much of the open space area will remain in its natural state, however,areas of steep slopes that are disturbed must be replanted according to the geotech report. Additionally, areas within the drainageway and wetlands will require mitigation replanting per Clean Water Services and the Division of State Lands requirements. Therefore,this criterion has been met. Public Transit: Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: • The location of other transit facilities in the area; and • The size and type of the proposed development The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: • • A waiting shelter; • A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and • Hard surface connecting the development to the waiting area Findings:The site does not abut a public transit route, therefore this criterion is not applicable. Signs: Findings:No signs are proposed with this development. However, the applicant will be required to sign a compliance agreement as a condition of approval in order to facilitate an expeditious court process for citations. Parking: All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one it more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. 7 7 THIRD SUPP.REC.-7 Findings: The applicant has proposed 2-car garages and another 2 spaces into each of each garage for every lot within the development, therefore this criterion is satisfied. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.775, and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; Findings: The applicant has been conditioned to comply with applicable City of Tigard and Clean Water Services requirements for storm water drainage. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain,the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Findings:There is no areas within the 100-year floodplain on the site. The proposed development complies, or can be conditioned to comply with all planned development approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.100 of the Tigard Development Code. Shared Open Space: Requirements for shared open space: Where the open space is designated on the plan as common open space the following applies: • The open space shall be shown on the final plan and recorded with the Director; and • The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: By dedication to the City as publically-owned and maintained as open space. Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations; By leasing or conveying title(including beneficial ownership)to a corporation, home association or other legal entity,with the City retaining the development rights to the property. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance must include provisions suitable to the City Attorney for guaranteeing the following: • The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; • Continuity of property maintenance; • When appropriate,the availability of funds required for such maintenance; • Adequate insurance protection • Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. By any method which achieves the objectives set forth in Subsection 2 above of this section. Findings: As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to convey title of the proposed open 8 8 THIRD SUPP.REC.-8 space as a separate tract to a Homeowner's Association in accordance with the requirements of the Tigard Development Code and Clean Water Services requirements for buffers. Special adjustments 18.370: Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions(Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he/she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: Findings: The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street improvement standards on SW 74thn Avenue and an adjustment to the cul-de-sac standards. On 74th Avenue,the applicant is requesting an adjustment to allow the sidewalk to be curb tight in order to reduce the amount of fill require in the drainageway area. The applicant has also requested that the cul-de-sac length standard be adjusted to allow 23 homes access verses the allowed standard of 20 homes.These adjustments are addressed below. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property,which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; Findings: The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the 5-foot planter strip along 74'h Avenue to reduce 1,100 additional square feet of impact to the drainageway and wetland area. The applicant proposes this curb tight sidewalk for the special circumstance where the development is required to cross the stream. Outside the resource area, the sidewalk will meet required public street standards. Due to the presence of the sensitive lands, the development width of the property makes a looped street unfeasible. Also, because of existing development patterns adjacent to the site,the cul-de-sac could not be extended to the site's east property line. The applicant was able to extend a new public street to the north property line for future connectivity. The length of the cul-de-sac is the primary reason to exceed the 20 home maximum standard on this private street. Because of the special circumstances affecting this property, this criterion has been satisfied. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; Findings: The adjustment request for the curb tight sidewalk is necessary to reduce impacts to the drainageway and wetlands. The adjustment for the cul-de-sac length is necessary to provide access to Lots 3-19 and to allow a turn around for emergency equipment and garbage trucks. Therefore,this criterion has been satisfied. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and Findings: The Fire District has reviewed the proposed street design and has provided no objections to these adjustments. There is no evidence that these adjustments will be detrimental to the health safety or welfare to other property owners surrounding the site. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship,which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. 9 9 THIRD SUPP.REC.-9 Findings: Due to existing development patterns,the natural resources,and the shape of the site,the adjustment is necessary for the applicant to make use of substantial property rights. The criteria for granting these adjustments to the street design,cul-de-sac length, and sidewalk standards have been satisfied. Zone Change: Standards for Making Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Chapter 18.330 A recommendation or a decision to approve,approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and designations; Findings: This application has been reviewed under the standards of the Tigard Development Code, which is implemented under the comprehensive plan. This criterion has been satisfied. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Findings: The applicant satisfies the criteria for a zone change to place the Planned Development Overlay zoning onto the property. Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval Criteria: 18.430.040 Approval criteria: The approval Authority may approve,approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable and regulations; Findings: As illustrated by this report, the proposed plat complies with all applicable ordinances and regulations. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; Findings: As required,the applicant will provide an approved plat name reservation prior to final plat approval. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width,general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and Findings: As mentioned previously, site conditions and existing development limit the applicant to provide street stubs to the east and south,however, a street stub has been provided to the property to the north. The applicant is also proposing to extend 74th Avenue to the south. This criterion has been met. 10 10 THIRD SUPP.REC.-10 An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Findings: The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements. As required,the applicant will provide an approved plat name reservation prior to final plat approval. Zoning District Residential Zoning District: Section 18.510.020 The R-4.5 zoning district is designated to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Findings: This Planned Development is permitted in this district as long as the applicant satisfies all applicable criteria. Development Standards: Section 18.510.050 States that Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2: Findings:The proposed development is a Planned Development and is allowed to vary from the standards of the base zone. Therefore, the applicant has satisfied this criteria. Access and Egress: Chapter 18.705 Minimum access requirements for residential use: Section 18.705.030H Access Management(Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,Washington County,the City and AASHTO. Findings: The applicant's engineer indicates that sight distance will be met. If required, the engineer will provide a post-certificate sight distance certificate. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence aria, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage,the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. Findings: The proposed new intersection of Street`A' and 74th Avenue, a neighborhood route, is not within the influence area of Taylor Ferry Road,a collector street. This criterion has been met. 11 11 THIRD SUPP.REC.-11 Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Findings: The proposed intersection is over 280 feet away from the intersection of 74th Avenue and Barbara Lane. This standard has been met. Vehicular access and egress for single-family,duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; Findings: As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to provide a minimum of 10-wide paved accessways for each single-family lot. Vehicular access to multi-family structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. Findings: Since this is a proposal for a single-family development, this standard does not apply. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Findings: Individual homeowners will maintain the access drives once the property is developed. The Fire District has already reviewed and provided comments on the proposed development, therefore this criterion has been satisfied. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: • A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; • A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; • The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5%. Findings: Since there are no access drives that exceed 150 feet in length, this criterion does not apply. Vehicle turnouts (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in the excess of 200 feet in length. Findings: There are no access drives that exceed 200 feet in length, therefore this criterion does not apply. 12 12 T1-IRD SUPP.REC.-12 Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. Findings: This site is not adjacent to a collector or arterial, therefore this standard does not apply. To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movements problems,the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets,upon the finding that the proposed access would cause or increase existing hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health,safety, and general welfare. Findings: The proposed development can comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 18.705. As a condition of approval,the applicant will provide joint access with an easement or tract to Lots 28 and 29. In addition,the applicant will be conditioned to demonstrate that all lots can be accessed by a minimum 10-foot wide paved accessway. Density Computations: Chapter 18.715 Density Calculation: 18.751.020 Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s)from the gross acres, which is all of the land included in the legal description of the property to be developed: • All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain; b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%; c. Drainage ways; and d. Wetlands. • All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; • All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage; Multi-family development: allocate 15% of gross acreage. • All land proposed for private streets; and • A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. 13 13 THIRD SUPP.REC.-13 Findings: The density calculations for the site are as follows: Gross lot area: 407,721 square feet Public Street dedication 17, 828 square feet Private Street dedication 22,670 square feet Drainageway 70,862 square feet Steep Slopes 107,556 square feet Wetlands(contained in drainageway) Net Developable Area: 188,805 square feet Number of Lots Allowed in Net Developable Area: 25 Lots Residential Density Transfer Rules governing residential density transfer. The units per acre calculated by subtracting land areas listed in Section 18.715.020 A. la- c from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and 2.The total number of units per site does not exceed 125 percent of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. Findings: According to the rules of density transfer, the applicant is able to utilize 25%of the drainageway and steep slopes as part of the net developable area. To calculate the maximum allowed density,the net developable area is divided by the minimum allowed square footage of the site's zone. Drainageway and steep slopes = 178,418. 25%of this constrained area=44,604 Net Developable area= 178,418+44,604=233,409 square feet R-4.5 Zone: 233,409 (net developable area)/7,500 (minimum allowed s.f. for this zone)= 3 ldwelling units The total number of units allowed is: 125%(gross acreage) x 25 Lots = 31 Lots Therefore, the proposed 29 dwelling units do not exceed the maximum density of the net developable area. This criterion has been met. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in the Subsection B above by 80% (0.8). Findings: The required minimum density is calculated as follows: 25 Lots x 0.80=20 Lots 14 14 THIRD SUPP.REC.-14 The applicant has met this standard. Environmental Performance Standards: Chapter 18.725 Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210. Of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park(IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other pointsource emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water(steam)which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles,trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors in prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is disconcernible at the lot line of the source; and 2)these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. Findings: Adherence to these standards will be assured through the on-going review of the City of Tigard Code Enforcement Officer after individual lots are purchased by homeowners. Therefore,these standard has been met. Landscaping and Screening: Chapter 18.745 Establishes standards for landscaping,buffering and screening to enhance the aesthetic environmental quality of the City. Findings: There are no landscaping standards that apply to the R-4.5 zone. However,the open space area that constitutes 27%of the site will be landscaped and additional landscaping will be planted within each lot. Section 18.745.040. states that all development projects fronting on public street, private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040C. 15 15 THIRD SUPP.REC.-1 5 Findings: As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to submit a revised street tree plan that identifies an alternative tree species for either the public or private street to vary the streetscape. Individual lot owners will not be issued a certification of occupancy until the landscaping requirements of 18.745.040 have been met. Buffering and Screening-Section 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). Findings: The applicant has been conditioned to comply with Landscaping and Screening requirements of Chapter 18.745. However, single-family developments are adjacent to the subject site so there is no buffering and screening requirements for this project. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage: Chapter 18.755 Findings: Waste Management,the new service provider has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has found it to be acceptable for the removal of solid waste and recyclables. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements: Chapter 18.765 This chapter is applicable for development projects when there is new construction expansion of existing use, or change of use in accordance with Section 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements. Findings: As mentioned previously, the applicant has proposed 2-car garages and another 2 spaces into each of each garage for every lot within the development,therefore this criterion is satisfied. To ensure that the development complies with this standard, the developer has been conditioned to submit materials demonstrating that at least one off-street parking space,which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, will be provided on-site for each new home. Sensitive Lands: Chapter 18.775 Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands,CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies,and are not designed as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard. Wetland and Streams Corridors Map., do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain,slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. Findings: The wetlands on this site are not designated as significant by the City. However, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to obtain all the necessary permits from the Army Corp, Division of State Lands, and Clean Water Services. Steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve,approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 16 16 THIRD SUPP.REC.-16 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development,the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Findings: As mentioned previously,the applicant has attempted to reduce the area that the development impacts the steeps slopes and natural areas of the site. An erosion control and grading plan will be required during the engineering approval process to ensure sensitive areas will be impacted by sedimentation or erosion, as well as to mitigate off-site impacts. The erosion control plan will ensure that areas where landform alteration takes place will be replanted. The applicant has also submitted a geotech report,which indicates which areas should and should not be developed. As a Condition of Approval,the applicant will be required to undertake further geotechnical investigations in for Lots 13-15, 22 and 23. The applicant is also conditioned to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed building placement grading plans prior to final plat approval. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive land permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; Findings: The applicant has proposed to extend 74th Avenue to meet the objectives of the City's Transportation Plan and to serve two lots in the southern portion of the site. The applicant has proposed a curb tight sidewalk to minimize the amount of fill in the stream corridor. The extent of the disturbance is not greater than the proposed use,therefore this criterion has been met. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; Findings: . An erosion control and grading plan will be required during the engineering approval process to ensures sensitive areas will be impacted by sedimentation or erosion, as well as to mitigate off- site impacts. The applicant is also conditioned to have the geotechnical engineer review the proposed building placement prior to City approval of construction plans. 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; Findings: The applicant has submitted a stormwater report that includes using an oversized box culvert to ensure that upstream properties are not affected by the development. 17 17 THIRD SUPP.REC.-17 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development,the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; Findings:The applicant has been conditioned to submit an erosion control and grading plan which will require areas to be replanted prior issuance of final building permits. In addition,the applicant is required to replant through the Clean Water Services letter. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; Findings: The 1981 Master Drainage Plan does not identify any public facilities for this portion of Ash Creek. 6. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineer and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands,and CWS approvals shall be obtained; Findings: The applicant has submitted approvals from Clean Water Services. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to show approvals from the Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. 7. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain,the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Findings:There is no 100-year floodplain within the proposed development site,therefore this standard is inapplicable. In order to receive a sensitive lands permit, the applicant has been conditioned to meet the following: • Prior to the issuance of final occupancy on any building, the applicant must provide City staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter. • Prior to any site work,the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals from Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. • Prior to any site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in the area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. • Prior to final plat approval submit and receive approval for an erosion control and grading plan for alteration on slopes exceeding 25%. • Re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file,prior to obtaining permits. • Prior to commencing on-site improvements,the applicant shall have the geotech engineer review and approve the construction plans for the City's review and approval. 18 18 THIRD SUPP.REC.-18 Tree Removal: Chapter 18.790 A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of tees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees,identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper,which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be sued by the applicant to protect tress during and after construction. Findings: As mentioned previously, this site is in tax-deferred timber property status,therefore the applicant may harvest all the trees outside of the sensitive land areas without having to comply with the mitigation requirements of this Chapter. In the area of the sensitive lands,the applicant has proposed to remove less than 25 percent of the trees over 12 calipers inches, therefore no mitigation is required under CDC 18.790.030. Although a tree removal plan is not required for the entire site,the applicant has provided one for the whole property. This tree removal plan indicates that approximately 74 trees will be removed. To ensure that the trees are preserved according to the tree removal plan, the following conditions will apply: • The applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations,and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices,clearing,grading, and paving. • Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborist review. • The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.795 Clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad,or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle hedge, planting, fence,wall structure,or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three(3) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists,from the street center grade,except the trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. For arterial streets the visual clearance shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. Findings: The applicant has illustrated clear vision areas at the street intersections and has indicated that no obstructions will be placed in those areas. Compliance with vision clearance requirements will be confirmed through the building permit process for all homes to be constructed within the development. This standard has been met. 19 19 THIRD SUPP.REC.-19 G. Impact Study: Section 18.390.040.B.e Requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address,as a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways,the drainage system,the parks system,the water system, the sewer system,and the noise impacts of the development. For each pubic facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Findings: The applicant submitted an impact study, satisfying the required elements above. Rough Proportionality Analysis Findings: The Analysis has been calculated as follows: Full Impact of the Development= 73,370 (TIF of$2,530 x 29 DU)/0.32 (TIF's Coverage Citywide) = $229,281 Less TIF Assessment=(TIF of$2,530 x 29 DU)= -$73,370 Less Mitigated costs of 74th Avenue Improvement -$250,000 Estimate of Unmitigated Impacts -$94,089 Although the costs of the improvements is greater than the level of impact, the improvements have been proposed by the applicant. The required dedication of right-of-way is clearly proportionate to the impact of the creation of the 29 lots. Therefore,the applicant has satisfied this criterion. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Chapter 18.810 Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets,sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires a neighborhood route street to have a 54-foot right-of-way width and a 32-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking,sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. 20 20 THIRD SUPP.REC.-20 Findings: Due to the unimproved nature of 74th Avenue,the applicant and City and Water District representatives met to discuss several issues regarding the extension of this street. All parties agreed that the applicant should be permitted to construct 74th Avenue with a steeper grade in order to minimize the amount of fill over the water line and in the wetland area. Therefore,the applicant requested an adjustment to the grade standard. However,since the proposed street grade does not exceed 15%for over 250 feet, an adjustment is not required. The applicant also requested an adjustment to the sidewalk standards at the stream crossing location on 74th Avenue. By moving the sidewalk to the curb line, five fewer feet of width into the stream corridor is avoided. Staff has recommended approval the sidewalk adjustment. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030(F)states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. Findings: The applicant has proposed to stub the new public street to the parcel to the north. As mentioned previously, site conditions and existing development limit the applicant to provide street stubs to the east and south. The applicant is also proposing to extend 74th Avenue to the south. Staff feels that this criterion has been met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.030. (G) sates that staggering of streets making the 1"intersections at collectors and arterials shall not be designed so that jogs of less than 300 feet on such streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such street. Spacing between local street intersections shall have a minimum separations of 125 feet. All local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Findings: As mentioned previously,the drainageway precludes extension of an interior public or private street to the south. No street connections are possible to the east due to the existing development patterns adjacent to the site. This criterion has been satisfied. 21 21 THIRD SUPP.REC.-21 Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.030.K states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units,and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints,existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: • All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular,shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. Findings: The applicant has requested an adjustment to allow a private street cul-de-sac of approximately 500 feet in length. The site is over 967 feet deep and die stream to the south makes it too narrow to accommodate a looped street. In addition, steep slopes,the creek and existing development preclude any connections to the south or east. The applicant has demonstrated that there are no practicable alternatives to provide reasonable and efficient access to the entire property,therefore staff supports this adjustment. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.M states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collectors streets, or 12% on any other street(except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet) and : Findings: Staff review revealed that the proposed street grade does not exceed 15%for over 250 feet. Therefore,the applicant request for an adjustment is not required. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.S states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets,such as recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks and multi-family residential developments. Findings: The applicant is proposing to serve lots 2-23 with the proposed private street. Since this development is proposed a s planned development, a private street is acceptable. Block Designs—Section 18.810.030.S states that the length,width, and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the sue contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access,circulation,control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other bodies of water or pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 22 22 THIRD SUPP.REC.-22 Findings: As mentioned previously,the existing development,steep slopes,and stream corridor do not allow connections other than the proposed connection to the north. The proposed street stub to the north will eventually provide a block measuring approximately 1,250 feet. This criterion has been met. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet,except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints,existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. Findings:The applicant proposes to serve the site with a sidewalk on one side of the private street and a public street stub to the north property. As mentioned previously,there is no opportunities for connections to the east or south. Therefore,this standard has been satisfied. Lots—Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. Findings: One lot exceeds 1.5 times the minimum lot size,however this lot(#13) is 69 feet in average width which is less than 2.5 times the lot depth of 170 feet. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B)requires that lots have at least 25 feet frontage on public or private streets,other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single- family dwelling unit,the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. Findings: Lots 9, 11, 12, land 29 do not have 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street. Therefore the applicant will be conditioned to revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Findings: The applicant is proposing to construct sidewalks with other street improvements. This criterion has been satisfied. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to exiting mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. 23 23 THIRD SUPP_REC.-23 Findings: There is an existing sewer manhole in 74th Avenue. The applicant is proposing to extend the 8 inch line north in 74th Avenue and then east in the new public and private streets to serve all lots. As mentioned previously,the applicant is proposing to stub a line to the north for extension with future street improvements. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by the Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). Findings:The applicant has proposed to protect the creek to the south by moving the development away from the sensitive area boundary. Therefore, in accordance with Clean Water Services standards,the drainageway will not be impacted by the proposed lots. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition of until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Service in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). Findings:The site generally slopes towards Ash Creek. The applicant has proposed a storm system in the new public and private streets, including the in the street stub to the north property. The storm system is proposed to outlet into a pond that will provide water quality and quantity measures before it is discharged into Ash Creek,as required by Clean Water Services. As required, the applicant will provide access to the pond for maintenance. In addition the applicant has proposed to construct an oversized culvert under 74th Avenue to accommodate the Ash Creek Crossing. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of- way. Findings: 74th Avenue is not classified as a bike facility,therefore this criterion is inapplicable. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110B states that development permits issues for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost of construction of bikeway improvements 24 24 THIRD SUPP.REC.-24 Findings:This standard is not applicable to this proposal. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. Findings: This standard is not applicable to this proposal. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric communication,lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and : • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities,including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. Findings: There are existing overhead lines along the frontage of SW 74th Avenue. If the fee in-lieu is proposed by the applicant, it is equal to$27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along the site is 421 lineal feet;therefore the fee would be$11,578. 25 25 THIRD SUPP.REC.-25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to commencing any on-site improvements, including grading, excavation and/or fill activities: Submit to the Planning Department (Morgan Tracy,639-4171, Ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit an arborist report with tree protection recommendations, and shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a complete set of construction documents with the tree locations for the City Arborists review. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction when the tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly. 4. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence of all necessary approvals for work within the wetlands from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands. 5. Prior to site work, the drainage tract must be clearly identified in the field with permanent (preferably with minimum 4-foot-tall black chainlink) fencing so as to insure no grading or material is placed in this area. Any fencing that is damaged during construction must be replaced prior to final building inspection. If the damage is such that it will no longer effectively identify the tract, it shall be replaced/reinstalled immediately. 6. Prior to site work,a signed approval shall be included with the City's construction drawing packet. Submit to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan,639-4171,ext. 2642) for review and approval: 7. Prior to approval of construction plans,the applicant shall pothole the City of Tualatin's main water transmissions line to determine the exact location and condition of the pipe. The applicant shall notify the City of Tigard and the City of Tualatin 48 hours prior to the pothole inspections and when any construction activity will impact the pipe(such as placement of fill and excavation in the immediate vicinity) so that a representative from the City can be present. 8. Prior to commencing onsite improvements, a Public Facility Improvement(PFI)permit is required for this project to cover all infrastructure and any other work in the public right-of-way. Eight(8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any other drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement(PFI)permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or,us). 26 26 THIRD SUPP.REC.-26 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the"Permittee",and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associates with the project. 11. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 74th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a neighborhood route, without bike lanes, from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet,with a minimum pavement width of 24 feet; B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. Concrete curb,or curb and gutter as needed; D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip(unless adjusted); F. Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. Street striping; H. Streetlight layout by applicant's engineer,to be approved by City Engineer; I. Underground utilities; J. Street signs(if applicable); K. Driveway apron(if applicable); L. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 74Th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department; and M. Right-of-way dedication to provide 27 feet from centerline. 12. The applicant's Public Facility Improvement permit construction drawings shall indicate that full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters,concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs,asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers,storm drainage, street trees, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 13. A profile of 74th Avenue shall be required,extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 14. The applicant's construction drawings shall show that the pavement and rock section for the proposed private street(s)shall meet the City's public street standard for a local residential street. 27 27 THIRD SUPP.REC.-27 15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility improvement permit. 16. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality/detention facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan)as a part of the Public Facility Improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal,the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facility shall be maintained by the developer for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed,the City will inspect the facility and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facility. In addition,the City will not take over maintenance of the facility unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period,the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level,the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 17. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement(PFD permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the"Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 18. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to ensure the surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. 19. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations from the submitted geotechnical report by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2003, into the final grading plan. The applicant shall have the geotechnical engineer ensure that all grading, including cuts and fills, are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The design engineer shall indicate,on the grading plan,which lots will have natural slopes between 10%and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/of permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 21. The final construction plans shall be signed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that they have reviewed and approved the plans. The geotechnical engineer shall also sign the as-built grading plan at the end of the project. 22. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 28 28 THIRD SUPP.REC.-28 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT: Submit to the Planning Department(Morgan Tracy,639-4171,eat 2428)for review and approval: 23. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall revise the plat to accommodate a minimum of 25 feet of frontage for all lots within the development. 24. Submit a revised street tree/landscape plan that shows an alternative tree species used for the public street to vary the streetscape. 25. The applicant shall provide joint access within an easement or tract to Lots 28 and 29 and cause a statement to be placed on the plat limiting additional direct vehicular access to SW 74th Avenue. 26. Provide a plat name reservation approval from Washington County. 27. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant shall convey title for the proposed open space to a homeowner's association in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.350.110.A.2.b of the Tigard Development Code. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan), 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 28. Prior to approval of the final plat the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the construction of the private storm line in the private street. 29. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $900.00(Staff Contact: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 30. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed private street(s)will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it(them). 31. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat,that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed private street(s). The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street(s). The applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan) prior to approval of the final plat. 32. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall demonstrate that they have formed and incorporated a homeowner's association. 33. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 74th Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of under grounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be$27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen,the amount will be $11,578.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 29 29 THIRD SUPP.REC.-29 • 34. Prior to approval of the final plat,the applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access road shall be paved and have a structural section capable of accommodating a 50,000-pound vehicle. The paved width shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide, and there shall be two-foot rock shoulders provided on each side. If the maintenance roadway is over 150 feet in length, a turnaround shall be provided. 35. The applicant's final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City's global positioning system(GPS)geodetic control network(GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by: GPS tie networked to the City's GPS survey. • By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. 36. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review four(4)paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary date or narrative. B. Attach a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee(Contact Planning/Engineering Permit Technicians,at(503) 639-4171, ext. 426). C. The final plat and date or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05),Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. D. The right-of-way dedication for 74th Avenue shall be made on the final plat. E. Note: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor. F. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer signature(for partitions), or City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures (for subdivisions). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department(Morgan Tracy,639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 37. Prior to issuance of any building permits, re-plant any area where vegetation has been removed as a result of grading in conformance with the Clean Water Services Standards as set forth in the site assessment file#2819, prior ro obtaining building permits. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permits,the applicant shall submit plans that show one(1)off- street parking space, which meets minimum dimensional requirements and setback requirements as specified in Title 18, provided on-site for each new home. 39. At the time of application for building permits for individual homes, the applicant shall demonstrate that each site will be accessed by a minimum 10-foot-wide paved access. 30 30 THIRD SUPP.REC_-30 • 40. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised plan that indicates the modified setbacks as set forth in this decision and record a copy of the approved setback plan with the deeds for each lot. 42. Prior to issuance of building permits for structures on the individual lots within this development, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the height requirement of the underlying zone. The requirement calls for 30-foot maximum height for primary units and 15 feet maximum for all accessory structures. 44. Prior to the issuance of building permits on any lot,the applicant must provide city staff with a letter from Clean Water Services that indicates compliance with the approved service provider letter(#2819). Submit to the Engineering Department(Kim McMillan,639-4171,ext. 2642) for review and approval: 45. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant's engineer shall provide a post-construction sight distance certification for the new intersection at 74th Avenue. 46. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of,a construction access and parking plan for the home building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary,the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 47. Prior to issuance of building permits,the City Engineer shall deem the public improvements substantially complete. Substantial completion shall be when: 1)all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities, 2)all local residential street have at least one lift of asphalt, 3)any off-street and/or utility improvements are substantially completed,and 4)all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. Note: The City apart from this condition, and in accordance with the City's model home policy may issue model home permits). 48. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2)a diskette of the as-builts in"DWG" format, if available;otherwise"DXF"will be acceptable,and 3)the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure(manholes,catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development,and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 49. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a"photo mylar"copy of the recorded final plat. 50. The applicant hall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 31 31 TAD SUPP.REC.-31 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ASH CREEK ESTATES: 1. The applicant will install a evergreen hedge of Leyland Cypress along the northern property line of Lots 1-10 and the eastern property line of Lots 10-12. 2. The applicant will not cut any healthy trees within the designated open space tract. Furthermore, the applicant shall not cut any healthy trees in the tree preservation areas of Lots 1-18, which shall be defined as the area at least 15 from the rear of the building footprints. However, if an arborist determines that trees in these areas are dead,diseased,or pose a safety hazard, then the applicant shall remove affected trees from those areas. We hope the findings provided above can be included in the Final Order of the City Council regarding the approval of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision. Feel free to contact us if there is any additional information required for your report. Sincerely, Steve Kay Kurahashi and Associates cc. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard 32 32 THIRD SUPP.REC.-32 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on January Z- , 2004, I filed the original and one copy of this 3 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX with the Land 4 Use Board of Appeals, Public Utilities Commission Building, 550 Capitol Street NE, Suite 5 235, Salem, Oregon, 97301-2552, by first class mail. 6 DATED thisZ day of January, 2004. 7 t _. 8 Timothy V. Ramis, OSB #75311 Gary restone, OSB #87221 9 of Attorneys for Respondent City of Tigard 10 11 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 I hereby certify that on January Z , 2004, I served a true and correct copy of this 4 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD AND THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX by first class 15 mail on the following parties: 16 John Frewing Christopher P. Koback 17 7110 S.W. Lola Lane Davis Wright Tremaine Tigard, OR 97223 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 18 Portland, OR 97201 19 DATED this Z day of January, 2004. 7 20 21 . Timothy . Ramis, OSB #75311 22 Gary F estone, OSB #87221 of Attorneys for Respondent 23 City of Tigard 24 e:\muni\tigard\ashcreek\pleadings\L.UBA 3r4 supp rec 25 RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN&BACHRACH, t.I.P 1727 N.W.Hoyi Street Portland,Oregon 97209 Telephone:(503)222-4403 FAX: (50.3)243-2944 MAR31 '05 PM 2:23 LUBr1 F 1 L COUP" nt- A nD ASS OCT 7 2005 STATE COURT ADMINI^ pOR BEFORE All APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOHN FREWING ) LUBA NO.2003-194 PETITIONER ) Fourth Supplemental v ) Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD ) RESPONDENT. ) 2_1;Gc-3-CM2- CASE NO.A 1 300 go * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON ) John Frewing, ) ) LUBA NO. 2003-194 Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) Fourth Supplemental ) Index and Record CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) Respondent. ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Certified o ")e a True Copy of Original on file kis}h he Lund Use Cy: ' 6\4 1 Li.'!_City Recorder - City o igard Da, a3: intLACE S, aboLl Land Use Board of Appeals— File No. 2003-194 Final land use decision for City of Tigard - Notice of Final Order by the City Council, Appeal of Ash Creek Estates Subdivision, SUB 2003-00010, PDR 2003-00004, ZON 2003-00003, VAR 2003-00036, and VAR 2003-0037. Fourth Supplemental Hearing Record (CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO. 03-58 AND AMENDED BY 03-61) CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 2003-194) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the fourth supplemental public hearing record. u n,e 04-e Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ate Land Use Board of Appeals - File No. 2003-194 TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement Certifying the Fourth Supplemental Record i Table of Contents ii Exhibit No. Page 1 August 12, 2003, Tigard City Council Meeting 1-6 Transcription (Portions of Agenda Item No. 8 as requested by the Land Use Board of Appeals) 2 September 9, 2003, Tigard City Council Meeting 7-77 Transcription —Agenda Item No 8 ii TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPTION August 12, 2003 Meeting Portions of Agenda Item No. 8 CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION- as Requested by the Land Use Board of Appeals Request I Mayor Griffith's remarks as he opened the hearing: (Excerpt from videotape) Mayor Griffith: Item number eight on the agenda is the quasi-judicial public hearing, consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Ash Creek Estates planned development subdivision. Item on appeal: On July 7t, 2003, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application to Subdivide 9.36 acres for a 29-lot family detached housing Planned Development Subdivision with Sensitive Lands Review for areas with steep in excess of 25% slope. A drainage way and wetlands and adjustments to the cul-de-sac length standard, (Excerpt from tape) maximum number of units permitted on a cul-de-sac, and to the street grade on SW 74t. The Planning Commission moved to deny the applications which failed in a four to four vote tie, then moved to approve the applications, which also failed in a four to four tie. Based on the Commission's by-laws, the Robert's Rules of Orders, without a majority affirmative vote, the application is denied, which is also the same on the Planning, ah no, on the City Council that's why there's five of us. Can't come up with an odd number. Since no motion was approved, no findings in support or against the application were adopted. The City Council is therefore, essentially rehearsing this application to make a final determination as to whether or not it meets the relevant criteria from the Development Code. Put in a layman's language, we're starting at ground zero all over again, because the Planning Commission, ah, did not adopt findings, so that's what we're going to have to do. Okay, the location is 9750 SW, 40 [pause], 74th Avenue; WCTM, uh, I've got to read for the record, read through a lot of legal stuff here, WCTM 1 S 125DC, Tax Lots 300 and 400. Zone: R-4.5, Low-Density Residential District. Applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.370, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.65, 765,18.790, 18.795 and 18.10. August 12, 2003 Council Meeting Page 1 of 6 Exhibit I Page 1 Request II Mayor Griffith's remarks asking for declarations or challenges: Mayor Griffith: Declaration or challenges. Do any member of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visit? Councilor Dirksen: I've not made a site visit specific to this hearing, but I am aware of the problem. Mayor Griffith: Okay, have members familiarized themselves with the application? [No auditory response.] Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? [No auditory response.] If not, we shall proceed. Request III Mayor Griffith's remarks on how public testimony would be heard: Mayor Griffith: We'll go to staff testimony and I have a short paragraph to read this time. For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed towards the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulations which you believe apply to the decision. And to put that in other words, whiners don't count. You've got, it has to be related to specific criteria that has been established for approval or disapproval. And, and the whole way process that these work is that there is a list of priorities that you comply with, or you, and if you don't, you appeal those to adjustments. And, um, the questions that we'll get into and I'm sure you'll hear some of it, will be some of those issues. And some of them get questioned as to clarification of the code language so some of the things that you may say, you may be challenged on, not because we're challenging what you say, but we're challenge you on the applicability of it to a given criteria that we have to use to make a determination. So we'll be working with it, number one. Number two, we have 47 people signed up to testify. Now, it's now, ten minutes 'til ten. Now how I'm going to do this, I'm going to have the applicant testify, first. Make his presentation, make their presentation, and then we'll need to get some decision made depending upon that time on how much of the public we want to hear. Ah, none of us want to be here 'dl the sun comes up, and we, what I can do, I myself do not like to restrict testimony to a couple minutes because some August 12, 2003 Council Meeting Page 2 of 6 Exhibit I Nor. •) of us have more to say than that. So, we've got, let's, we'll go ahead and see how we proceed and if we start running out of time, what I will do is lay it over to September 9th, I believe. And I believe that's our next available day. City Manager Monahan: Well Mister Mayor the Council has some, some options. The next business meeting is August 26th Then there's a break on September 2"d, which is the day after Labor day, (Tape side ends) (Begin next tape) Associate Planner Morgan Tracy: ah Mister Mayor you have until October 2"d for your 120 day rule. Mayor Griffith: Okay. Okay, so we do have a little breathing room. Councilor Moore: Let me ask a procedural question of our City Attorney. Ah, when the opponents and proponents, whoever may be, are testifying, if they chose to come up and say "I agree with the previous statements," that allows them the ability to be involved in the appeal process, if that happens. City Attorney Firestone: That is correct. As long as they, ah, sign in or make any statement at all they will have standing. Councilor Moore: So, I guess my point being is, is, I guess I'm asking to avoid redundant statements, comments, I mean, we're not real thick-headed. We can get it the first time, most of the time. Um, spare us some time if you feel so inclined to say, "I agree with the previous statements," and then allow you the same. City Manager Monahan: Could I comment too that the Council Groudrules say that the Council will try to conclude business by 10 p.m., or have a discussion. Since it's shortly before 10 p.m., perhaps the Council should have some discussion as to whether they're willing to, ah, go another hour and then reconsider, or , um. The first thing is that you need to make the decision that you want to go beyond 10 p.m. and then give some direction. Councilor Moore: I'll just put my two cents in. It's been a pretty strenuous evening for me, anyway. Um, and, you know, I, I think it's only fair to the people that come up tonight to get a fair August 12, 2003 Council Meeting Page 3 of 6 Exhibit Page 3 hearing and if I'm not mentally capable of, ah, absorbing the comments that coming from these people, I don't think it's really all that fair to them. So I do have a concern about going too late. Mayor Griffith: Yeah. Councilor Moore: Usually after a meeting like this it takes me about two hours to unwind and before I can get to bed and going to work in the morning makes it difficult. So that's just my opinion, for what it's worth, so. In all fairness, to the people that . . Mayor Griffith: Well if you'd quit talking we could get started. [Laughter.] Councilor Moore: No, I plan ?? we've got seven more minutes. Mayor Griffith: [Laughter.] Alright, what I'd like to do, yes, I'm fully aware of that. The other thing Unknown voice: Mayor Griffith may I ask you a quick question, please? Mayor Griffith: Sure. Unknown voice: A lot of people here are not ?? professionals, but we are homeowners in Washington Square Estates and my question is do you only want to hear from the arborist, the geologist, the ? Mayor Griffith: Uh-uh [No.] Unknown voice: Or do you want individual testimony, because for what you're saying here this is going to run over an extra hour. Unknown voice: If you sign up you are you are eligible to testify. Unknown voice: August 12,2003 Council Meeting Page 4 of 6 Exhibit Page L( Forty-seven people have signed up here and ?? Unknown voice: I know that. That's why we're having this discussion now. Unknown voice: But I got confused because it sounded like you didn't want any redundancy. So you don't really want ? Councilor Moore: No, what I'm saying is that if you have, if somebody's already been up here and said, "this, this, this," and you agree with "this, this, this." There's no reason for you to say, "this, this, this" again. Unknown voice: I understand that but if?? Councilor Moore: And if you have 47 people and we even allow them two minutes to talk or three minutes to talk Unknown voice: I understand, but you're asking two minute limit Councilor Moore: That's three hours. So I'm thinking three hours from now I'm going to laying out on this counter, just nothin'. Unknown voice: Well, we didn't know this would be the last on the agenda for the evening, but there are a lot of concerned citizens ? Mayor Griffith: Yeah. No, no, no, I wanted everybody to test, to make sure that they have their say, what they want to say. If somebody else has said two-thirds of it, then you just agree with their two-thirds and then add you one-third. Unknown voice: Okay. Mayor Griffith: August 12,2003 Council Meeting Page 5 of 6 Exhibit I Page 5 And, ah, let's you know, I'd like to do that quickly. And if we can get through everybody tonight, wonderful. If not, I don't want to push people. I don't say somebody. I don't want to not hear somebody if you have something to say. Unknown voice: Right. Mayor Griffith: You know because like I say, this isn't just a normal Council hearing. We're going clear back to hear an initial hearing, where notices have been made. So, we need, we need to hear it all. So if I can, why don't I get started by having the applicant please come forward to the stand, give your name and, ah, your address and make a statement and let's get this rascal rolling. Councilor Dirksen: Mister Mayor, while they're coming up, if I could make a recommendation that we make a decision now to limit testimony tonight to another hour, to 1 1 o'clock, and at that point Mayor Griffith: To 1 1, that's two hours. Councilor Dirksen: Oh, excuse me. Numerous voices: No, that's one hour. It's 10 o'clock now. Mayor Griffith: To allow, to allow ??? Councilor Dirksen: No later than 1 1 o'clock. Councilor Sherwood: No later than 1 1 o'clock. Councilor Dirksen: And then continue. Mayor Griffith: Okay. I'll so declare that. Alright. August 12, 2003 Council Meeting Page 6 of 6 Exhibit 1 Pane (c TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPTION September 9, 2003 Meeting Agenda Item No. 8 CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ASH CREEK ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION as Requested by the Land Use Board of Appeals [begin tape side 5) Mayor Griffith: OK, Item number eight [pause] which I think is why we're all here tonight, the majority is..in light of the fact [hiccup] excuse me, I read all this before, do I have to read all this again? Thank you, I'll just go down to the declaration and the challenges. - Do any members of the Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? [low discussion- unknown] - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? [silence] - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's justification to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? [silence] What we are going to be discussing tonight is a continuation of the quasi-judicial public hearing consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Ash Creek Estates Planned Development Subdivision and ah..the numbers are SUB 203-00010/PDR 2003- 0004/ZON 2003-00003/SLR 2003-00005/VAR 2003-00036 and VAR 2003- 00037. um..I'd like the staff to ..ah..bring us up to report on as to where we are right now and then I'd like to make a statement before we get into the public testimony. So, Dick are you speaking on behalf of staff tonight, or? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: I'll try Mayor Griffith: OK [heh-heh] Dick Bewersdorff: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council..uh..as you know this is the continuation of the August 12th hearing that the Council opened that was a result of the Planning Commission's July 7th hearing where they voted twice on this particular project, once to deny and one to approve. Both of those votes ended up 4-4, so it was basically a defacto denial. The applicant, uh.. Dale Richard of Wind..uh..wood Homes filed the appeal and that's what we're hearing tonight. Council began the public hearing on August 12t uh..but did not September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 1 of 71 Exhibit Page -7 have sufficient time to hear from all the interested parties so we continued that hearing until tonight. Uh..included in your September 9th packet is the testimony evidence received at the August 12t meeting. Uh..?-review of the testimony received since that hearing as well as testimony received prior to August ... the August 12th ? that was not included in your original packet. Um.. there were, as you indicated, noted,adjustments to in this development, it's a prime development ? has to provide some flexibility to adjustments for r? to um—the number of and length of the culs and the number of units on the cul-de-sac and the length of unit [pause] length of the cul-de-sac, as well as street improvement requirements that relate to street grade and to the planter strip that would be normal and required. Urn, we provided a memo to the Council to discuss some of the issues that were [pause] brought up by Mr. Frewing and his testimony at the last meeting. Um, I'll go through those I'd be happy to try to answer any questions Brian Rager is here also to answer some of the questions we have material to give you based on that I'll hit the highlights I'll try to get the most important parts of that ..that memo and try to be brief so we can get on with the testimony. Um, the first issue that was brought up in that that testimony and by f? memo by Mr. Frewing was the Western Cedar Redwood Cedar forest. Um, as unique and beautiful as as a area and forest site it is, is not a criteria for making your decision on this particular development. Um.. based on a hearing with the Planning Commission the applicant provided at that hearing the tree plan to preserve more trees in this preservation area than he had originally proposed. That was based on staff's comment at that time that it didn't seem like that they were providing uh the ma the tree protection to the maximum extent possible. There is no specific criteria relating or establishing the extent possible. The plan that is being proposed by the developer is his applicant's attempt to develop a property within the allowable density. [interrupted] Robert Ward: Can I..Can I ask a question? Urn, my name is Robert Ward, citizen, is this the rebuttal time? I came in late. City Administrator Monahan: Maybe I can answer that for the Mayor. This is the staff's uh.. presentation at the beginning of the continuation of the hearing after the staff's presentation the Mayor will give an introductory comment for the public hearing and then we're gonna start with the opponent testimony, and then we're gonna follow that with the neutral and then there will..will be rebuttal at the end. Robert Ward: Why is this rebuttal though.. City Administrator Monahan: It's not...[interrupted] Robert Ward: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 2 of 71 Exhibit Page ? previous testimony without a continuation [interrupted] City Administrator Monahan: If I can answer for the Mayor, this is clarification of those issues because most of the people who perhaps are watching on TV who did not hear that testimony we're bringing the Council up to date on those issues that were raised that there was not an opportunity to address those issues then. Robert Ward: Is that according to our by-laws if this is done? I question it procedurally [pause] that we have not been allowed to complete testimony and now we have uh before any person continues with this hearing um.. we have presentation by proponents of this development and now we're continuing on with another uh..I believe..um proponent presentation by a ..uh. supporting staff [pause] of the proposition [pause] of the development, so I question it procedurally as if it uh..is appropriate at this time. Matter of clarification, as I said arrived late and the room being ? City Attorney Ramis: Mr. Mayor uh..since a procedural question has been asked, let me respond to it. Uh, this is a staff report, it is not in the nature of advocacy on either side. It is not rebuttal as it's been characterized. It's simply a staff report. Its appropriate at any point in the proceedings for the staff to clarify issues, outline issues, and particularly where the hearing has been continued and we're now starting the hearing again..uh..its..its the staff's thought and I think it's a legitimate one. It's a good point at which to summarize where the issues are and to make clear to everyone that a memorandum from the staff has been submitted into the record so that people will be aware of it and be able to respond to it in their testimony. Its an effort to be fair to everybody in the process, not everyone may have read that report from the staff so this is the opportunity to get it on the record so people are aware of it. [multiple speakers, unintelligible] Robert Ward: How is conveyed available to the public by the staff City Administrator Monahan: The report that Mr. Bewersdorff has given has been on the City's website for the last week, its been available as part of the entire packet that has been uh, provided to the Council. Robert Ward: Thank you Mr. Mayor. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 3 of 71 Exhibit Page City Attorney Ramis: Once again, ? you want that staff report.. Mayor Griffith: Thank You [pause] Mr. Attorney what you're basically saying this is summary from last week..[pause] City Attorney Ramis: Yes, and..and..and clarifying the issues that..that have uh been raised so that people can respond to them. Mayor Griffith: OK City Administrator Monahan: I think it the other thing to add to that is its also an attempt to clarify what the criteria are that are are that at issue here for this application. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: 1'll..1'll proceed again. Uh, sensitive lands and vegetative setbacks. It's a question about the uh, what had been applied and a few more services the Washington County Regional ? or Storm Water is the governing authority to establish those standards. They provided a service provider letter that establishes specific buffers thats beyond our scope of authority to impose buffers beyond that. Conditions thirty seven and thirty four ensure CWS sign- off. Condition five requires areas to be fenced and protected during and after construction, prior to and during construction. [pause] Surface Water Drainage [pause] was an issue...um we have a memo from Brian and I'll briefly summarize the issue ? that the Council that relates to surface water drainage[pause]. The designs for surface water drainage and runoff unless we ? the City's adopted standards ensure through conditions 12 through 16, 18 and 34 [pause] and we'd be happy to try to respond to those. The City Engineer, by imposing condition 16 is not approving the project until final calculations have been ? as indicated in the memo to you that staff has not yet provided or specified the size of culvert necessary at 75th Avenue, but that its ..uh.. feasible that the applicant can design and construct a culvert of that nature. Arborists Report, again, the Arborists report does not occur..was not prepared initially because the property under timber growth control [pause] uh based on the preservation plan that they provided, a Arborists assessment of the trees will be needed prior to construction. There's another issue to consider with regard to tree management, it indicates in our Code under 18.790.050 that land registered as a woodland or tree deferral does not require tree permit. As a result of the process that the City went through for approximately three years in developing the ordinance based on what the Tree Committee, the Planning Commission and the Council there was an attempt, that was an attempt to not penalize those folks that had uh..property and tree removal. Uh..probably could be clearer in the September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 4 of 71 Exhibit Page 10 code, and its certainly up to the Council to interpret it differently to have done that through Erickson Heights and Hambach Grove and Bonita Townhomes and a number of developments on Bull Mountain that the intent was not to penalize properties in tree deferral with our tree plan and mitigation requirements if you were to remove trees and require mitigation, you're removing all the trees on a site for tree deferral then they would be required to mitigate probably 100 percent of the trees you caliper and just remove it which would negate the benefit of many deferral. But its still up to the Council to interpret that if you so choose. City Administrator Monahan: Dick, before you go any further, just to interrupt for a second, what Jim's passing out is the memo you passed onto the Council from Brian was dated September 9`h, so that one was not in the original Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That was not in the packet.. City Administrator Monahan: ..packet, uh..so we're making copies available to the public. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: There were questions about the plan to strip and whether there was findings in questions about the adjustments, those are all covered on page 17 of the staff report, including the adjustment criteria that were responded to. The idea of the adjustment for 74th Avenue we narrowed and have a curb type sidewalk which was to lessen the impact on the drainage that was going through there by widening ..by requiring extra pipe ? or a planter strip would have more impact on the drainage, so there are findings that relate to that specific category on page 17. And the same period of the staff report there are findings that are relative to the length of cul-de-sac is 670 feet and 23 units where code normally specified 20. Again that's based on the applicant's uh..plan to in the way of putting the project together they may want to respond specifically to that design and how that works. Nothing I don't believe that says that you have to approve anything over 20 ?? So that's their proposal. There was a question about impact study relative to schools. The impact on schools are not criteria in our ordinance nor, in the other ordinance that we can work with. There was a question about the s? curve in uh 74th Avenue, its uh..there was a comment on page 29 of the staff report that indicated that they made an adjustment in fact the I? designs indicate that they will meet that requirement. There's also a question about sight distance. Condition 45 requires post construction sight distance through ?. The applicant's been working with the neighbor to the north, they will have to address that or they won't be able to build. The condition is you find in Brian's memo, indicates that was required in building ? Brian's memo it, uh, recommends that the depth be placed at a number ? point in the uh, the uh conditions. Make sure that its September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 5 of 71 Exhibit "2 Page / 1 clear that it will have to be met. So its required as part of the Public Improvement Plan that they will provide. The question about Solid Waste- the applicant did not provide certification from the appropriate company. The applicant was directed to provide certification from Miller Sanitary Service. Its not ? by a condition of approval will be necessary. There was questions about steep slopes and the geotech study. The applicant provided geotech study which sets forth the requirements for construction of the subdivision, individual home construction is reviewed by our Building department and will require a separate geotech evaluation. The subdivision geotech report establishes recommendations for streets, ? setbacks and site preparation, engineer ?, fill, embankment slopes, subsurface drains, wet weather earthwork, excavating, pavement design, foundation, retaining wall, seismic designs, drainage rule of the existing ?, erosion control and pavement construction. Uh, the recommendations requirements are incorporated into the decisions and conditions nineteen, twenty and twenty-one. Construction within the drainageways requires approval based on condition number four, whereas the Corps of Engineers envision a State Lands, Clean Water Services uh, prior to commencing work. Uh the City restricts tree removal through our tree removal section at the time of this memo, we did not have a response from the State Forestry Department, we do now, we received one September 5h. Basically, what it says is within the Urban Growth Boundary the City's tree ordinance is responsible for the removal of trees. With one caveat that indicates that where we do not have standards such as under the tree deferral section, the State requirement for a State permit and State Forestry Review is required. That's basically the way we've dealt with every deferral situation in the City of Tigard. Where there's a deferral they are required to get the State permit and follow that instructions. I think the person In Forest Grove was a little confused about the idea of what the agreement was, we went to the people in Salem and we had discussions with both the people in Salem and uh..and uh..Forest Grove. Ma? Will be making sure that they know projects for properties that will involved timber referral, but we will try to get on the list of timber referred properties uh, prior to uh, any review uh.. including a list ahead of time so they'll know all the possible sites. Uh, OK. City Administrator Monahan: And Dick could I comment on that letter that you just passed to the Council we're having copies made so that that's available to the public also. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: There's, there's other copies here. ? There was also a question about notice. Uhm..the hearing notice did not include those of Tigard Development Code section 18.775 Sensitive Lands. However, it was described in the notice as well as addressed in the staff report. The City Attorney suggested making note of the typographical error. There was also some other sections that were uh, noted by Mr. Frewing that indicated sections 18.410 ?? addressed section 18.420, uh, Partitions and 18.780 Signs were not listed, they're not applicable requirements because September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 6 of 71 Exhibit a Page I P with modifications under those sections. [pause] and I think that's pretty much it at this point. You also have a letter that we just received today um..uh..the applicant responding to Mr. Frewing's comments, uh, so we'll let them present that in the rebuttal. Mayor Griffith: In the rebuttal. Dick clarify for me just a couple real quick questions that I'm..I'm looking at the site plans. And I don't know where ..on this screen it's page 77 so..but it appears to me that the only..the only work that they have primarily in the wet planned area is on 74th Street. Is that in the street area? It also..and if that's correct, it appears to me that they the majority of the southern portion of this whole site is construction-fenced off. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That's correct. Mayor Griffith: So the only development that's occurring on this site [pause] other than which appears to be one site, I believe number 29 in the lower left hand corner, all is in the upper northern portion of this site. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That's correct. And there are two lots to the south of ?? Mayor Griffith: Are there two lots down there? I don't know, when it gets shrunk down to computer size its not real easy to look at. OK, so the majority of all the work is up here. Now did I also understand in reading this that the owner of that has currently the right to log that? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: I don't know that they have a standing permit from the State Forestry Department ? ?? have to have one to log it under the State Forestry Requirements. Mayor Griffith: The State Forestry people here just said that its its the City. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: Its City responsibility for those items that we have covered under our ?? Tree Removal ordinance. And those areas where we have tree deferral, the State Forestry Department's rules are required to be met. Mayor Griffith: And those State Department rules are it can be logged. September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 7 of 71 Exhibit a Page 13 Planning Manager Bewersdorff: We allow logging an they will require protection and logging by the State Forest Practices Acts. Mayor Griffith: But the major trees could be removed. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: They could. Unknown voice: Dick, there's a question along the lines the ..as I understand, the Oregon Forest Practice...Practices Act also requires stream buffers [pause] Planning Manager Bewersdorff: Correct Unknown voice: And..but umm..I believe their stream buffers are typically larger than Clean Water Services requires. [multiple voices ??] ?? in some cases Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That would be true. Unknown voice: And so, what sort of concerns me is that ya know, we don't require a tr..a tree mitigation plan if its ah..administered under the Oregon Forestry Practices Act and yet, umm it seems like there may be sort of not really under the jurisdiction of either because of a loophole in the...in the code. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: We could make a condition of approval that would require them to get their permits prior to approval that might be appropriate. State Forestry Department approval. Unknown voice: OK, then if..if the setback requirements are greater under the Oregon Forest ?? Act Planning Manager Bewersdorff: Then they will then have to deal with that. Unknown voice: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 8 of 71 Exhibit d Page 14 • OK, and then they have building envelopes potentially would then a setback that would be required under that act umm... it would seem to me then our tree ordinance ought to apply in that situation. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: Thit..Oh...the only setback that we have is ..is the basic one that CWS requirement ??. So, I mean we have to rely on Forest Practice Act in the review. Much like we rely on an area this like the Division of State Lands and Corps of Engineers to approve plans... Unknown voice: Well, except that if they don't propose to log it umm... then they wouldn't be subject to 7) Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That is correct Unknown voice: So it sounds to me like what's being proposed is a selective cutting uhh in order to ..to proceed with the development subject to Clean Water Services regulations but not subject to the City of Tigard uh.. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: May not be subject to the Forest Practice Act depending upon what kind trees removed and the Forestry Departments... Department are met. Mayor Griffith: We'll let the applicant respond to that in the rebuttal. Unknown voice: OK, well, I guess I would like some clarification on that issue. The other the other uh..question that uhh comes up is that umm..the the Clean Water Services regulates setbacks uh some of the the literature that submitted uh its disputing the...the distances of the setbacks is uh to Clean Water Services or for that matter the fire department signs off on a certain uh plan uh, is staff competent to..to comment on um a citizen's um complaint that it doesn't meet an individual agency's standards? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: We have to rely on CWS to..to do that and that's why the conditions are there. Unknown voice: But if they were challenging, say, a 35 feet from the top of bank or whatever, uh, is there uh ya know, Clean Water Services doesn't have a..a hearing process where..whereby September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 9 of 71 Exhibit_ Page 13 citizens can uh uh challenge a setback or a ..I was just wondering procedurally uh if it then..if there's a way to address that. Mayor Griffith: Mr. Attorney? [laugh] City Attorney Ramis: To the extent that there's disputes about whether distances have been measured correctly or setbacks are in the right place, a letter from Clean Water Services is one piece of evidence. But, its certainly rebuttal. So people could come in with other evidence. The applicant could come in with a map and measurements, so could others. So, Clean Water Services' letter is one piece of evidence, its not the ultimately defining uh fact decision. You need to make that based upon all the evidence that you hear. Unknown voice: Yah, I had a question are..First of all Dick, are you ..have you completed your.. your response? Unknown voice: Yah, OK Unknown voice: One thing that I didn't that I didn't hear you refer to in ..and Dick alluded to it..was the challenge of the setback. Mr. Frewing said that he did uh his own overlay of the topographical commission of the developer provided and was disputing his setback line essentially. And the uh..at the end of the meeting that we had that we continued until tonight I had asked staff if they would make sure they would respond to that tonight. And I wonder if that has been reviewed and any value to see whether uh the developer setback line is the valid one or if it needs to be uh..if that needs to be evaluated in ..in..determining whether that's accurate. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: The only information that we have is is what we have when the applicant and the applicant can respond uh..we haven't analyzed that particular issue from the Engineering's department. My staff has not uh...came out and questioned what CW...CWS has um requirements are...we just don't have the extra ?? to do that. Unknown voice: Um, if there's a dispute, uh...what's our procedure? How do, how do we uh..uh..how do we resolve that? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: We've always resolved it based on allowing CWS to make that decision. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 10 of 71 Exhibit Page I y Unknown voice: So you're saying that CWS has reviewed the applicants data and their setbacks and acknowledged that those are acceptable? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That is correct. And the..the appellant or those people um.. indicating that they did not believe that could deal directly with CWS. Mayor Griffith: Any other questions before we get to the Public Hearing? City Administrator Monahan: Could I ...one other thing Mr. Mayor..uh..Dick started to hand out to the Council the submittal by the applicant or his rebuttal, my suggestion to you is that we hold on to that and not give that to you till we get to rebuttal. And at the same time, Cathy has some other information that the applicant submitted today. So when we get to rebuttal you get all that information. Mayor Griffith: OK [laugh] thank you. For all those, I have a statement to read and a comment to make [pause] For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council [pause] and parties an opportunity to respond to issues will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed towards the criteria described by staff or other criteria in a plan or use ..land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Now, I was told that I need to do a little bit better job of clarifying what that means. The last time we went through this because many of you rationally thinking do not spend a lot of time reading code language. But to take it out of Land Use law into Traffic law for just a very very short moment I can quickly make a point that brings it back to where it is. I used to have a car that speedometer said it could go 120 miles an hour on it..1 don't know whether it could go 120 miles or not because I was never afforded the opportunity to be in a place that said I could drive 120 miles an hour. The fastest I ever had it up to was 80 and that was in Washington because it said I could go 75. I only pushed my luck a little bit. Well..wo..now whether had I been driving that car 100 miles an hour and been caught, I would have been cited because I was not following the regulations. Well, if I would have been driving that car 70 [pause] whether the officer liked the color of the car, or the car wasn't anything is irrelevant. Its beside the point. I'm meeting the requirements. And that's what we get into an awful lot when we're dealing with Land Use regulations. We have a whole set of codes that about that thick that are afforded and worked on by various committees and approved that basically says here's the rules of construction. If you do it this way, you can do it. If you don't do it this way you can't. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 11 of 71 Exhibit c Page 1-, Now what we have to deal with, we have to deal with by law. That if it says if they do ABC, that's fine. And they do ABC then we have to allow them to do that. We may not like ABC, it may stink. So what our job, your job is..is to say we gotta change the code. It should no longer be ABC, it should be ABD. And that's the only..about the only way we can doin' it. As I jokingly say to my friends and I will to you, whiners don't get it. Ya know..its..its..ya know I don't like it doesn't count. It has to be that its in..in..its confide...its contrary to a regulation. And that's why it makes it real difficult when you're testifying and people say well, you just don't listen to what I say. Well, I can assure you these people listen very closely to what you can say, but [pause] if you're driving seventy- five in a twenty-five zone, tough. You get no sympathy. See? Well, I got a little bit of the same thing that I got...that..that...in my eye, but we have to deal with when we're dealing with some of these properties. Is that the property rights, the codes are written for, the property owners and their rights, as long as they maintain the codes. If you have a problem with the code, then..let the people on the end know about it because those codes are a liquid code. And I mean that seriously. They change as required. So if there's something that we don't like, there's some..there are a number of things that we've had to pass that we don't particularly like. But there's also a number of things in the codes that have changed because of it. Isn't that a fair statement? [laughing] So anyway, thats...1 wann..1 wanna kind of preface that a little bit before we get into this too much tonight. Now, we have an...an..as long as I've been Mayor I've always tried to let everybody say what they have to say. But, lets we'd have uh..20...26 people I believe..25 people to testify this evening in opposition. What I would like very much to do I ...I don't want to say you've got every saying to say in two minutes. I really don't like that. But I would like you to keep it short if you agree with what tha...the previous person, or somebody else said, please let us know that you agree with what they said and why, and uh..ya know, try not to..to get going. If you ?? on too much oral diarrhea I'll grossly cut you off. But uh..please make your point that you want to make and make it pertinent as..as to a criteria as best as you can and uh.. everybody have patience cause we do to, and I probably depending upon the capacity of my bladder, will hold on to a break in about an hour..so, we'll go for that. Councilor Sherwood: Uh..Mr. Mayor, uh also, we've received many, many letters from all of you and we've all had copies of them and we've all read 'em. So if you get up tonight, don't read your letter, uh..we've got it, its in its in the record..but uh..that can take uh..extra amounts of time also. Mayor Griffith: Ya City Administrator Monahan: Mr. Mayor, we have 25 people who have signed up in opposition, there also two who have signed neutral, and then there'd be the opportunity for the applicant's rebuttal. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 12 of 71 Exhibit 4:-; Page !;r Mayor Griffith: Right. City Administrator Monahan: And I understand that some folks have come to the meeting after the sign-up sheets came up, so you know the practice has been to ask if people want to speak, so that's up to you to. Mayor Griffith: OK. All right, well, lets just get started and we'll just go until we all peter out. [laughter] OK...Terry Crawford. Please come up, sit down, give your name and address. [mumbling] Terry Crawford: Thank you. I'm Terry Crawford, my wife and I lead..live at 7100 SW Ventura Drive, and have since 1978. An I'll address one of the concerns about the Ash Creek Development in particular and its not a set-up Mayor. Um...I didn't know you were gonna talk about speeding, but uh, I wanna address the traffic issue. Although I fully support the other concerns as well. Uh..I've provided you with a small map to reference about the issues I'm going to be addressing. For more than five years bac... I've been working with Mike Mills of the City of Tigard to find resolution to speeding problems on Ventura Drive between 72nd and 6965 SW Ventura Drive. This section of Ventura Drive is not been considered by the CTS Engineers Report that you were all provided by the developer. It should have been. This section of Ventura Drive is within the 1000 feet consideration criteria of the City. A reputed ?? of the map on page six 'er.. of the CRT Report. That the hearing ?? on the Ash Creek Development City of Tigard Engineer reported for us that Ash Creek is between fifty and 120 feet wide, with lot depths of 80 feet on the north side of Ventura Drive. Ventura Drive is either 130-200 feet within the lot lines proposed of the development, well, quote, within the influenced area defined as the site's frontage and a distance of at least 1000 feet extending out from the site's property line..end quote. The City requirement. The section of Ventura Drive I'm concerned about must be considered seriously. If Ash Creek is developed these 29 families will use the easiest and most direct route to the businesses along Pacific Highway. Businesses like Fred Meyer, Winco, Costco, Lowes, Standard Appliance, Les Schwab, and so on. That route is to use Ventura Drive. My street between SW 72nd into Fred Meyer's Pacific Highway. This is the shortest distance. I measured myself in my car using Barbur at 74th, Ventura is 4/10 of a mile shorter than the trip from 74th from Barbur to Cedarcrest, 80th, Spruce or Maple, back to 72nd and the Fred Meyer. People will gravitate to the shortest and thus the quickest route. Our street is it. This situation will exist until and if SW 74th is made a through street from Barbur to more direct access to Pacific Highway and the City has made no firm commitment either do so, or not. The impact of this additional traffic will September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 13 of 71 Exhibit ? Page I thus not be little, quote unquote, as the CTS states. It will be significant. Also, its not about quote delays, end quote as the report considers, its about the number of trips per day generated and the speeds at which they will travel through this section of our neighborhood. The posted speed limit through my neighborhood is 25 miles per hour with a recommended 20 miles per hour in front of my home and entering the "s" curves at 6965 Ventura. Studies by Mike Mills at two least two of them and a citizens radar study done by the neighborhood and I was one of the implementers of that study, have shown that 85% of the trips to this section of Ventura Drive average 30 miles an hour. The study also shows that this section of road carries 900 trips a day or more. That means 800 plus trips per day through our neighborhood are now in excess of the posted speed limit and well in excess of the recommended speed limit. If you assume that 20% of the 800 plus trips per day are in excess of 30 miles an hour, the average is skewed that direction, then 160 plus trips per day are coming through our neighborhood at more than 30 miles an hour, some as fast as 40 and 45 miles an hour. That's important consider since the developer first public question session indicated that Ash Creek Development would increase traffic flow by 10% in our neighborhood. That means the Ash Creek Development would add 90 plus trips per day along Ventura Drive. That means the Ash Creek Development will add another 70 speeders or more every day. Let me repeat that. 70 more speeders every day [pause] through my neighborhood. This is not a little impact, its significant. And its not acceptable without some means of calming which is the City's terminology for it, the traffic. I'm sure that nobody in this room especially the Council the Mayor would appreciate 70 more speeders through their neighborhood on a daily basis. I propose to the City at the public hearing on development that one of the criteria for acceptance of the project be that the developer pay for speed humps on Ventura Drive. Installed by specifications of the City of Tigard. That requirement from those of us living on this section of Ventura Drive and ??? sections stands. Unless the developer is willing to bear this cost to help control the speeders, the development ?? Ventura Drive urn, will include the traffic impact of our street on their plan, will accept to resolve the other issues we have as a neighborhood, we respectfully ask you to reject the Ash Creek Development plan as it now is before you. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Do you have any questions please? Thank you very much sir. Warren Aney? And if I annihilate your last name, just mark it off'cause I'm Welsh. Warren Aney: You did it just right. [laughter] Mayor Griffith, members of the Council, my name is Warren Aney I live on 9403 SW 74th in Tigard, about three blocks from the proposed Ash Creek Planned Development. I'm also a professionally certified Wildlife Ecologist with . over 40 years experience in my field. Uh, earlier I submitted a letter that should be part of your packet that gives in detail uh..my take on the uh...envir..er.. ecological values of this site and the effects of the proposed development, so I'm not gonna go into that. But I'd like to do now is just briefly make three points in relation to ...to that. First, I support September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 14 of 71 Exhibit ) Page ,9O the strategy of building houses in already urbanized areas, rather than expanding urbanization into undeveloped habitats. But second, there are ecological and environmental values that can and should be conserved in the urban city. Tigard Code Chapter 18.350 recognizes this. When it says to the greatest extent possible the developer should preserve the existing landscape features and amenities and the development should meet the criteria of preserving existing trees to topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. My third point that in relation to this is that this devel...proposed development can and should do a better job of protecting these public values. Considering the ability of this site to support these values, excessive residential density and excessive tree removal is a primary reason this Planned Development failed. [tape side 5 ends] [begin tape side 6] Warren Aney: I list a number of values in uh.. the handout I just gave you so I won't go through these, but these are all density related affects on uh..wildlife diversity birds and wildlife species. Uh, the kind of things that people like to see in their back yard, but also some of the values that uh..are pushed downstream because of developments upstream. All of these adves..adverse effects are density related and could be minimized by holding this development to Tigard City Code Chapter 18.510 R4.5 low density residential district standards including the minimum lot sizes as well as front, side, and back yard setbacks. This development should also minimize adverse environmental effects by preserving and replacing a greater number of trees than Kirby proposed and this tree protection plan should be prepared by a qualified Arborist and submitted per.. for approval as per Tigard City Code Chapter 18.790. Thank you for this opportunity, and you have any questions Mayor Griffith: OK..one moment. Any questions? Uh, yah, I have one quick question...uh, Dick, on on the density..uh..uh tree density. Uh, on a 4.5 density, versus what they have here, on a PUD, does that take into account the whole location? Of the site, or does it just take into account the density breakdown for the individual lots. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: No, the Planned Development lots reflect the ability the minimum density uh, that they have to meet to make Metro requirements is 20 units. The maximum that they can go is 31. Uh, they're proposing 29. They get to transfer according to your code uh, 25% of the area that's in uh..drainage areas and steep slopes. and they've done that too. Mayor Griffith: Is there a similar ba..number for tree count? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 15 of 71 Exhibit a Page a / Planning Manager Bewersdorff: No. Mayor Griffith: Ok, so..so if they don't...what I was thinkin' is if eh, say hypothetically 10 trees per lot and they put it on a PUD that they could say it 12 on one and eight on another and two on one and then 19 ona .. on a off-site lot or somthin' of that nature. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: It ...the question about in..in plat developments is to the greatest extent possible. The applicant needs to convince you of their proposal and you get to decide basically what that is because its not a standard of the..that is defined. Mayor Griffith: OK, so it's a flexible and that's why there's Arborists into it and Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That's correct. Mayor Griffith: And our Arborist verifying..I thank you sir. Uh, Bob Ward. Bob Ward: Hi, would you like me to hand these out? Mayor Griffith: Uh- give 'em to us 'n we'll pass 'em out. Bob Ward: My name is Robert Ward, 7162 SW Barbara Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223. um...uh Mr. Mayor, I uh heard your um exhortation to us talking about codes and I would ask the question why do we have more and more codes uh..I think that the reason why they're so fluid is you uh..have correctly stated people find more and more ways to go around the code. We see that throughout our society. We have to define that more and I think that's a big problem. I think this uh, proposal for this development is one such event that could cause as you could tell with 25 men and women here, who are not for this proposal as presented. Its become more and more a problem in Tigard and our metropolitan area. And there are more and more men and women and families like I represent who are totally against the densification of areas. I want to talk about a few things uh here, uh if we can go to the third page you would see a comparison of this property, this is taken off of a websites and all this information is readily available to any person. We notice that the Ash Creek Estates Subdivision is on part five. I think I'm a foolish man because when brought property In Tigard I went to a map similar to this one over here. I walked over to September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 16 of 71 Exhibit cD Page ‘= a where this home that I purchased would be located and what do I see? What do I see? R4.5. I then ask myself what is the City of Tigard consider R4.5? I could go over to this map over here legend and it says 7500 square foot lots. I'm stupid. I believe that. Not totally I realize that there are variances. But I wanna give you some interesting statistics. As you look at this map you'll see that almost entirely on the three sides are developed family homes. I don't want to say houses. They're homes. There's ...that's where the people behind me sit, live, thrive and enjoy their presence there together. Our desires to see that be maintained. Very likely there will be a Subdivision on the Senn property. They have the right to develop that, within the codes and they have the right to not develop it as they choose. Now maybe the time that that happens. But there are codes. The question is if there are codes [pause] then why do we need a hearing for a variance? It begs the question. A variance is not a done deal. As you stated Mr. Mayor, it can or it can't happen. There are options and there are rational minds that can make decisions that would take into account situations around it. Let's look at a comparison of lot specifications. The average size of the existing lots around that area are 9130 square feet. The proposed 6750 square feet. Almost 33% less. The smallest lite..lot size of all the lots were built out were 7150. The smallest on the proposed is 4702 square feet. The largest lot in that area is 13,260 square feet, the proposed largest lot is 11,616. One of very few, thus excuse the statistics of this area. Of the 20 of 20 of the 23 lots surrounding this property, 20 meet the max...minimum size. Of the proposed, only five meet the minimum. Only five meet the minimum. 1 think that's important to understand because uh, in our code it talks about continuity, it talks about the fact that these subdivisions have to fit into the community. Also, I have some questions about the City relying upon detailed topographical studies we have none of those uh..studies done by anyone else and uh the agent, Greg Kurahashi, and uh, his assigned associates in the developers. Do we know that those are accurate? It skews everything. In fact, the supplied drawings I do not believe supply the correct location and the realistic uh...presentation of those facts. Additionally, the Clean Water Services report file number 2819 dated May 13th, 2003 indicates that no quote on-site unquote visit was made. Ur..until I believe the day at the last hearing, CS...CWS had not been on that property is what I have been told. But the report, the official file document at that date said they had not inspected yet they had approved the plan without inspection. I find that at fault. Clean Water Services only inspected that property at the urging of concerned citizens. The design for the cul-de-sac is erroneous and flawed. I'd like it restated by maybe Council or the Mayor how many lots are told to be on that cul-de-sac? [pause] It is a question. Unknown voice: According to code? Bob Ward: No, according to code. OK how many? 20. How many are presented by the developer as being on that cul-de-sac? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 17 of 71 Exhibit c Page e 3 Unknown voice: 29. Bob Ward: 29. No, not on the cul-de-sac. Unknown voice: 27 well... Unknown voice: 23 Bob Ward: 23. Uh..l couldn't hear comments by the gentleman over here, at the uh.. clarification time that I had questions about, but I would contend that the road goes north-south designated the proposed road does not exist. The developer does not own that property. No community input has been given to that [pause] future road, consequently uh, the cul- de-sac link proposal is entirely flawed. We don't know if that road will be built, we don't know when that road will be built unless I couldn't hear the comments once again. I leave that open. The limit is 200 feet. The developer's proposed length is 620 feet, three times the code. In reality, the cul-de-sac length, including that which goes to the west of that future road, would be I believe over 900 feet. Four times code. And I would like to be corrected on that if I uh could be. But I believe that to be the facts. The important element is that future road is a pro..is acrossed on the drawings property that cannot be developed by the developer and cannot be uh ascertained at this time when that would be done, and no community input has been given. There is a whole list of things I disagree with. Also [pause] Tualatin Valley Fire 8I Rescue states that where a roadway is not more than 28 feet in wide I believe that uh John referred to that. Problem? That there can be no parking on either side of the road or the street. Yet the street is 28 feet. Will we..how do we de...see to increase it to 28 feet and one inch? I sympathize with the family that owns this, I have an Identical situation. Four kids. One living parent, my father. Year round creek end. Right here in Oregon. Mor??? You know what? I'm saddened he can't develop the way he would want to. You know what? He's still gonna laugh all the way to the bank. So will this family in the sense that there is value in that land no one will be injured by at least minimum requiring 7500 foot lots in this area. These are my final thoughts. Tigard City Plan...Tigard City Planning must understand the importance of creating and maintaining a sense of community. This is accomplished by maintaining continuity within these smaller diversified areas in Tigard. When established areas are in- filled, significant consideration must be given to adjacent properties and the previous City approved development criteria. This consideration results in predictable growth and development. But as proposed, the Ash Creek Estates Development is asking for too many variances which serve no benefit to the community and no benefit to the September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 18 of 71 Exhibit ) Page -�y" development. The variances only result in the ability of the developer to increase profits. Once this is done, I'll be living with what's left behind there. Unfortunately, while my neighbor..neighbors is already put his house on the market, sold and last week moved. Why? The uncertainty `en that's being created by these kind of decisions. Thank you for your time. Mayor Griffith: Excuse me [pause] any questions? Unknown voice: I have a question. You made a statement that the Clean Water Services approved the development without a site visit but then you said that later they did make a site visit? Bob Ward: I uh.. Unknown voice: After expressed concerns from citizens? Bob Ward: I was told that would be the case. Uh..here would be that..a copy of that permit. If I read it correctly it shows on site visit- no. I don't know how to read it any other way unless I'm not reading it correctly. Unknown voice: My question was your statement that you thought there had ben a site visit by Clean Water Services later? Bob Ward: That is second hand knowledge. Unknown voice: Is that true? Does anybody know? City Administrator Monahan: Do we know if this submittal is part of the record or do we need to hold onto it so you guys can look at it. Do you know what it is? Unknown voice: This is a Clean Water Services certificate Planning Manager Bewersdorff: It might be part of the service provider ?? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 19 of 71 Exhibit . -) Page Unknown voice: I hadn't seen it before. Bob Ward: As..as I repeat, I was told that ma [interrupted] Mayor Griffith: Fine. Thank you very much. Bob Ward: Whether it was official or not I was not [interrupted] Mayor Griffith: Next person up Jim Moore or Jim Monroe, I'm sorry. Jim Monroe: Mr. Mayor and members of the council my name is James Monroe I reside at 7005 SW Ventura Drive. It is on the SE corner of the property and the creek goes fast through the north part of my property. I am a retired teacher and reference was made last time regarding the sale of this property will benefit the schools. I emphasized to my students that when I built there in the summer of 1974 I was not an environmentalist in any way. Remember that Earth Day took place in 1970. I tried to preserve what I could when the builders came in, I said preserve all trees I was told the Arborist cut down my trees. I said..they said they're dead. No, they're not gonna cut 'em down. Just a few points, and then I will leave. I want to emphasize the bottom line to me is preserving this area as much as possible. And as an educator I know there's a code but I know you make the final decision just as when I grade a student if he's bouncing between a B and a C, and he really deserves a C, but I think he really tried, I raise him to a B a lot of times. That's what I want you to think about. I think the construction of these huge houses on small lots does not match the character of the current neighborhood and will ruin uh at least my view of what's gonna happen. The increased danger of trees falling down when you do cut down a tree..many trees...we had a house split in half in 19...195 because there was a lot development on the south side of our street and we think that that wind gust that came in 1995 was caused by the destruction of those trees as the tree came down and cut the woman's house right in half. Plans to clear cut much of this property is still to me a violation of unique stand of trees. ??pollution of tree increasingly because of ill planning. Increased flooding downstream and last of all, the very water quality of the environment. I've seen many aspects of wildlife disappear just from the construction of the homes in my own neighborhood there. And so I plead to you, please when you do consider this development, take into that account that you can balance the code sometimes, just as I do with students. Thank you very much for your courtesy. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 20 of 71 Exhibit :_> Page �, �� Mayor Griffith: Thank you. I uh I have a question. Uh..do we not require on-site uh disposal of water? Storm water? Engineering Manager Rager: We fall under Clean Water Services standards and there is a requirement for on-site detention and on-site water quality. Mayor Griffith: OK, so..so with it, with the improvement or the additional rainwater from roofs and things of that nature, will not be impacting that stream because it has to be disposed of on-site. Engineering Manager Rager: It has to be..well, its not disposed of on-site, it will discharge into the creek as the..as the Engineer had indicated. But it has to be detained first which means in theory, it..it the detention facility pulls back the water so that the flow leaving the site is none more than the flow that exists now in a pre-developed state. Mayor Griffith: OK, so but they'd have dry wells, and things of that nature? Er, leaf scratches or things? Engineering Manager Rager: Well..well what the applicant is proposing is a large detention pond that would temporarily hold that water and meter it out at that pre-developed flow. Mayor Griffith: OK so but Clean Water Services says that the ...tho the pond...uh the stream at the road has to be the same after the process as before the process. Engineering Manager Rager: That's the general theory, yes Mayor Griffith: In that its simplistically stated. OK Alright fine. Jim Monroe: Last point, the more houses you do build yer gonna have increasing runoff I don't care what you do into that creek. I won't even use product like Round Up because even though its out by the street I know that somehow that's gonna get down by the creek. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 21 of 71 Exhibit - Page t-7 Thank you. Uh...Kathy Meads? City Recorder Wheatley: She's not here this evening. Mayor Griffith: She's not here? City Recorder Wheatley: She's not here. Mayor Griffith: OK. We'll move forward then. William Iron? City Recorder Wheatley: He's not here either. • Mayor Griffith: OK..Marilyn Sturm? Marilyn Sturm: Hi. Unknown voice: Hi. Marilyn Sturm: Good evening. Mayor Jim and Council, I'm Marilyn Sturm at 9475 SW 74`''. We have lived at this residence for 41 years so you can image what we've seen happen to our neighborhood. While we have had the uh..Washington Square Development, other housing developments go all around us. But yet, have we seen any urn parks, any greenway, any ..any recreational areas for us to have besides all of this development? No. And besides that, the street um there's no sidewalks, we have no sidewalks whatsoever. And the traffic has increased immensely again since the Washington Square Estates development. And I feel that this property of the Ash Creek property urn it needs to stay as beautification we need to have that area for recreation park area. Our street is not not meant for all the access traffic that we will have and so I myself know that Mr. Senn had always wanted this property to be uh a developed into something that would be very unique. And we need to carry that on. And for his family. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: One moment please. Any questions? Thanks...thank you very much. Bill Dwyer? [pause] Not here? [pause] Catherine Allen? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 22 of 71 Exhibit ) Page ,� Catherine Allen: That would be me and I defer to Mr. Crawford's comments about traffic. I'm very concerned about the increase in traffic and I defer to his comments. Mayor Griffith: OK, thanks you concur with uh, his comments. Catherine Allen: Absolutely. Mayor Griffith: Fine, thank you very much. I read my notes here.. [laugh] Linda Cullison Unknown speaker: We want to be heard also ?? related comments. Uh, just very...[laugh] Mayor Griffith: [laugh] You say more than three words and you gotta go up and speak. Gerald Cullison: Gerald Cullison, living since 9815 SW Ventura Court. Uh..the uh, we live at uh just right next to the property. Just very, very quickly urn some very eloquent speeches earlier. You had made a comment in your instructions that it wasn't a matter of what we liked or cared about no whining it matters if you do this, you can't do that based on.. based on regulations. Uh, I'm very concerned about the traffic impact uh..in terms of our property and it does appear as though a rule is being bent in terms of the R-4.5 zoning the minimum lot size. And that's obviously a direct impact in terms of how many houses can be built, be developed which is an obvious impact in terms of the uh profitability of the development. But that profitability will have an impact on my quality of life in terms of my child and uh the uh street and traffic going by the house. I'm very concerned about that. That's all I have to say. Mayor Griffith: Yah, well one moment please. Uh..street improvements other than the cul-de-sac is..uh are there any being required on 74th? Engineer Manager Rager: Yes, there there instructing the street improvement along their entire frontage so it'll be a little more than half-street, it'll be about a three-quarter street because of the change in vertical grade that they're making there where the..the creek crosses. It's a three-quarter street improvement along... Mayor Griffith: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 23 of 71 Exhibit Page _ OK, so that's for the full full width of the property. Engineer Manager Rager: Yes. Mayor Griffith: And then...the..cul-de-sac...the large cul-de-sac has sidewalks, but the long one does not. Is that correct? Engineer Manager Rager: The long one labeled Private Street I believe they're proposing sidewalk on one side only which is per our..our code. Mayor Griffith: OK. OK. Any other questions? All right, fine. Thank you very much. [pause] Richard Allegret? Richard Allegretto: Allegretto. Mayor Griffith: Um..sorry. He didn't put the zero on. Richard Allegretto: Ahh. City Manager Monahan: Sorry, my apologies. Richard Allegretto: Uh, I live at 7108 SW Barbara Lane and uh, I'm against this development for most of the reasons that have been stated here. I've been a homeowner here since 1978 and uh, what they had originally staked it out it looked like there was gonna be two lots behind my lot, uh, like you say, if you're going by codes this is what I don't quite understand the existing codes you know state that what the density is. But yet they're changing that and there's a lot of things I mean, what Mr. Fewing brought up about all the different codes are not being met. So, I guess I don't really understand how you can change everything. And uh, I'm just curious if if everybody read uh Mr. Fewing's letter that he sent, or maybe just uh.ya know, the Council people did er uh..I realize the Engineers did so.. uh..I guess that's about all I have to say about this. 1 just thought it'd be good for our neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 24 of 71 Exhibit o� Page .30 Good. Is..any questions? Councilor Wilson: Uh, well no, uh Jim maybe it'd be appropriate point to describe how the PD..PD process works. And and the adjustment of lot sizes because it's come up a number of times and rather than just kinda repeating that thing it might be good tuh..to explain that. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: The Planned Development process was allowed..developed to provide flexibility in difficult sites uh..whiles make sure of lot sizes to average out [someone sneezes] the total area of the development. Urn, in this case they're able to transfer only a quarter of the property that's being retained. Approximately 45% of the property is being left in a natural state. The rest is they're squeezing the development on the rest of the 55%. They have a minimum density that they are required to meet of 20 units. The maximum that they can put on the property is 31. So both the Planned Development process gives them flexibility to vary lot sizes to do that whereas a conventional development uh.. would have have 80% size. quote allow only that you hav to ha a uh 80/o of the lots meeting the lot ots e Councilor Wilson: Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Thank you. Councilor Wilson: I think that's it. Well, uh, I think its important to to note that rules are not being bent here. Uh, there's been you know there's been a number of suggestions to that fact. The there are three uh adjustments being requested those...those are although they're somewhat discretionary, there are specific criteria that need to be applied to determine whether to grant those or not. So, its not its not entirely discretionary so I just I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: OK, good, thank you. Brian Wegener? Unknown voice: Mr. Wegner had to leave but he asked me to make sure that this was distributed. Mayor Griffith: Hm, OK Unknown voice: And he does address the storm water issue in that uh letter. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 25 of 71 Exhibit cD Page 3 i Mayor Griffith: I think he also has submitted a written [pause] Tualatin Riverkeepers position. Okay....Patricia Leonare? Patricia Leonard: I won't be testifying. Mayor Griffith: Okay, boy, now they're getting nasty names...Michael Triggerboth? Michael Trigoboff: Trigoboff. Mayor Griffith: I'm pretty close! Michael Trigoboff: P?? you did a good job! Mayor Griffith: [laugh] Michael Trigoboff: Hi, my name is Michael Trigoboff I live at 7072 SW Barbara Lane. First of all, I wanted to just correct something that was said at the previous not that...I guess that it was the previous meeting in August, urn, the neighbors got together at one point and raised about $13,000 to go towards what we hoped would be the purchase of the property. That was to be added into money raised by Metro and Clean Water Services and I'm told that the final offer for the property was somewhere more than a million dollars but the Senn family turned that down. So, someone last time said well, they thought they could offer 15 grand for the property and that's not what happened. I just wanted to clarify that. OK? Urn, urn, now two other points. Um..um last time John Frewing urn made some points about the uh 25% slope line on that property. Um..I have uh..something that I wrote up that I'll submit after I after I make these comments. Urn, and I had them there both John Frewing's comments about the 25% slope and you can see there's a fair amount of?? and I won't take up your time by hacking my way through it now. But the point he was making as far as I understood it was that what the builder did was he found flat places on the property and drew a line through them even though there were sort of..ss...so he kinda cherry picked flat places so that he could draw a map where the boundaries of 25% slope was a lot further south than it really was to be, and John Frewing took a look at a topo map and figured out his estimate of where the 25% slope really oughta be and based on what he figured out there were only four..bld..four buildable lots on that property, not 29 September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 26 of 71 Exhibit Page 3,D buildable lots. Urn, now I hear tonight that its apparently up to Clean Water Services to verify where that line actually is, but Clean Water Services never did anything about that at all. So, what you basically got is the builder's word on the one hand and uh, John Frewing's analysis on the other hand. Someone's gotta go up and take a look at that land and find out where that 25% slope line actually is. Now I know that's a somewhat complicated mathematical thing, but that's no excuse for not doing it right and as far as can tell from what I've heard both last time and this time, that hasn't been done. And it should be done. Utn...I looked at the urn packets the uh..the uh...the PDF that the meeting packet was in and I found comments about this by Morgan Tracy which I read through and uh I just couldn't make any sense out of those comments at all and part of that may be my fault that I'm not a lawyer but I am a PhD in Computer Science, I have a relatively high reading comprehension, but I couldn't figure out what he was saying. It seems to me that there's only two responses you can make to what John Frewing said about the 25% slope. Either one, John Frewing got it right that line isn't where it belongs, uh..the developer cherry picked flat places and put the line where it doesn't belong and that needs to be addressed, or number two, John Frewing was wrong. His analysis of the topo map is wrong and the line is where it belongs. Or maybe there's a third alternative that they both got it wrong and the line really goes someplace else. But those are three sensible responses to that question that John Frewing read that I would understand. I don't see any one of those three things in Morgan Tracy's response to that as far as I can tell, there has not been a sensible response to that point by John Frewing and there needs to be a sensible response to that point by John Frewing. Where is that boundary line between steeper than 25% slope and less than 25% slope? It seems to me that you have to know that in order to follow the law about the 25% slope. Well, I think that the City Council has an obligation to address that point, I also think that Mr. Frewing made a number of other points that deserve a serious response. I didn't have the time or the expertise to go through a lot of those others but just on the basis of this one thing that I looked at as carefully as I could, I would say that a response to that concern has not been made and I would just ask you to please respond to that and to the other concerns that Mr. Frewing raised. Now have..) have in fact one other thing I wanted to address about runoff. Urn, the Mayor just asked urn what's gonna happen with runoff on this land is uh basically the stream gonna be held harmless or things be just as good in that stream afterwards and as they were before and the answer to that is definitely no. What they are building there is I think its called an impoundment..it means like water will run off but it will collect in this impoundment they build and then be released um at a slower rate so what that amounts to is a flood surge from a big rain won't be as severe with that impoundment as it would be without it, so as far as the flood surge downstream, that impoundment will help. But there's a lot of things it won' help. What you have there now is a lot of land and trees and ya know, pine needles and all this stuff that both slows the water down and catches sediment. So the sediment won't end up in the stream nor will oil from roadways, fertilizer from lawns, ya know, you name it all the stuff that you get from developed land. Now what's gonna happen if they develop this is that all of that sediment, oil, pesticides, er fertilizer is gonna run off into that steam and have a severe September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 27 of 71 Exhibit Page �3 impact on it and all the impoundment's gonna do is release all of that stuff that's nowhere near as good as it used to be more slowly. So to say that well, you know, they did their job and the stream's gonna be just fine is just absolutely not true. What they're doing is moderating the storm surge of much degraded water. That's what they're accomplishing and that's not the same as holding the stream harmless. So, that's what I have to say. Thanks a lot. Mayor Griffith: OK, thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Bob Storer? City Recorder Wheatley: Bob's not here but we got a packet of information for him ??? City Manager Monahan: Yes, Mr. Mayor we have a letter from Mr. Storer that was distributed at the study session. Mayor Griffith: Thank you. Nancy Tracey? [pause] Ronald Hobbs? [pause] Ronald Hobbs: Mr. Mayor, City Council, fellow neighbors, my name is Ed Hobbs, I live at 7205 SW Ventura Drive. That's just right on the SW corner of the uh property to be developed. Uh, one of the things that I haven't heard anyone mention to date concerning the property, is the uh possibility of sinkholes uh, on that property. In winter of 2001, a three-foot deep by six-foot wide by three-foot wide sinkhole opened up on my property within 10 feet of the corner of my house. Uh, I filled that in in the spring of 2002 and then this past winter it opened back up again, uh causing flooding in my basement and uh ya know apparently what happens is that in the in the winter and when the water is replenished, the uh water in the spring starts runnin' and it ran for months this year and then eventually dried and I dug a dry well in the event uh line for it so that hopefully remedied the situation. But the water comes from this hillside that is adjacent to the property uh my adjacent to my property and also adjacent to the the Senn property and I've ya know that that water is so the potential for additional sinkholes opening up on where lots 28 and 29 are proposed is very real, as was the one as the property my property where the sinkhole opened up. And I haven't heard that addressed in any of the concerns prior to this time. So, there may be additional sinkholes potential opening up on that uh on that uh Senn property uh once they start to do development there. I eh so that's a concern uh I also concertedly agree with uh the comments made by Mr. Ward uh concerning ya know the lot sizes uh an if you add it up there ya know are 11 lots under 6,000 uh square feet and uh uh ya know there are over 30% of the lots are to be under er 5,000 square feet or less. Now, ya know PD being what it is, still ya know the size of the homes .... September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 28 of 71 Exhibit oD Page _3 [end tape side 6] [no videotape available until Sandra Savage testimony] [begin tape side 7] Mr. Hobbs: People are going to park on both sides of that street. It's going to be literally an obstacle course to be able to get from, off of 74th to your home and back down now what's been termed a 900 uh, lineal feet of distance on that cul-de-sac. You know, I just would urge you to consider the quality of what you're considering zoning into existence where it hasn't been before, and to give them a variance to do that. Now, I mean if it was all up to code to begin with then it is what it is. But they're asking for something additional to be given for that and I just don't think that, that that should happen. Uh...you know the part about the property could have been developed for a park, my wife and I have lived there since 1977 on the property. We donated to that cause and uh, would, would very much like to have seen that happen. But it didn't. Um, so you know the sinkhole issues, the size, the, the cul-de-sac...you know...if you know if they require a variance to make this property work, then it just should not work. Period. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Thank you very much. Mr. Monahan: Uh, Mr. Hobbs could I ask, we might have you on the list twice as Ronald E. Hobbs and as Ed Hobbs. Hobbs: Same. Mr. Monahan. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Okay, thank you. Uh, John Goodding? Mr. Goodding: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council. I guess I'm the hold out. Um, what I've heard this evening simply confirms everything that has gone on. Course I'm, I'm John Goodding, I live at 7925 SW Hemlock Street. My property adjoins SW 80"1. Hemlock Street comes up to. Uh...I purchased the property in 1955. My ?? contractor, from my home?? Several other individuals. In fact there was five of us that lived in uh...basic homes. When we purchased the property one of the stipulations was that we did not build anywhere near the creek or the floodplain. Which Ash Creek comes across one corner of my property. Uh...for the years that I've lived there, including twice this year, I have had September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 29 of 71 Exhibit Page 35 an experience...no, let me, let me back up a little bit. Um, two years after I purchased the property, I put in a line fence, or I totally enclosed the uh, property with a four foot fence. Also a line fence that crossed the creek and goes for approximately 400 feet. At present time, on my property that fence, instead of being four foot tall, is now 38 inches tall. The neighbor, I was just over to their place yesterday, uh, we both have, or I, I do on mine, they had a small fence, or, small...uh...bridge cross the fence...er...small bridge to cross the creek. The frame of that creek on one side measures uh, approximately 30 inches from the railing to the bottom. Now the bottom part of the railing is actually 14 inches under soil. And that's just the beginning of things. Uh...now let me read my, my full statement first and then, then urn, add more to it. After being present in at the last two meetings and study, and 37 page report, in what I've heard and seen, I agree with Mr. Frewing that spoke at the last meeting and pointed out flaws in the published report. Uh, and before I forget it I was at Clean Water Services yesterday. I talked with uhm, Heidi is her name, uh, she has been to the property to observe it. Her thing and question, questioning her about it said it is a mighty beautiful sight that it should not be harmed. Uh, and also, uh, found out that uh, she was in, Mr. Frewing had been out and conversed with her about the same subject. Now, in as much, uh, that the ?? of what has been said by developer and others ? the project comes across clearly to us as roe owners the d r y property rry Y P P 1 downstream, that it is quite an obvious, that it is quite obvious that the old saying out of sight and out of mind is very true. Ash Creek and its wetlands has over the years, has, has given all of us homeowners many anxious times during winter and sometimes summer months when torrential rains cause much flooding in our, in our area. Over 35 years ago when I belonged to the CPO in the Metzger area, we got a report from the Corp of Engineers that SW 80`h being damned as it is and only with a 6 foot culvert under it and another one that is approximately 4 feet, both of them are below the actual level of the ground which means they have to go down in the hole to get through, that, but the Corp of Engineers told us at that time that there would be a half million gallons of water that uhm, collect there and I can believe it from the years that I've been there and seen it many times during the uh, during any given time in the summer. Now to give you a perspective of what a half million gallons of water looks like, is the fact that from east to west all of properties down there join up toward the creek for a distance from 80th to east and west is a distance of about 760 feet. That's about roughly four blocks distance if you consider 200 foot block. Now, and it's also approximately 100-200 feet wide where this water collects. And usually 3 feet plus high, especially if we get a torrential rain as, as this other fellow pointed out what's going to happen when you get torrential rains. I've talked to this individual and, and Dan talked to Engineering, I totally disagree with you that your retention pond is a sad case of what the other fellow brought out, is a collection of which ? will stock the water downstream. And the amount of??? uh because I've been there, seen it, it happens, and I'm still living there. Uh, when it is a live fish habitat, I've seen them on a regular basis. There's been studies made ? because I remember seeing the report and I know what it is to walk out my back door and go down to the creek and see live fish in it. A lot of times that, that water runs clear, other times it looks like, uh, chocolate drink that I wouldn't dare drink. We had case where ? sew, sewer actually September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 30 of 71 Exhibit Page 2' broke somewhere up around 72nd, 74th and you've never seen so many dead cla, crawfish and, and fish and ??? and the stench was horrific for a while. But let me go here. Uh...on the neighbor's property, the foot bridge, as I mentioned to you, shows 14 inches of silt build up on their ground, also, ? creek washout of the banks from out 4 feet to 8 feet wide. In other words the creek, when I moved onto it, was approximately four feet wide. You could jump across most any part of it. At the present time I can reach up to 8 more feet in any given area with undercutting on many of the banks. And that silt is what carries downstream. The first two months of this year the neighbors across from me, uh, from the position of my home which is 175 feet from this ? and had 3 feet of water on that surface in my backyard, uh, I watch as the bank cut ? another two foot off of his, uh, property, and the bank there is approximately 4 feet deep and about 30 feet of it went downstream because of the torrential flow of that creek when it gets a lot of water in it. Now, with uh, there neighbor's property uh, a lot of that undercutting is very distinctive and some of that vegetation, urn, blackberries, uh, some ivy, uhm, some scrub brush and a few trees is the only thing that slows water down in our ?? Needless to say it's going miles an hours anywhere above that. And the stage and the volume of water down in our area has increased tremendously as is shown by all the undercutting that is going on. Uh, even during the summertime, I have a pond on my place that I put in originally because you couldn't walk down there on, in property, and you can't now because of the silty dike and clay soil that you can sink two to three inches just in walking in during the wintertime when that is flooded. Uh...? Water retention we laugh at that project because we had five homes built that lines up with the neighbor's property. They put in a small retention pipe, I say small because it's 3 feet in diameter and about 50 feet long. ? was paved to the point where it would all come into drain uh, into that water retention pond. Well, it gets full, comes up goes down the road and originally when I put the road in, Hemlock Street for a distance of about 400 feet Washington County said well you want to pitch it the down to the north side of the road. I said no doing So uh, we had it graded so that there was a 18 inch water retention ditch against a 10 foot bank that carries a lot of that water from these homes and on down. And, so I get a double dose of water. 80th also I get flooded from along the west side of my place and I have proof of that because of 8 inches of rock built up the, due to the type of fence that I put in. Uh, and I've already explained that the 48 inch fence running east and west is already, is now 38 inches. Getting the ??? a good indication of all the silt that comes down our area. Now... Mayor Griffith: Are you about through sir? Mr. Goodding: Ya. Let me... Mayor Griffith: Would you hurry, hurry up a bit? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 31 of 71 Exhibit r Page Mr. Goodding: Let me hurry right on through this. Uh...This whole drainage area is tremendous in size. Now, uh, one of these conditions, we're very much aware of the situation uh, told you about uh, Clean Water Services...As an owner, builder and contractor for my house and property we were required to build not near the creek. Some cases it's 15 feet and like I say I'm 175 feet from it and still get water up to my back door within 8 inches of actually going in my basement. Two houses upstream has actually been flooded so that goes on and on. So I'm getting water from ?? and downstream. Uh I have noticed an awful lot of somebody not doing their homework in getting all the facts and figures on this whole total area, uh, because of some, some uh, special things that I want to bring out. Oh...? Was mentioned a little by Mr. Frewing, he calculated that 18 homes should not be placed due to the lay of the land. And I found with an altimeter which I checked off the area on Monday, uh, from on 72"d coming down Ventura Drive, there is a drop of 150 feet in just that short distance plus uh, ? could tell how far from the homes that is on that side adjoining the creek, probably would be another additional 25 uh, to 50 feet. So on the total quite a bit...on Barbara Lane uh, the, where it comes down to 74th, uh, from the high point there it drops 100 feet there, plus another 25 plus feet down to the end of the creek. Uh...third thing is ... well a good example of that if you just simply go to the end of 70"' and Locust ? Ventura Estates that's clearcut and these people over here told me that uh, they put in a pipe ? pipe 170 feet long, 6 feet in diameter with a 6 or 8 inch outlet ? and it all goes back into the creek to ?? uh, being in maintenance for 38 years ?? multimillion dollar plant, uh, operating, uh, to me that's nothing more than a huge hydraulic gun waiting for a disaster to happen if the end ever breaks out of that pipe. Uh there is another point here is a copy which is down there on the uh, down here on the desk. Uh fill planning to work in wetlands or waterways, fill and remove, removal purpose...uh, in 1967, several of those, the Oregon uh, Division of Lands states, insure that activities of one landowner does not adversely affect another, and also then minimize flooding improve water quality providing fish and wildlife. There's none of that's taken place as far as water retention for the majority of these areas. The other thing that I totally disagree with is right here on page 17 of your staff report, that in some of the adjustments that they talk about ? this place, it says ? grounding of adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the rights of another owner's property. And that's repeated on place, uh, and to other owner's of property surrounding the site. I had a comment from one of the people here in planning that when I told him they uh, the water retention thing he had wouldn't work, he let, wouldn't let me finish the thing. He said well how far do you live from him. Well, I live from, uh, approximately 80`h to uh, 74th where this is talking about, and so he says, well you're out of the, the area, so you're eliminated. That's a total insidious, uh, thing the state has granted that's total, uh, discrimination against any of us and civ, our civil rights and everything else violated in that respect. Uh, also, according to your statement on page 25, the proposed land ?? where development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability or other adverse on-sight and off-sight effects or hazards to life and property. That's as false as can be. Because at one point in time there was a September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 32 of 71 Exhibit Page ?.>' jam up on the six foot culvert, tied a rope around my waist, wife was anchoring me on ?? to keep me from going down the tube and ??? too, that too. I got that ?? and it was gone. That six foot uh...culvert, more than once I've seen it...going a half to three feet above. My lower level on my property is five foot below the highest part of 80th where it comes across there. So uh, I concur with all these individuals that this, there's not a lot not ? common sense, planning and a uh...situation, quite a few improper facts. With me being the recipient of it since 1947. I know whereas of I speak. And quite a ?? I think that the uh, I was also approached about money for this. I think that a lot of the people are correct, that it should be made into a park, uh, and City of Tigard had it in there hands to make it such because all of the reports that I read about not having money for parks on Bull Mountain Road, here you have a chance to do it and do the communities some ? Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Thank you very much. Barbara Talbot? Barbara Talbot? Don Manghelli? Sue Beilke? And after Sue has testified we're going to take a few minute break before we continue `cause it's 10:00 and we're obligated to break at 10, so...then, after, we've only got about four more people to go then rebuttal. So... Sue Beilke: My name's Sue Beilke, I live at 11755 SW 114th Place, and I wanted to start off by saying that uh, there's been a past good faith effort to purchase the Senn property and we'd like to proposed tonight that we make second attempt with the Council and the Mayor's support to try purchase property again, and the reasons are as follows: it's a very unique site, it's the largest cedar grove that we know of in the state. Uh...several people such as Mr. Frewing has submitted some evidence that he did quite a bit of research on this fact and we feel that that itself is very significant in that the entire site deserves to be protected just because of that. Also that those uh cedars, cedar was historically very important to native Americans and we feel that it'd be um, very important for the city to show that we can protect areas like that, that were culturally significant to native American tribes. Urn, I'm very concerned about some of the proposals that are part of this development. One is the cutting of over 400 trees on that upper slope where the houses would go. Um, there's several comments that are uh, made by city planners that also question that and the fact that they don't feel that urn, doing that would maintain the integrity of the site. I've looked at quite a few areas that are currently being developed such as on Bull Mountain or the base of Bull Mountain, urn, there's some sites in Portland, Mt. Scott, where they've done clearcutting of slopes like this and all of them have had severe erosion and severe problems, and in many cases it's the citizens that end up paying for the repair of the creek below, for example, there's a site right now, Bull Mountain, that the City has to fix and um, we're paying for it. So I don't think that's acceptable. I don't want to pay for that and that's going to happen on this site too. When you clear cut that large of an area and take off all the vegetation that creates the integrity of the site and protects the, what's remaining of the wetlands below, you can't, you just can't possibly save the area September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 33 of 71 Exhibit Page below, even though they say it's not going to have an impact, it'll have a great impact, and as I suggested, go look at some of the sites where that's been done and it can't be done as they say. You lose a lot of the wildlife habitat that's there, you have a lot of erosion in the creek, urn, you're going to increase the sunlight in that area and you just, you're just going to have great impacts. There's a site on Mt. Scott right now where they clearcut the slope above and left a nice patch of wetlands below, but all the ash trees that were left below are dying because the water's been diverted to the storm water pond and that water that used to flow in many ways down the slope isn't flowing to those trees, so you have to ask yourself, what are the cumulative impacts of all these developments. I think we need to look at not only this proposal but all of the work that's being done in the city and ask ourselves where do want to stop? What do we want to save? And my proposal is to save this site to work with the owners and to protect it for all the citizens that are here. And think that would be a much better plan than to clearcut the top slope. I could address a couple things that are in code and I won't go into all of it because it's already been very adequately addressed by other people. Uh, under 18.70 they talk about, it addresses sensitive lands and um, my argument that, as I just stated is that entire area is sensitive land, not just the area below, and in the staff report they went on to say that they drainageway will be slightly impacted by the crossing of 74th and there will be ? encroachment in the corridor, which I don't think is acceptable. Um, also that, there's quite a bit of development on steep slopes and um, I also don't feel that meets code, so I just based on that I don't think that ??should be approved. Um, I talked about trees and also the fact that when you remove that many trees, urn, you urn, create erosion and other problems and if you look at section 18.775 which again addresses sensitive lands it says the overriding stated purpose of this section is to maintain the integrity of the creek in Tig...creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining an enhanced water quality and fish and wildlife habitat by law we are directed to do that. And you need to of course look at how a proposal would or would not do that because my, my argument is that in this case it certainly doesn't. Um...?? I'll end, well I have one more thing to say. Um, there are large gaps of information missing from the application, urn, the staff report said there's at least 50 conditions that still need to be met and we haven't, I don't believe that those 50 conditions have been met adequately. I haven't heard or seen anything that they've been met. Urn...I want to talk about um, a couple things that I'm very concerned about and that's the fact that there's been some proposed changes in the overall development, like at the last, the beginning of the hearing last time, urn, they had said they could save a few trees, partly based on their concern of all of us, but you can't make any changes in this proposal. This, what you're, what you're listening to and what have to address as well as propose before the commission, so if there's changes going to be made or have been made to the staff or to you ? we can't you know, it has to be exactly as it was before the commission. So, that, that's my concern, so, if there are changes going to be made and the developer is saying well we can save some trees or maybe we'll save some trees, we can't address that because that, that was not done before the commission. Um, I also think there's a conflict of interest because this um, this engineering firm also works for the city and has worked for the city on different September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 34 of 71 Exhibit Page 77 — propo...on different projects and I see that as a great conflict of interest right there. So want to conclude by saying that I don't feel that urn, codes are being met. I think this space could be much better served by being protected. I think the integrity of the lower site is going to be greatly damaged and there's now way that you can clearcut that upper, that upper slope and protect what is supposed to be protected below because they're intimately tied together. The frogs that are in the creek spend a lot of time up above in the forested area, the forested wetland, they don't just stay in the creek and then there's, that's why they normally need a very large area. And there's so many, there's so much value to site right now that we feel that it really needs to be protected and ?? has an obligation to do that. Thank you. Mayor Griffith: Do you know right off the top of your head how much of this area will be undisturbed? Sue Beilke: Ur...Of the 9-1/2 acres or whatever it is, it's like 4. It's what they couldn't develop. Mayor Griffith: Okay. Ya. I... Sue Beilke: What's left is the creek and the buffer zone are required by law but there's no ?? Mayor Griffith: I'll ask the applicant. Thank you very much. Sue Beilke: You're welcome. Mayor Griffith: We're obligated by state to take a 10 minute break, so we'll be back in 10 minutes. Mayor Griffith: The next testimony is from Sandra Savage. Ms. Savage: I guess we're sharing...I'm first. We're sisters. Ok, I'm Sandy Savage, I live at 7301 SW Barbara Lane, about a half a block from the driveway to the Senn's property. Uh, my husband and I when we bought our property, the only buildable portion came with 11 mature cedar and fir trees. We um, measured the distances between those trees and then we designed and built a house ourselves to fit amongst them. Twenty-one years later, everyone of those trees still stands. Plus many more that we have planted. Besides their sheer beauty, they provide privacy, shade, habitat for animals, erosion control, cleaner air. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 35 of 71 Exhibit a Page y f III Sure we sweep the decks often and walk through a lot of spider webs but we don't mind the tradeoff. A neighbor of ours took out a huge tree in his front yard because it was messy, the next year had to put in air conditioning. So far this year we haven't had to do that, but we're kind of debating. Okay, I attended a talk a while back and learned something I wish to share. This information comes out of a handbook of water sensitive planning and designing, published 2002. Provided by Tom Little?, he's an environmental specialist with the Bureau of Environmental Services here in Portland. And I'm quoting: In a natural forested environment, almost half of our rainfall returns to the atmosphere. Unquote. And you have to think about that. How, almost half of the rainfall doesn't touch the ground. That means the rest is through evaporation and such. So in a forested environment, it's ?? the branches, the bushes, the grasses. In this proposed development, we're loosing 300-400 mature trees and underlying plants. The replacements are streets, driveways, sidewalks, patios and rooftops. I'm quoting again, "with developments we have more water that become runoff, we have less natural storage for it because we are putting less water into the ground. It is this groundwater that supplies our streams with water during summer dry periods." So...we have less groundwater, which means less water in the streams in the summer and which means we also have less water to um, provide for the trees that are still left there. Excuse me...I'm so nervous. (laughs) Okay, Portland averages 145 days a year of one inch or less rainfall. This 145 days amounts to about 810/0 of our annual rainfall. In a forested environment, no runoff occurs for storms up to .08 of an inch of rain. A developed area, runoff occurs every time for .01 of an inch of rain or more. The builder, according to his plans would be putting in two holding ponds. The same book that I've been quoting from addresses required stormwater detention facilities, ? ponds, tanks and vaults. It talks about a study over the last 20 years in the Puget Sound area. The hydrologist and engineer Douglas Bryerland(?) and Joseph Broger (?) who wrote about this, also did the designing and building setting the standards of detention ponds and in this article they said quoting we have failed. With development becomes increased winter flows, decreased summer low flows and a general degradation of our stream systems. We have failed as we're trying to replace the complex interactions of the hydrological cycle of the pond and it can't be done unquote. When I asked a Tigard city employee about the loss of habitat for the wildlife he scoffed at the idea that they were worth saving. Will the builder be catching and releasing animals in a new forest? Most likely the raccoons and opossums will be displaced and living beneath our decks until the streets eventually claim them. My sister attended a conference given by the architect for Bill Gates Lake Washington house. She did this about a year ago. She's sitting here. This architect said that when he is considering a job he asked to see the site. If trees were removed he turns the job down. It actually in a way takes away your creative process thinking and um, it takes more time, more skill, more innovation and more satisfaction to work with mother nature's trees. I'm in it because my husband and I did that. One thing I wanted to bring up in this is out, I picked it up six weeks ago, it's out in your front lobby. It's a little thing on sign infractions that you put up a sign um, on a utility pole in the wrong area the fine was $250, but if you take a tree down that you're not supposed to take down it's $500 after the fact. So you think about it...a piece of cardboard, September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 36 of 71 Exhibit Page �� $250, a mature tree $500 fine. It doesn't seem to be in line. Um....whatever's done with this property I think a boardwalk should be constructed so the ? plant life around the creek may be saved. Black Butte has a wonderful boardwalk example and there's also one locally around the area of Cornell and 158"' whereas the ??? (coughing) What about protecting the plant life such as the trillium in the area and I know this forested area it's pretty much like my mother's, there's just hundreds of trillium and I know they don't come up until springtime, so we're not going to see them if this is okay'd and they get in and bulldoze now. So I don't know what you do recovering that kind of stuff. And, let's see...in allowing this development to go through, the city gets 74th extended at the expense of the builder. The loss of upwards of 400 majestic climate tempering trees for 1-1/2 blocks of heat retaining blacktop just seems to be a really poor tradeoff. And lastly the one thing I wanted to say was uh, I had Mr. Frewing over before he left for Italy and he kind of dropped a bombshell on me. And he said that clean water services okay'd this project without a topographical map. The one they have is the one he provided them. So it's something to think about. Unknown whispering: You want me to hand these things ???? just one of these. Carol Paddock: I'm Carol Paddock, um, this is my sister and I lived with her for several years, um, close to this site. I now live at 5001 NE Mineral Springs Road in McMinnville. I have a degree in architecture and up until recently I had a small design drafting business. Sunshine is a basic requirement of living. It's absolutely necessary. It's as necessary as food, water, sewer, roads and parking. In fact it's more necessary than parking. Many of these proposed units will not see the low winter sun when solar access is most needed. Because the western red cedar trees, because of the western red trees immediately south. I think this is the controlling feature on this site and dictates consideration of an entirely different site plan. On page 14 of the original staff report, it says structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind direction where possible. Staff response, the majority of the lots are oriented in a north south direction providing for opportunities to maximize southern glazing exposure. Actually it's an east west orientation that allows greatest southern exposure. In this case however, homes running east to west on the north south lots would be bumping up against their 3 foot minimum side setbacks to maximize exposure. But actually the point is almost moot given the site layout. I have drawn for you three north south cross sections through the site to show you the relationship of sun and shadow through the year for the proposed development. I drew that on the topographical map and you see that in there where I made the section cuts. Three angles are shown in each section showing how sunlight will strike southern glazing throughout the year. The angles represent the summer and winter solstices and the spring and fall equinoxes at noon, the time of day with maximum sunlight. As you can see on section a, the western portion of the site gets little sun. Homes will see light in there homes only from some point in May to some point in August. This is a disaster. Section C of the September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 37 of 71 Exhibit .cQ Page `{ 3 eastern side of the site shows, depending on development some potential for better solar access. And Section B is a mi, mixed bag in the proposed scheme. For nearly half the year nine or more of these residences will not have sunlight in their homes. They will be shrouded with sunlight, that's zero sunlight for nearly half the year, the coldest half. The time when sunlight is most important. A few of the western most will lack sunlight for closer to nine months of the year. At least 15 will have no sun in their homes in the winter solstice. This is a major problem. Adequate solar access is critically important to the success of any development. ?? wouldn't mind being protected from the sun in the summer but that's not the way it works. These residences will be dark and cold and even depressing, using up inordinate amounts of energy for heating. And that's a shame given today's knowledge of passive solar. And that's the reason for this requirement. It isn't a little bit of fluff. It has everything to do with the livability of a home. I'm here to tell you every home built today should be a passive solar home. It's not a matter of gadgets, that's active solar, it's a matter of design following a few rules of orienting functions and materials in relation to sunlight. But there's no opportunity for that for many of the homes planned for this site. These homes will be dismal. I think people who buy these homes in the summer will be sorry they did so in winter. Just as home buyers rely on the city's use of building codes to ensure sound building practices, so do they expect access to a reasonable amount of sunshine. And again, that's what this requirement is all about. So the solar requirement has not been met unless all other options to improve this situation are impractical. That's not the case. If you look at the east, if you look at the eastern and central cross section you'll see that sunlight does get to the northeast and north central portion of the site under this development plan. It is my opinion that the only way to save this project is to confine development to this portion of the site along the north edge. Grouped clustered attached and multi-family planned development options are and have been available to the application and are meant exactly for site situations such as this so the potential is a practical one. The City should ask the applicant to reconfigure the site plan to take advantage of the only realistic sun exposure on the site or show why it is impractical to do so. I've done a quick less than bare bones sketch, that's the last page, to show you that it is practical. If I were given this project, that's where I would focus my attention. The shade casting trees in the cross section of the drawing is approximately 77 feet tall which is a conservative height over the life of these long living trees. These trees can reach great height under favorable conditions as noted in the 3 sour, sources included in this packet. And those are separate actually from your stapled packet. One might argue that the final height of these trees precludes practical solar access on any part of the site. But in that case I would argue the full height of these trees will likely be reached long before the life of these homes, long after the life of these homes being planned here today and so is not a relevant issue. Furthermore, a more thorough site analysis should show offsite solar access available from the east and southeast and from the south and the southwest area, southeast area of the site where the tree protection area is much thinner. In any event an expert should make this determination and the applicant should be required to show how it is not practical if they feel that is the case. In spending time with the topography map I made a few additional observations I think you should know about. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 38 of 71 Exhibit _) Page L/L/ Only about 15 feet of the southern portion of the non setback or buildable area of lot 28 is flatter than the 25% slope. That's a 15 foot by less than 40 foot building area according to the preliminary plat map. Lots 14 and 22 are similarly constrained. Significant areas and slopes of over 25%. And further in terms of slopes, lots 13, 23, 25 and 29 would be a real challenge to any skilled designer. The entire area of lot 14 appears to be a natural drainage swale. As is more than half of lots 22 and 23. Does the city have plans to control the physical characteristics of these areas or will private... (Tape side 7 ends) (pause...speaker waits for City Recorder Wheatley to turn tape over) (Begin tape side 8) Or will private owners be allowed to strip protective covers from drainageways willy-nilly sending sediments and run off into the waterway and properties downstreams. Drainageways should be protected and not left to private hands. The 25% slope boundary line is not shown on the preliminary plat map. Although it is listed in the legend. That's an important missing item. I did not proof Mr. Frewing's work, but where our work did overlap which is on the three section cuts, our results are consistent. I think he's done accurate work. I don't think you should brush off those areas of over 25% that have somehow ?? If it is demonstrated that Clean Water Services has overlooked something, or was given insufficient information, the city should send this back to Clean Water Services. I'm astonished to hear that the City feels it must accept erroneous by Clean Water Services. I also wanted to point out that it's easy to find where the 25% slope ends on the topography map. And I've included this note on each of these urn, the second to the last note on each of the cross section, the topography map, the large sized one is one inch equals 40 feet, so and the topography lines are at one foot increments, so if you take a ruler and just go along with an inch, if there are more ten topography lines in that inch, then you have over 25% slope. I feel that any decision to site future extension of 73rd Street is premature. Since it would serve only this site and the site to the north and not serve as a thru-street it could be quite flexible in physical characteristics. The site to the north, Mrs. Gates' property is a lovely rurally developed site with fruit trees, berries, and other wonderfully, wonderful community amenities. Indeed Mrs. Gates shares them already. Any bi-section of this site with the street prohibits its future development as a unit locating the street with no consideration of the existing trees and amenities on the site is also limiting and presumptuous. The future designer should be the decision maker as to whether the site should be fragmented or whole and how that will happen. I don't see a need for the ? to be so rigidly designated at this time limiting the potential of the northern site. Similarly I don't see a need at all for 74th Street to be connected. Although I've heard that their explanation that it's been on the books and now it's time to do it, to put it through, I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation specific to the need for this extension. Winding streets, winding streets which simply serve this neighborhood are one of the defining characteristics of this neighborhood. Connecting the street through will increase traffic, increase speeds since it is quite sloped and damage the September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 39 of 71 Exhibit Page i4 5 creek and wetland. The area already serves pedestrian access and could and should be modestly developed in that direction. And that would be a benefit without any of the negatives I've mentioned. At any rate, if you allow this street to push through, why not make it a bridge instead of a culvert? It's better for the creek, the wildlife, the sediment problem, erosion problem. Furthermore, the extension of 74th Street, extending 73rd Street and adding excess to the Senn property ? create for the first time in this neighborhood of winding streets, a traditional block out of Mrs. Gates' property to the north. This is out of character with the neighborhood. This for one side is rurally developed and another ? natural that the city itself wanted to make it a park. However, ?? in keeping the character of the neighborhood. There must be some city code which addresses this. Also, not leaving any buffer of trees along Mrs. Gates' property puts her trees at substantial risk of windfall. I think the site history section on page 18 of the staff report is incomplete and I think you should too. Neighbors, Metro, conservation groups and the city worked to buy this property as open spaces for the community. I think the city should insist on an investigation into the causes and influences that made the efforts of time and money by so many people in vain. My opinion as to what really should happen with this property is that it should be protected so that it continues to function as it does now. Clean water and air protecting sites downstream from runoff and erosion, serving the public as open space for recreational, spiritual and education ?? I think this effort should be tried again. If the family follows through with their threat to clear cut, possibly in lieu of residential development, it would significant reduce, significantly reduce the value of the site in terms of environmental functions, public interest and actual resale dollars. And nobody wins. There still may be an opportunity for everyone to win. Finally I want to show you what can happen when trees above slopes are clearcut. The pictures that I submitted were taken in 1996 on my mother's property just west of the City of Lafayette. The sunny year from when a relatively flat strip of land above the property was clearcut we suffered two landslides on her property. The pictures show different angles and the dog gives a sense of scale. She's about a two foot dog at it's back. And I wanted to thank Morgan Tracy who isn't here for spending urn, his time with us before the last portion of this meeting last week. Me and my sister. Thank you very much. Mayor Griffith: Any questions? Thank you very much. Uh Mike Shkolnik? Y Q Y rY , Mike Shkolnik: Good evening. Mayor Griffith: Good evening. Mike Shkolnik: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 40 of 71 Exhibit Page Li l I'm Mike Shkolnik, 7025 Ventura Drive. And I'm very antsy about these variance. Uh, specifically the one about lot size as some people have already talked about. This would effectively allow them to rezone the area without changing the zoning which I didn't think was legal, but apparently it is in some cases, uh and I would actually like the question, what criteria is used to determine whether or not an area will be rezoned without changing the zoning laws. Dick Bewersdorff: It's not being rezoned. A planned development allows a PD overlay and allows the developer if approved by the Council and Planning Commission to mix lot sizes. It's not being rezoned. It allows a mixture of lot sizes, an averaging of lot sizes as long as they don't go over maximum density. Mike Shkolnik: The effect, the end result though is that it is rezoned because you have homes there that don't meet the zoning code. Dick Bewersdorff: No that's not correct. Mike Shkolnik: Uh, you and I disagree on that point, but thank you. Um, so in any case, uh, I still didn't get an answer to the question. What criteria is used to determine, obviously they have to go through an approval process, that's what we're here for right now. If they didn't have any variance, we wouldn't be here, right? So, what criteria is used to determine whether or not the variance will be granted in any given case? Let's speak generally. Urn, what criteria is used? Dick Bewersdorff: It's not a variance. Bill Monahan: I think the, to get to your question if you're asking what's the criteria that applies to this application then they can recite again what the planned development criteria is. If you're asking us what the criteria is for, for rezone, there is not a rezone, we can't answer that question because that's not what's being applied for. So do you want an answer to the question about what the criteria is that applies to this application? Mike Shkolnik: Okay, go ahead. Bill Monahan: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 41 of 71 Exhibit c) _ Paor• LI 7 There you go. Dick Bewersdorff: They, actually all the criteria that are listed in the review process, the applicant must meet everyone one of those criteria. We try to do that with conditions of approval. If they meet all those conditions of approval, they will meet the, the standard. Mike Shkolnik: And... Dick Bewersdorff: That's normal whether it's a planned development or it's a standard subdivision. There's not one standard, there's not one criteria that deals with drainage, that deals with, urn, slopes, that deals with the entire gamut of what's in the code. Mike Shkolnik: Okay so the code can be broken if other code is met? I'm a little confused about that. Dick Bewersdorff: It's not broken, no. It's not the way the process works. Mike Shkolnik: Okay. Um, if, probably you don't have time to list those criteria for me right now then.??? Dick Bewersdorff: ? at the beginning of the meeting and in the staff report. Nick Wilson: Well, let me just give an example. I have the code here. And one of the, one of the adjustments is the street, the length of the street. And just reading right out of the code, adjustments for street improvement requirements by means of a type 2 procedure is governed by section blah blah blah. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements based on findings that the following criteria is satisfied. 1. Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on the existing development on a proposed development or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the director shall determine that potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. That's and example. Mike Shkolnik: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 42 of 71 Exhibit Page 4_4k Thank you. I'll go with that example and say that um, I, I think that that would be detrimental to the area, and um, as per what you just read, though, though I'm specifically speaking of the lot size. I'm less familiar with issues of street length. Uh, but the lots in the area simply are not that small. I mean, uh, everybody knows that. It's, the proposal proposes that we have lot sizes that are too small next to much larger lots. And it would be detrimental to the area, urn, if indeed, they, they went with the code, with minimum 7,500 square feet, they could build still, I think somebody had done the research and found they could still build 23 houses on that lot and be within code and not have to get a variance, so I'm confused as to why we would consider granting them a variance when they can build within the, the 20-31 houses that was spoken of earlier. And not break the code. And not be detrimental to the area. And not change the face of the neighborhood. So I would say let them go and regroup and come back with a new proposal uh, for 23 houses that doesn't break that code. And I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with this land being developed. I just don't want to see these tiny little lots with all the trees cut down. Um, I mean all the existing houses have trees between them 'cause they're not on tiny lots. So....that's uh, that's about all I have to say. Mayor Griffith: Thank you. Mike Shkolnik: Any questions? Thanks. Mayor Griffith: We have two... City Manager Monahan: Oh but uh, Mr. Mayor, before we go to the neutrals, uh, we have an understanding there might be at least one individual who came after the sign up sheet. He wants to speak in opposition. Did you want to take further ... Mayor Griffith: Sure...sure... City Manager Monahan: ...opposition before the neutrals? Mayor Griffith: Sure. Anybody else to speak in opposition before we go to the two neutrals? Speak now or forever hold your peace. City Manager Monahan: Who told me? Was it you? September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 43 of 71 Exhibit Page 14 Cj City Recorder Wheatley: Uh huh (yes). Mayor Griffith: You want to speak in opposition? City Recorder Wheatley: No..(laughs) Mayor Griffith: Well if nobody's speakin' in opposition, then I'll go to the two neutral people. Uh, Jack Morrison followed by Jack Lyon. Are either of them here? Unknown: Just a second. Jack Lyon: I've been here. Jack Lyon. Uh, I'm going to defer my comments to your opening statements A.B.C. and I applaud your patience. Mayor Griffith: Okay. And Jack Morrison? Okay. That bein' the case, then uh, is there anybody else other than the applicant wishing to make a statement? If not, may, I would appreciate the applicant rebuttal, Walter Knapp and uh, Greg Kurahashi. City Manager Monahan: Mr. Mayor, as they're getting set up, I want to make sure that each of you receives a copy of the, it's not a color copy, but it's the information that was submitted by one of the speakers, uh, Carol Paddock, so that's for Council. And then, also we have Dick, uh, started to give you earlier, copies of a September 3, 2003 from Steve Kay of Kurahashi and Associates and this is to be considered as rebuttal and might be what you guys are going to be working from, is that correct? That's correct. City Manager Monahan: And, thank you, and then finally there is...oh, I guess that's, that's it. I thought there were two. Er, is this a different set? City Recorder Wheatley: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 44 of 71 Exhibit Page 30 City Manager Monahan: Oh I'm sorry. Can we get copies of that? We also have a letter dated September 9 from Greg Kurahashi and attached to that I guess is from Walter Knapp, an Ash Creek Estates Tree Species Composition. And do we have copies of this that we can make available to the public, folks that are here? Is this new information or is this ....information that's already in the record? It's new information. City Manager Monahan: It's new information. I certainly can make copies. I just, if I could get this done before I start taking.... City Manager Monahan: Okay, no that's fine. Just trying to make clear what, what everybody has. And uh, with that... ?/ Oh I'm I'm sorry but I have one more that I didn't put in the packet ??? City Manager Monahan: And do you have multiple copies of that? Yes I do. And this was a sanitary sewer, and the sanitary uh, garbage people giving us appropriate ? along with ??? City Manager Monahan: Okay, do you want to give that to us so we can make copies for the public, and while that's happening I've just been handed the ... another set of information that's not identified...Sue Beilke, did you drop this off? And this is from the testimony you gave? Correct? So, what I'm handing you with the photographs on it is part of the opponent's testimony from uh, Sue Beilke. Correct? Okay. I think you've got all the paper that we've received. Alright. Getting close to all the papers... Here are two copies of al... September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 45 of 71 Exhibit Page 5/ Thank you. This, this was handed to you.... Okay. City Manager Monahan: Okay, this is the solid waste provider letter that was just handed to us by Mr. Kurahashi. Mr. Kurahashi: Should I state my name and information? My name is Gregory Kurahashi of Kurahashi and Associates who are the civil engineers and planners on this project. And I also want to introduce Walter Knapp, he's the certified arborist that has been working on the project with us and we're going to have three sections of our presentation. Basically, uh, Walter will be talking about the tree issue, I'll be talking about general technical issues related to the engineering design of the project and then uhm, Dale Richards will come in and talk about some of the issues regarding the summary of information that we've been provided and the summary of the overall situation ? and what's proposed. So uh, Walter if you can start about trees... Mr. Knapp: I'm Walt Knapp, 7615 SW Dunsmuir, Beaverton, Oregon, 97007. And thanks for your patience, I'd like to make this as brief as possible and respond to any questions you might have afterwards. I'd like to refer to the handout that you have called Ash Creek Estates Tree Species Composition at the top, looks something like that. There's been a lot of discussion about the unique characteristics of the tree stand at Ash Creek. It is a beautiful stand of timber and uh, it also has some characteristics that have been, I would say, misrepresented, and if you look at the species composition of the stand, 60% of the species are western red cedar. The remaining 40% are comprised of other species including Douglas fir and various hardwood species. The Society of American Foresters which is the definitive body on uh, describing forest stands defines a pure stand as principally, composed principally of one species conventionally at least 80% based on numbers, spatial areas or volumes. So this stand is a mixed stand and that's very common for western red cedar. Western red cedar rarely appears as a pure stand. And I'll show you on the map here in just a little bit that uh, there are patches within the stand that are pure western red cedar, small groupings, but there is not a pure stand of western red cedar. Also the species itself is not a rare species in this area. It's the only uh, cedar that occurs within this greater metropolitan area. As a, as a natural species. It was pointed out at the first hearing, first portion of the appeal hearing that the upland portion of the site has been logged. I'm going to pass out a map, or actually walk around and show you September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 46 of 71 Exhibit a Page 5a the differences in species composition to reflect that. In fact, Greg you might want to show that to, so they can get a better look at the closeup of the stand. City Manager Monahan: Mr. Knapp, could you also figure out how you can turn that so the public who is here can be able to see it? Thanks. ?» City Manager Monahan: Well ya... Mr. Knapp: We'd like, we'd like to show it to the uh, Mayor and Council first so that we can, because it's a little difficult to see otherwise. That's a good idea. Mr. Knapp: And what you'll note that the upland portion of the site has a different color, the diff...let me point out that the dark green coloration is western red cedar. And you'll note the concentration of the western red cedar in the lower portion of the site on the slopes and in the riparian areas along the stream. The upper portion of the site is heavily dominated by broadleaf species, by deciduous species, and also has a pretty good composition of Douglas fir. The species, the broadleaf species in the upper portion of the site are those that typically come in after disturbance. We already said the site was logged. Uh, red alder for example comes in after a disturbance. Also the cherry, urn, big leaf maple to a great extent. I think this represents the, the ecological history of the area. Uh, the upper portion has been logged. It's not a pristine site. The lower portion has had minimal impact, it's not been logged. Uh, at least to any great extent. Certainly much less than the upper portion. And it has a very different species composition as a result. So if you're looking at the species, you look at the second table that I provided you...in the upland portion of the site, it's half and half. Cedar and other species. In the slopes and in the riparian, 69% of the trees are cedars and 31% are other species, so heavily dominated by cedar in the slopes and riparian. Much different. The slopes and riparian are not being disturbed, not being logged, not being clearcut, not being developed under this proposal. If you look at the next column down in that table, it says acres. In the upland area 5.1 acres and that is the developed portion of the site. 4.3 acres in the slopes and riparian. That represents 46% of the site is not being disturbed or developed. We also looked at the amount of, number of big trees that are on the site. Kind of a threshold that we looked at was 3 feet in diameter. That's a big tree. There are a total of September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 47 of 71 Exhibit a. Page 22 trees larger than, than uh, 36 inches, 36 inches or larger on the site. Fifteen of those are not being cut. Seven will be cut as part of the development. In other words, 68% of the, of the really big trees are being retained, so I wanted to characterize this site as not being a clear cut proposal by anybody, not being a uh, stand that is pristine in any way, and also characterizing the differences between the uplands and the slopes and riparian areas as being very different with regard to the species composition. So that's the main, main thing that I want to emphasize and I'd be happy to respond to your questions. Mr. Kurahashi: Shall I turn this around? City Manager Monahan: Do you want him to repeat it so that they public can .... Councilor Moore: I think it's only fair. ?????????? City Manager Monahan: Would you please repeat your presentation so now the public can view what you're showing. Well it would help if Mr. Kurahashi is over there pointing out the same trees. Mr. Knapp: Good idea. The main point that I am trying to make with regard to the stand is that it is not a pure stand. it has a heavy composition of species other than western red cedar. In fact the western red cedar represents 60% overall species composition on the site. Furthermore if you look at the upland areas vs the slopes and riparian, cedar is only half of the species compositor vs almost 70%, 69% in the slopes and riparian. So, what we're seeing is a very distinct difference between the upland species composition and the slopes and riparian areas. Furthermore the acreage that uh, is in the upland area, 5.1 acres vs 4.3 in the slopes and riparian, and, that's a fairly substantial portion of the area, 40, 46% of the area is basically undisturbed under the proposal. Regardless of whether we're talking about the uplands or the slopes and riparian, based on the criteria by the Society of American Foresters definition, this is not a pure stand. To be a pure stand it would have to have at least 80% species composition of western red cedar. I also wanted to point out that uh, cedar is not a rare species in this area, it's fairly common and uh, the upland portion of the site is not pristine, it has been disturbed by logging as represented by the species composition that's come in as a result of disturbance. One final point that I didn't make initially is with regard to wind throw. That was not any particular concern, it was mentioned tonight. But, it's not a species that's especially vulnerable to wind throw September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 48 of 71 Exhibit a Page 54 except in boggy areas and swampy areas. Urn, so, I'd be happy to respond to any questions. Mr. Kurahashi: Did you want to mention the big tree issue also? Mr. Knapp: Ya, I did mention the large trees, total of 22 trees that are 36" in diameter or larger uh, all but one of those trees are western red cedar. The other is a Douglas fir. 68% of those trees or 15 are being retained under the proposal and 7 would be removed. The large ones are being ??? the large ones are being taken as far as the development ??? Mr. Kurahashi: He said urn, how many was was in the development? Seven? And 15 in the safe area. So there's 15 in the safe area, and 7 in....develop?? so there's more being saved. Right. Mr. Kurahashi: Also, the largest ???? ?????????? But that's in the wetland area. The ones that are being saved, correct? The hearings structures going to work here. We...we have this kind of .... City Manager Monahan: We need to have Mr. Kurahashi ex, uh, direct his comments to the Council and the questions come through the Council to Mr. Kurahashi. Councilor Dirksen: I have a question uh, in your, in your written statement here. Urn, it was in the one that's the responses to Mr. Frewing's comments. Uh, under the statement that uh, Mr. Frewing made a statement that sensitive land and vegetative setbacks are not observed. It says here as required the applicant has met with Clean Water Services to determine the proper setbacks between the proposed development and the sensitive lands and wetlands. The required setbacks have been provided with this application. Urn, the way that's phrased, it sounds like you met with Clean Water Services and you, and, determining the setback line was a cooperative effort. Is that correct? My, my initial impression was that you September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 49 of 71 Exhibit Page 55 produced a topographical map showing the setback and, and gave that to Clean Water Services to either approve or deny. Or is this statement would imply that it was kind of cooperative, you arrived at .... Mr. Kurahashi Both of those are so. They're both correct. The first submittal that we made was completely done by ourselves. We went and did that on the site and then after that we did have a meeting with Clean Water Services, I haven't had the chance to tell you about on the site to define where the setbacks were. Councilor Dirksen: And what were the results of that meeting? Mr. Kurahashi I should start from the beginning if I can on that. Councilor Dirksen: It's an important issue to me. Mr. Kurahashi Yes, please, okay. Uh, what we did initially was, we went to the site with, I first did a topographic map of the whole site, showing where all the trees were on the site. When we shoot a topographic map on the site, usually we pick up the breaks in grades and all the trees on the site. But the trees themselves can affect how the grading comes out because they are located on areas that might be a little higher or some much in, in holes, so they could affect the overall grading to the site. So therefore they might not show a completely accurate topog to the overall area. We use that topog thought, with breaks and grades that they, that our surveyors pick up in the field to put together a topographic map that was sent to Clean Water Services Off of that map we didn't simply use the grading and slopes of the, of the area. What we did was, was we went to the site, the Eldridges? and myself. We took what we call a, uh, smart level, it's about a four foot level with a digital display on it. The display tells us what the slope of the ground is, in digital form. We then took a ten foot board, laid in on the ten foot, straight edge board, slid is across, against the ground, tried to pick a representative area that was in fact representative of the rest of the area in terms of slope. As we pushed it on the ground, we broke a 25% grade and got less than 25% . It was actually very easy. The reason it's very easy because the site actually has a physical breaking grade a certain place, such that we can actually see it, so we just slipped it up there until we got the 25% grade to change to 24 and at that point we put a, a stake in the ground at the lower end of that board and we tie, tied blue ribbon around it. The reason we did that was we would want, we wanted Clean Water Services, Heidi Burke to come out and look at everyone of these stakes and make sure that she could agree that those were representative of the areas. So that's what September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 50 of 71 Exhibit Page ? ';, we did. We did this in about 10 or 15 places on the site. We were real concerned about being considerate, as having ? specific places that were flat, so we did this throughout the site in more places than was required by code because we, code requires a spot 60 feet on centers and we were going wherever we needed to try and get closer. And any place in there looks like we had a problem. So we did that. We tied all these ribbons around the area and then I talked to Heidi and said Heidi, can you come up, make an appointment so we can go ahead and enter these ? and she was busy at the time, she could not come out. We didn't end up doing it, so she then made the decision based on what we had given her and she did that basically because there was so many points and so many grades and so much information and we indicated with round circles, again, what the 25 foot, the 50 foot diameters, the 25 foot diameters and where 15 foot was and where the stakes were that we were gonna, telling here we've got it here, come take a look at it. So she felt pretty comfortable, we weren't trying to change anything or ? I guess and we ended up, she, she ended up accepting that information that we had put together. And again, she, she's right now, 8 months pregnant so I don't think she would have too good of time on those slopes at that point in time. And, and, 1, and as it was, urn, that's where we ended It, she accepted the information ?? she's had these situations where she has come out of course to look at it, and um, found our information to be valid. So I guess she trusts a little bit on that issue and uh, and that's where we ended it. Uh, we were very willing and wanted her to come out because we knew it would be a difficult situation, plus, to feel comfortable with the information we gave her. We did a good enough job that we felt that it would hold up without any problems, so that's what we did. Then what happened after that uh, they, the, because of a, the, the information that was given to them by the uh, by people uhm, who were against the project, and, and in the audience, they decided to go ahead and send somebody out. So they sent out um, Collin MacLaren, who just transferred to them from DSL uh, went to them from work from DSL. He used to be the coordinator for the DSL ?? that we're doing ??? for a permit process. Anyway, Collin knew the project, came out to us, came out with me to every place that the stake was there and we did exactly what we had done previously. We checked to see if it was representative of the area, he then, we did ?? the, uh, the smart level and recreated all of the information that we had uh, put on our drawings to within a foot or two. Of all the slopes in the areas that were proposed. We also looked around to see whether or not we were perpendicular to the slope which is required to make this determination and whether or not from our drawings we looked like we were doing the right thing in terms of the 15 foot, the 50 foot dimension, the 25 foot dimension and then the 15 foot required flat spot, less than 25%. At the top you have to add to the overall normal buffer. That's their geotechnical allowance uh, for a flat spot that has to occur above that point. We did all that and after that he said he would write a letter, but I, I'm, I'm afraid that he would, he must have got too busy 'cause it didn't' come out there. I asked him for the letter, I'm not sure that he said he would. But ?? asked him for a letter so we'd had confirmation of that. But at this point in time unless you got a letter, I know nothing that has come out of that situation. Other than the fact there was a confirmation with that meeting that he agreed with everything that we had shown. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 51 of 71 Exhibit Page 5`l Councilor Dirksen: After having done that, did you compare that to your original setback line and did you have to make any adjustments to... Mr. Kurahashi: Absolutely. Absolutely no, uh, adjustments were made because every point that we checked matched what we had proposed for that exactly what we had shown on the drawings. Councilor Dirksen: Thank you. Mr. Kurahashi: Okay, uh, now I'd like to go through the comments that I would want to make relative to the uh, statements with, that were made urn, uh, by the uh, public. Starting off with storm detention. Storm detention has been provided on the site in diagrammatic form. But since the original, original study have begun, we've done quite a bit of additional analysis and have done the sizes of the two facilities and know approximately what they will be. Uh, we've got about 4,000 to seven, about 4,000 square, cubic feet of storage for the north area between 4,000 to 7,000 is what we can actually produce in the, in the facility that we have on the north side. On the south side we have about 100 feet long and the reason, and 36 inches in diameter and the reason is so small is we directed everything but the roadway and two of the lots to the upper facility and uh, in doing that we uh, then were able to create one big one that drained all of our site, plus water that's coming from above the site, about '/s acre drains our way from a break, but then goes ? toward ?? from the undeveloped properties. So we've taken care of all the water, developed detention facilities ? Clean Water sent...standards. And also provided for water quality. And water quality doesn't mean just letting it sit in a pond and letting it drain. What it means that before we put it in a pond we have a water quality manhole, it's a trapping device for oils and sediment, has a four foot bottom in it and is sized specifically for the size of area that's being drained by it. It then provides for, similar to what you have in a parking lot where there are trap catch basins but much much bigger. This water quality manhole allows water to settle in the, the first two feet of it with oil and then the rest of the water goes up through, a, a spout and out of the line, that every, also has a large sediment trapping capability so if there is dirt or gravel coming off the roadways it's trapped in this manhole. After this manhole, which is just a heavy load, it goes through a wastewater management filter. This device in the only thing that's accepted by the City of Portland other than bio, uhm, bio treatment of water. And we uh, we've had things like downstream defenders and stormwater uh, uh, storm scepters and a whole bunch of things that have failed, have failed to make the test right now. They're still trying, but down shoot defender has sent information to the City of Portland it may be acceptable but the only thing right now that is acceptable is the device that we're using. And it is being used September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 52 of 71 Exhibit 0) Page 56 by uh, Tigard as a regular device in their public improvement projects. We also could have used the swale but because of the, bioswales, but because the area is so limited in terms of grading and we have to stay out of the urn, the, the urn buffer area, we don't have the gradients to try to put one in, in the area that's left. 'Cause it has to be down below whatever we create and the lowest thing on our public improvements is the road itself. And right next to it is an area that's not, that we don't want to get into because it is uh, a public buffer area for Clean Water Services. So anyway, that's the treatment that goes on. It just doesn't run off the land and it doesn't add oil in it by the time it's gets there because we reduce the sediment and remove all of that. The advantage for the detention site also is they provide extra sediment control because they store so much water that they allow during smaller storms the settlement of, of, of materials out of that area. (Tape side 8 ends) (pause...speaker waits for City Recorder Wheatley to turn tape over) (Begin tape side 9) So as far as water quality that is the way we take care of it. Ah, the comment was made that storm detention only provides ability for the water to be metered out. So therefore we knock down the peaks. We don't completely remove the water. And there is also a situation that we cannot, at this point find, um. Say it's draining into the ground again, so there is a hydrology balance or a situation where we've got to be dry up the ground from the standpoint of water in certain areas. We can, in fact discharge some of the water out of the back of the site. Ah, again, there was a concern of that. We haven't proposed that at this time. The only reason it wasn't proposed is because it's not normal for the cities and jurisdictions to accept that. An we have to be normal ? a presentation at this stage. If it is something that would is be acceptable, we can actually put some of the water back on the ground from the roofs of the buildings carefully so it doesn't create any, um, problems, but we have to be very careful about how much we put in ??? and we've done it before. On some sites where we had meadow, meadow grass wetlands we actually discharged water back onto the ground so we could get it ready now for the grass that was growing there. Ah, as far as the CWS site visit and the approved buffer. Again, we've gone through that with them completely. We've also had DSL confirm our wetland delineation location without any changes. So we've got the two agencies covered relative to those issues. I'm sorry, I have to go back to storm drainage one more time. There were comments that also were made regarding the fact that our storm drainage is not, ah, not complete and we don't know what the size of the culvert. Right now the City of Tigard is the only people that don't know the size of the culvert. Because we had to present that to, ah, DSL and the Corps of Engineers to get their permit, permitting done. And the only we haven't submitted to the city at this point in time is because we felt that it was a technical issue September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 53 of 71 Exhibit . Page 4? that had to be submitted with our final design. And right, and we don't usually size that portion of the facility for Tigard proposals. Ah, we had to size it not only for fish passage, which means that the overall bottom of the culvert is, is ah filled with native materials, but also it's one foot deeper than the channel water exposed to it now. We also had to keep the velocities down so that we wouldn't scour the lower channel. So the velocity of the channel was made, made the actual culvert build bigger. We had to protect the upstream area from 100 year flooding, because we can't flood into those backyards. So we made it wider and deeper. It's I believe five by ten, where the existing culvert is like a thirty inch culvert at this point in time. And so that what was done in terms of creating a fish passage line. DSL ask me "Corps of Engineer modified it?" Put in gravel where we proposed some concrete, um, urn aprons at the front and back of this, of the ah, facility, and now is all gravel within two wing walls on the opposite side. So they were fully involved in it. Told us a lot about what they wanted to see and we've done those things to get ready for the permitting of that. Also one real critical issue was several people have mentioned bridges. We have convinced DSL and the Corps of Engineers and everybody else at this point that the reason we don't want to put a bridge in because of catastrophic danger over thirty inch, thirty to thirty-six inch water line is underneath it. Think of this, you have an open structure bridge that covers your line, and your line right now can be replaced `cause it comes on the right-of- way underneath the bridge structure. That breaks, anywhere close to either the foundation of the bridge or underneath the bridge. You can get to it. You physically can't remove it because there's not enough clearance for you to do that. You have to take the bridge deck off. You have to remove the line. This happens to be the main feeder line for the City of Tualatin. It goes through this 74th Avenue, down the middle of the street, and ah they're getting a replacement line added to that, but I believe it's the only major feed right now. So what we said is the best thing to do for that issue would be to put a culvert in because you can dig around the line without disturbing the creek. 'Cause you can go in the area where it actually is behind the wing walls and into the area where there is no water. You can ? and get in there without disturbing the creek and ??? to it. If it actually blew up, it would actually wash the area around the other ? side of the bridge, cause a lot damaged to the bridge itself and be very difficult to repair in a short period of time. So we felt that it was a lot safer and a lot better that we had it under the culvert section rather than under a bridge structure with as low clearance as this bridge would have. So, we proposed it and at this point it's acceptable to the city and, and to um, the City of Tualatin and also to DSL and the Corps of Engineers. So that's why we proposed that section, besides the fact that from the standpoint the overall, uh, crossing point, uh, ?? a bridge at that point with vertical curve that we'd have to do to get sight distance and controls would have been very difficult. Bridges are good for flat areas: they're really not good for vertical curve that is, ah is very, very steep on both sides. Ah, so ? that's what was done in terms of this storm drainage and you should be fine ?? on drainage. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 54 of 71 Exhibit Page ��:�? And, ah the comments regarding individual things that people brought up, I'll go through them as I go through my presentation. These are just general comments that I prepared before, ah, we got started. Ah, sanitary service letter, providing for garbage service, I've given you a copy of that so you can have it and we got that, today's the ninth, we got it today. So I'm, ah, pass it out to you. Ah, we have two proposed conditions that mentioned to you last week regarding putting in a buffer, and I've heard today that I might not have been right in giving you to that, that, so I can retract that if, if it's a problem. But anyway, two conditions were, and I'll read them for the public, um, if I can find that copy, [rustling papers], the two conditions were: that applicant, if approved would install, the project is approved would install, will install an evergreen hedge of Leyland cypress along the north property line of lots one through ten, and the eastern property line of lots ten through twelve. That's number one. Number two, the applicant will not cut any healthy trees within the designated open space tract. Furthermore, the applicant will, shall not cut any healthy trees in the preservation of lots one through eighteen, which shall be defined as an area of at least fifteen feet from the rear of the building footprints. However, if the arborist determines that the trees in these area are dead, diseased or pose, pose a safety hazard, then the applicant shall remove the effected trees from those areas. These are not the buffer areas that are required by CWS. These are the extra areas that ? propose on our drawings to be additional buffers that were, re, re, ah, to be kept in an open space tract, for the benefit of the homeowner's association. Behind ??. It would be an open space ? still on the lots, but it be basically kept from being built on in that area. Um, the, those are the conditions I that wanted to go through, now, if I can go one by one with the people who had brought up information and issues, I'd like to go ahead and respond to them. First of all, there was a question, ah, there was a comment regarding Ventura Drive and speed limits on, ? Ventura Drive. It is very true that people drive faster speed limits. That happens on every street in the Portland area. I have never found a street ? as a speed limit sign that the 85 percentile is not more than that. One that I just checked on for another project was along Skyline Boulevard, 40 miles an hour for the speeding limit, 51 is the percentile. Ah, that happens everywhere. The only chance it doesn't happen is when you've got a speed bump every ten feet, `cause then nobody can go fast enough without tearing out their bottoms. But in any case, I'm not saying that it's wrong to say that, I'm just saying that you shouldn't, ah, we don't consider it a to be used as a reason why not to build the project. We think that, that, that speed limits are broken not because a projects being done, but the amount of traffic on that street will be more. And it will be more because we've built traffic that will want to use it until 74th goes through. And 74th will not go through unless people develop 74, and then 74th will only be developed, unless the city has a lot of money, by private developers developing the edge on both sides of the creek and coming across that creek and continuing the development parcel there's a big enough to be subdivided and constructed. And we feel that that will occur, and that's the only way the traffic will be reduce on some of these other streets that, that are now overburdened by it, including Ventura. Who takes traffic in a direction September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 55 of 71 Exhibit Page that we can give them significant relief by providing another alternate location for traffic to move on. It's not going to happen waiting for the city to come up with money for it because you don't have that much money to do this kind of thing. That's what you've ??? depend on development to do for you. And that's what we feel will happen with this process. There was a comment regarding, um, urn, the tree ordinance, ah, and saving trees. The tree ordinance in terms of saving trees in this area, here, is again, a situation of dealing with the issue of the tree cutting that's allowed on the site. And I'll let Dale respond to that. But along that same line, there was a comment regarding, ah issue of density transfer, and the fact that the density transfer of, um, would allow a certain amount of extra units to be put on the site. The City of Tigard is no different than all the other jurisdictions. They all have density transferred allowed. They all have this PD process. It's not exclusively to the City of Tigard. And more than that, the city of, excuse me, Washington County has a direct density transfer in which whatever you have on your site, whether it's wetlands, floodplain, trees, sensitive areas, you take the full amount of the density and you transfer it. All of it. Not 25 percent. You don't, you cannot build on areas that are sensitive regarding trees, okay? But you take all of the density and transfer it wherever you want on the rest of the site. Up to a limit of twice the amount that's allowed under the normal sizing of the lots that could be put on that site. So you can double the density basically, on the site with the density transfer. So in any case, there are allowances for density transfers. And again, we're using the allowed code to put that density on the remainder of the site we have available to us to use. Now, if we came in, and I mentioned this before, with a project that used the density and clustered the houses against the ? property line and we had 25 foot wide lots and we used the smallest portion of the property that we could, you would accept that as being not only good, but the best thing that could happen to the site, because we would have clustered everything in the smallest possible area and given all of the rest of the site for open space. That goes against what the people here want. They want it to be big as possible. Well we have given you 59 foot lots, for width 53 foot lots, for width along that edge. We consider that a good compromise rather than being something really negative, when, in fact your PD ordinance would drive us to the very smallest area to be used, rather than necessary keeping us to, to a size of lot that's 3000, 4000, 5000 square foot. So we're not against the ordinance and we haven't done the maximum of what you would want us to do as a PD because it doesn't make economic or, ah, a good neighborhood. So we don't want to necessarily cluster them all and, in fact, one property owner across from us that has 25 to 30 foot lots adjacent to his property line. It doesn't make sense for do that so we spread it as best we on the land that was available and to get close to the density that we had allowable to us. That's what we've done. And that's what we think is a reasonable alternative at this point. Okay. Um, I wanted to start with, ah, the Warren Aney's comments. And, ah, we talked a little bit with the issue regarding densities and the issue regarding how the density are taken care of. And I think I've done okay on that one, so let me go to the next one. September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 56 of 71 Exhibit ; Page (�� I have one here that talks about, from Robert C. Ward, that talks about grades and slopes and I think I've told you what I've, what the situation is with grades and slopes. ? There was a comment also made regarding cul-de-sac lengths in this presentation. And what I wanted to mention regarding the cul-de-sac length is, we've developed a cul-de-sac that is much longer than standards. And that is because of the limitations of the area, that was mentioned by Mr. Wilson. We have a limitation in terms of on one side of us we have a buffered area that we can't go over to develop connectivity. On the other side we have lots that were developed by Washington Park Estates that don't provide us any access. This situation is something that under new planning ordinance, requirements would have never happened, because we have a stub street about half way through this cul-de-sac. It would have come through Washington Park, Washington Estates, because they would have made them put cross streets at a reasonable distance. Since we don't have those, we can't make it connect to, as connected as would normally be provided in that, if we had the new planning ordinances in place. The other important point is that 200 foot cul-de-sac is looked at in your ordinance, in your ordinance, and in most ordinances, as being the development of a site that has a large, large site, that has lots of connectivity roads going in it. You want to limit what you put in, in terms of cul-de-sacs, because they're not going to be connected. So you want them to be short if they're going to be there at all. So I think the ordinance was developed, again, for us to develop new property. Not to try to apply it to situations have all kinds of limitations on what you can and can't do with the land. We can also take this to the other comment that was being made regarding solar ordinances. The reason we allow for so, and I want to bring this up because of the long cul-de-sac and the fact that it runs in an east-west direction. So no ordinances, when we get involved in doing subdivisions on a large scale, the roads are developed in such a pattern that we can get solar transfer. We do that because that's what the ordinance was set-up to do, was to make sure that if we had an opportunity to put the roads in the right direction, we would. To maximize solar potential. And sometime we need to provide 60 percent, sometimes 80 percent of the houses have to meet that ordinance because our roadways have to be oriented to get that. Where are we on all the ?. If we have a ? site in the east-west direction we get to put a street through that doesn't have the solar gain that it should. And that's because we're limited by the constraints of the site itself. Not, not demanding necessarily we put in multi-family or attached housing on it, but to orient the streets, to meet the solar codes. When we do that on a regular basis to meet your requirements and the requirements of any of the jurisdictions that have a solar ordinance requirement. I'm not going cover some of the comments because I'm ? covered them in terms of other issues. Ah, there was a, we did talk about storm detention water quality. I've answered those kind of questions. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 57 of 71 Exhibit a Page We have one regarding sink holes. Sink holes are occurring because there is water getting under the ground and it travels through a, up to a impervious first layer and basically starts to wash sediment out, because it just carries the water, with the water the dirt that's there. It also occurs because there is probably water that is coming from an upland source that moves through that area and draws the material down from the surface when water puddles on the surface or moves down through the surface through an area that's wet. Well, that's because the area was never filled properly. The reason it wasn't filled properly is like our geotechnical report requires is that every time we get into a draw situation, or an area the "v's" down to a certain level, we're going to be required to put a rock fill in with a fabric layer to keep the dirt from moving into it and let the water drain slowly out of that rather than, ah, being ? in the soil or being impacted by sink holes. So we have a specific requirement to do that, to remove the possibility of water causing slides and moving dirt. And that if, if you want to look at our, ah, ah, report you'll see that's in the report that was provided. There was a comment, ah, by the same person, ah, regarding, ah, 58, 1957, 1958 he bought a piece of property downstream, I guess it's on the 80`h Street on the same creek. And basically we've had 30 years, 25, 30 years of development without detention, that surely would have meant that he would have gotten a lot of debris, a lot of water, and a lot of storm drainage from undeveloped sites. And we've had a lot of big storms over that period of time too that could have flooded his property. We cannot at this point in time, and the jurisdictions don't, aren't at this point in time dealing with, with all those issues that you can't fund which is to detain areas that have already, ah, been turned into impervious areas. But the new requirements that we have are very strict, and we're required to detain water and to detain water and release it at a lower rate. There was a comment that was made by another individual regarding the fact that detention doesn't work. What they were talking about in that report is, there is a situation that creeks are impacted by smaller storms and if you don't get a small enough detention rate, what you are doing is you are subjecting creeks to water that they can't handle. Well, that is true. It's a major problem in the metro, in any area in the metropolitan area, because the creeks themselves have to take water for a longer period of time at whatever storm rate they're set up to have. Well, where is the break line? Is a two year storm going to erode a channel. Is a five year storm going to erode a channel? What in the report that was done relates to that? Was Puget Sound saying you've got to make the storm smaller? Was Puget Sound saying five years wasn't good. Were they saying two years wasn't good. Were they saying two days wasn't good. We don't know. Until I read the report and figure out what's there, I can only react to it after that. And I can't solve the problem because if everybody's still doing it that way, then we've all got to change. And we can't be the first ones to change without any documentation on what we should change to. So at this point in time, I can only go with CWS requirements and we are doing that right now. Doing a two, a five, a ten, a twenty-five and we feel that the two year event is a pretty ? storm to try to hold water at this point in time. Especially since other jurisdictions use five. So we're at the low end of what we do in terms of???? retention facilities. So think I'm comfortable with the fact that we shouldn't change until we get some more results. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 58 of 71 Exhibit a: Page - Mayor Griffith: Uh-huh. [Yes] Mr. Kurahashi: Urn, there was a question, there was a comment that Heidi went out to the site. Heidi Burke. And she might of, but again, she's eight months pregnant, eight and a half months pregnant, eight and a half months pregnant, so I'm not sure that she was, he was, she was, the one that he talked to. It could have been somebody else. But there, as far as going out to the site, she has never been out the site as far as I know. And again, when we asked her to come out, she couldn't make it at that time because she was just too busy with other things that were going on. So at this point in time, I'm sure if she said it's a very pristine site. I don't know for sure what has happened there, but she could have, she could have gone out there in a car and just saw the site from the edge. So I won't deny or support that at this point in time, or what happened. Ah, as far as the issue regarding erosion, I see some pictures here of a site that has a g g , p slump, slumped area. What happens on a, ah, large site that's been clear-cut is they push a lot of dirt around. And I've fought fires on top of these like this. And what happens on these situations is, is a whole bunch of dirt that's loose. It's been piled. It's steeper than regular slopes. All over the site. They've been developed as skid, skid locations, locations where the dirt was put there specifically because they were used as a landing. And this could have been just an area that had a lot of dirt that they dumped in the drainage way and when the water got to it, it flushed out, and I've seen a lot of this happen in areas that have been ??? and the dirt's been moved around. A far as the amount of area that is impacted, erosion control that is done under CWS requirements are strict standards that are followed by all the jurisdictions and we'll be, ah, living with those standards. And this site probably didn't have it, because it was in rural Washington County and was probably done under a force, force, forced act rather than something that was more controlled. Ah, ah, regarding the, ah, orientation of the ?, streets by Carol Mass. I've related to that what our situation is and why we do our streets, when we have it in the north-south direction, when in this case we can't. There was a comment that con, conflicted with the other comment regarding the street, and said that, that they didn't think that 40, 74`h should be connected. So now we have some people saying shouldn't, some people saying it should. My general feeling is that we need to share the burden of the traffic ?. It should be connected. It should be put there so that the traffic can move off of Ventura and give those people some relief. And the only way that's going to happen if we're allowed to build a street to a point where someone else can spend less money to connect, or to finish it. `Cause right now this project is going to take a major burden, putting in the culvert structure, three-quarters, two-quarters of a street. Much of the permitting issues that have developed, all of the storm drainage design that needs to go for the culvert itself, setting the grade, setting the standards for continuing the road across. The only that we're September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 59 of 71 Exhibit Page b!,--,; probably not going to do is put water line, I mean ah, conduits for electrical under the ground line right now, simply because if we did, we'd be over the 30 inch water line. And we don't want to put it there. So we'd like it to be on the other side of the street. There was a comment regarding the issue of grouping the houses and make it wider park. Well, my point is, from a PD standpoint, we have. We met that requirement ?? making as far as we can and still meet the density that we are allowed on the site. And so we feel we've met that requirement as best we can with the, with the proposal that we have. And, ah, that's all I have to cover. And Dale, do you want ???? Mr. Windwood: ? before I close? Mayor Griffith: Any questions of these two? I have some of staff, but Unknown voice: I think the other gentleman's got some comments to make, yes. Mayor Griffith: Do you have some comments to make? Mr. Richards: I'll be brief, due to the fact that it is late. My name is Dale Richards, Windwood Construction Company, um, I think Greg has addressed most of the technical stuff. I would just like to state that in our, we have spent a lot of time with this and made a real conscious effort to comply with all of the development codes that are within the standards as we see them right now. We also feel that this ah, ah, family that has been there since 1952 has managed their wood lot pretty well. Ah, it is in a native stand of, ah, forest, ? we do have in place a valid logging permit and it is valid through the end of the year, with a year extension on it. Um, and we have verified with CWS and DSL ??? that are wetlands buffers and everything are concurrent and, and do, ah, comply with their codes, and they agree with them. So I'll just close with that. Go forward with questions. Unknown voice: There was one comment regarding ??? Mr. Richards: Oh, yeah, that the, the um, the state logging people told me that we needed to comply with the CWS, ah, buffer line that was established by them and DSL. And that's what they wanted us to comply with, which on our application we did. September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 60 of 71 Exhibit Page Unknown voice: I have a question. These ponds, when they silt up is the city going to be responsible for cleaning them out? Mr. Kurahashi: Ah, yes they would if they did silt up. But before the ponds themselves, there's a water quality manhole that captures the normal silt that would get in there. We also designed the ponds with a three to one slope so they can be entered, into the ponds with equipment to get to the bottom. So that's what we do to make sure they're okay to maintain and operate. But we do have facilities before, in both the water filter itself and the, ah, sediment trap occurs before so we don't have a problem with too much silt getting into the pond. Unknown voice: But it will silt up eventually. Mr. Kurahashi: I'm not sure how much can get to it with these other two devices, but yes, there will be silt that forms in the pond. No matter what there is over time they will. And it isn't as, ah, I mean, ?? and the facility is public at this point. Unknown voice: And the city will take care of it? Unknown voice: Nobody answer. [chuckle] Mr. Kurahashi: I can't answer that I guess. Project Engineer Rager: When it comes public water quality or detention facilities there is a maintenance period. A maintenance period is usually one to three years in length. With landscape type facilities it's a three year maintenance period. That means that the developer is on the hook for three years to maintain the facility. We do that because we want to make sure the vegetation is established and living. We also do that because we find that within the first year or two after home construction begins, that's when the heaviest sediment loads are ??? experience with that. So, and it's because of all the home construction taking place. There's a lot of activity, and ah, dirt gets washed down in the system and it winds up in those ponds. So before we take facilities over, we make sure the vegetation is established, and we make sure that any silt that's collected is removed. Now, as far as long term maintenance, yes, once the city takes over, as these things, ah, silt up over time, and September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 61 of 71 Exhibit Page t`7 can't give you an estimate of how long that takes, I don't know, but we do on, as a regular maintenance, ah, activity sometimes have to remove silt from ponds. Mayor Griffith: Um. Okay, anything else? Any questions of these two gentlemen? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mayor Griffith: Well, your recommendation. City Manager Monahan: Mister Mayor, if you have asked all of your questions of staff and you're prepared to close the public hearing? Mayor Griffith: Yep. Mayor Griffith: No. It says here, I close the public hearing afterwards. ?» Planning Manager Bewersdorff: ??? it's a challenge. You ??, I think you what the Planning Commission went through when they had, ??, what the property owners go through. And you know what the developers go through. Ah, the only discretion that I see that's available to you, three options: approve, approve the conditions or not. One real discretion that I don't think has been addressed, is whether or not the trees have been maintained to the maximum extent possible. That's a judgment call by the commission based on, on the applicant's proposal. They've provided as much as they can. In some cases you can require architecturally designed houses to save as many trees as possible. It's not a practice of our, our code, it's not required by our code. Um, approval with conditions required, meeting CWS requirements, DSL requirements, Corps of Engineers requirements, ah, forestry requirements. Um, so, based on those conditions it appears that the preponderance of evidence shows that they could meet the, the code. Mayor Griffith: Questions? Now I'm going to, ah, close the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. [gavel sounds] Now Council, what do you think? Craig do you want to start off? September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 62 of 71 Exhibit Page (Qg Unknown voice: I'll Councilor Dirksen: Sure, I'll start. I usually end up, so I'll start. Um, I came into this tonight with a couple of, of concerns. And after all the, the discussion and, and, and rhetoric, and anecdotes and, ah, rebuttal and ?, ah, I feel comfortable that all my concerns have been answered. My major one being the concern regarding, ah, Clean Water Services, ah, setback, ah ?. Um, and I would suggest, I actually have a question to ask, urn, if, urn, people are still opposed to this, and we approve it, is there a process by which they can appeal Clean Water Service decision regarding the, the, ah, developers setback? City Attorney Ramis: You know, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know enough about the procedure there. I suspect that if Clean Water Services rendered a decision that was a land use decision, that, urn, if they gave notice of that decision, if the time passed within 21 days, if they did not give notice of that decision, then there may still be an opportunity to appeal that ruling. Councilor Dirksen: ? my understanding is that our code requirement is, is that Clean Water Services must approve, that's our requirement. City Attorney Ramis: Right. Councilor Dirksen: So if there's a, if there's a problem with, with their decision, then an issue must be taken up with them. Ah, that was my major concern, and ah, ah the developer's representative answered that, um, very completely I thought. I found that acceptable. Ah, regarding the, the overall development, it's a difficult site, and would it be nice to have a park there? Absolutely. Ah, is there money available to do that? Well, apparently not. And, ah, it's a piece of private property. And the owners of that property are, ah, allowed to develop or do with that property as they wish, within the code requirements. Our job is to determine whether or not they've met those requirements. Ah, in my opinion, I believe they have. In fact I think, ah, the developer has done a very good job of turning a very difficult site, ah, into something that can be very nice. I think he's, they've done a very good job of, of maximizing it's potential. And, ah, attempting to provide, ah, as much protection as possible, under the restriction of course, of? the development to it's maximum amount, to provide a profit to the developer, which is a nasty word, I know, but money still drives a lot of these things. So, ah, my concerns being answered, ah, I will ah, let's see or actually September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 63 of 71 Exhibit Q. Page (p C/ what we're looking at is, the appeal is to ?, hold the appeal to allow the development, correct? ? City Attorney Ramis: The clearest thing I think is, is to make a motion to either approve of deny the application, since no Councilor Dirksen: Good point. City Attorney Ramis: in effect no decision was made below. Mayor Griffith: Syd. Councilor Sherwood: Urn, there's parts of the code that I don't like, and ah, Craig and I were speaking about it earlier. I don't like the density bonus, and at the same time, urn, you folks have built up there and built all the way around this property and I'm sure Mrs. Senn didn't like it when all of those lots went in around her, and suddenly she had water pouring on her property or as some of the testimony was that the cats backed up and pushed the stream onto her property. Um, I don't, ah, care for our, ah, the averaging about a development, but I feel that it's in our code, we can change our code, and as far as I can see, I'm comfortable with this application. Councilor Wilson: Ah, some of you may remember, ah, 10 or 12 years ago there was election, an election concerning Metro, your regional government. Whereby, ah, prior to that time, ah, Metro Councilors were appointed by the Governor and the election was about home rule and if, ah, Metro charter was established then we would be able to vote for our Metro Councilors, rather than have them appointed in Salem. At least that was how it was advertised. But what was missing in the fine print was the fact that, ah, the election essentially transferred power for, ah, development decisions from, ah, your local cities, ah, to Metro. Ah, the cities still administer, ah, permits like this one, but the cities essentially have no power to, um, to, to really regulate, ah, as they please. So Metro's rules trumps, ah, trumps all. Ah, prior to being elected City Councilor, ah, I was on the Planning Commission, and I was on there for seven years. And Mayor Griffith and Councilor Moore both also were on the Planning Commission. And shortly, shortly after, ah, I started on the Planning Commission, Metro, ah, began, ah, developing their framework plan for the whole region. And they looked at, ah, three different options including a fourth option which was the base case. And base case was, ah, essentially how would we grow as a region if we just continued as we had been for the prior 30 years. Essentially, September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 64 of 71 Exhibit o� Page '70 low density suburban development. And they looked at three other options, ah, varying degrees of density from, ah, moderate, moderately higher density all the way up to, to very high density and at the time, ah, they, they adopted something more extremely dense than even their highest dense proposal and, ah, I remember being appalled at the time. And when they were considering these different options, they would go around to, to citizens and conduct polls and they would pose questions like, "Would you rather build on farmland, or would you rather preserve it?" Essentially, that's a false choice. The real choice is, would you rather build on farmland or would you rather build on the, the last remaining greenspaces in your neighborhoods? And so, this choice was made several years ago and right now we're living with those consequences. And right now as appalling as it is, ah, this was a choice we all made as a region. And because we didn't all speak up against it then, we're living with it now. And over the years on the Planning Commission, I watched, and, and Jim and Brian with me, watched as these, these developments became denser and denser and denser. And we've lost our backyards, we're living in row houses, we're piled up on top of each other and that was a conscious regional choice. And so, as, as much as I don't like this development, it actually does meet our code in, in every respect that I can see. And so the rules have been established and, ah, we have to live with them now, and that's unfortunate. Councilor Dirksen: Very well said. Mayor Griffith: Brian. Councilor Moore: Mister Mayor, um, ???. There's a lot of comments I could make about some of the statements that were made today. I ?? the city for 25 years, and I've seen the ? population go up by about 30 thousand. If I could have stopped all this development, I could walk down 99W without a problem ?. Um, basically I, I'm satisfied that the code requirements have been met. Um, granted it, ah, certainly it ???? in the city limits, this would have been maybe better off being greenspace, but it didn't pan out that way. Ah, we've lost a lot of property to development because we can't keep up with their ???. I think that's, that's sad to say, but anyway, um, based on the fact that the, I felt that the codes requires have been met, urn, I can only go ahead and go along with approving this application. Mayor Griffith: The only thing that I'm pleased with is at least a good portion of it is still going to be intact. Ah, the southern portion of it, where some of the primary plants are and the water primary supply is, will still be intact. And, ah, Metro's guidelines will be complied with. And I see no way of working away from it. But we are going to be saving a lot of the trees, a lot of the large trees, and, ah, the property right will have his right to his September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 65 of 71 Exhibit Page 7 / ownership. But, ah, I'm, I'm a little concerned, and I'm going to want to watch the traffic impact in that area. As I take it, you know, even though the traffic impact studies have, have proven that it'd be alright, 1, I agree with the people that have testified, and I think that they're going to be generating some traffic problems. But, ah... (Tape side 9 ends) [begin tape side 10] Mayor Griffith: I agree with what the people who have testified. There are gonna be some traffic problems, but uh you gotta go with the studies, so be it. So, when all that is said 8i done- Do we need a motion and a .... Today we need a motion and a roll call? Councilor Dirksen: I motion for the approval of the application. [many speakers at once] City Recorder Wheatley: We have to close the public hearing. Councilor Dirksen: He did, he already did. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: One of the things that we discussed was in preparing the findings you may want to ask the applicant because they'll be defending that if there's any appeals to come back to. Councilor Moore: Should be included in the... Mayor Griffith: Along with the motion.. City Attorney Ramis: So your vote this evening could be [interrupted] Mayor Griffith: Please have the applicant provide his findings? City Attorney Ramis: Your vote this evening could be a tentative decision of approval requesting the applicant to submit findings that you would then review for a final decision. Councilor Dirksen: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 66 0171 Exhibit Page '70 I amend my motion. Mayor Griffith: Second. Councilor Wilson: There was also a proposed change to one of the conditions- Unknown voice: What condition is that? Mayor Griffith: What condition is that Nick? Councilor Wilson: Uh..sight distance. The staff recommends adding condition 1 1, uh, with the following verbage: Sight distance certification of the new intersection with 74th Avenue. The applicant shall show proof that they have obtained the necessary easement for their proposed retaining wall. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: We would be eliminating the other condition that was prior to building permitted with that condition. Mayor Griffith: OK, is everybody comfortable with the motion? As amended Mayor Griffith: As amended? Cathy? Cathy? Call the roll. City Recorder Wheatley: Excuse me, who seconded the motion? Councilor Sherwood: I did City Recorder Wheatley: Councilor Dirksen Councilor Dirksen: Yes. City Recorder Wheatley: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 67 of 71 Exhibit c� Page '73 Mayor Griffith Mayor Griffith: Yes. City Recorder Wheatley: Councilor Moore Councilor Moore: Yes. City Recorder Wheatley: Councilor Sherwood Councilor Sherwood: Yes. City Recorder Wheatley: Councilor Wilson Councilor Wilson: Yes. City Attorney Ramis: Mr. Mayor, I think we ought to work out a timetable for the submission of findings and your consideration of a final order. City Manager Monahan: The uh.. the uh 120 day rule uh..1 think the date was October 2"d, we'd heard earlier. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: That's correct. City Manager Monahan: We generally require that materials be submitted two weeks prior ...closer to two weeks before the the meeting. The next regular business meeting is the 23' and obviously today is 14 days before that. So, if the applicant uh, want...wanted sufficient time which I'm sure that they would, the earliest that I would think the item could come back for Council action on the tentative action would be on the business meeting of October 14d'. So do we need the applicant to agree? Unknown voice: September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 68 of 71 Exhibit -D Page `7 Yah, so we can agree. We can ask whether the applicant would be willing to extend the 120 day clock for a corresponding amount of time that would be two weeks roughly City Manager Monahan: Right. That would be until October 14`h and the obligation would be on the applicant to provide the uh findings in a satisfactory form to us by uh September 30..um ..yes, September 30th at five pm. That would be the only way we'd be able to keep it on that agenda. Unknown voice: There would be an expectation of review the findings. City Manager Monahan: What I said was in a satisfactory form, which to me ...maybe.. I'm glad you brought that up. To me, means its been reviewed by our staff and uh ..they they might have..might feedback to you some some um input so satisfactory form means complete. [multiple speakers at once] Planning Manager Bewersdorff: If it.. City Manager Monahan: Now September 30th means submitted, reviewed and finalized so that we can put them into the packet. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: Did you want it submitted before, or is that the date for us to review and we probably need a week. City Manager Monahan: Well.. Unknown speaker: September 10`h City Manager Monahan: September 30th is when we need them in a final form that has been submitted, reviewed and approved by the staff so that they can go forward with the usual expectations of what they need to look like...to the City Council. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 69 of 71 Exhibit Page —)5 So that if you were to submit 'em on September 30th, it won't work because we'll need 'em at lease a week to do that. City Manager Monahan: Right. Unknown voice: I see. Planning Manager Bewersdorff: So, you might want to extend past the 14th and go to another day unless you can do it all in a week. Mayor Griffith: OK? City Manager Monahan: And if they're not available to us in a completed form then we would want to continue it to the business meeting of the 28th of October so uh.. do we need to have that little grace period Tim? City Attorney Ramis: Well, I think it sounds like the staff would be more comfortable if we extended it to the 28th with the concurrence of the applicant. [background speakers- unintelligible] Mayor Griffith: OK. Have we got this resolved? City Attorney Ramis: We're waitin' for an answer. Unknown speaker: What we're concerned about right now is we have a weather window that by October 30th we won't be to do any grading ??? Planning Manager Bewersdorff: You're not gonna be able to do that anyway cause you won't have a public facilities plans done. [many speakers at once] September 9,2003 Council Meeting Page 70 of 71 Exhibit Page -7 ,, City Attorney Ramis: Gentlemen, its uh after midnight we need an answer from you. Really we do. [pause] K' thank you. Let the record indicate that the applicant has agreed to extend the 120 day clock to allow the Council to take this matter up on the 28th of October. Mayor Griffith: OK. Any further business to come before Council? [pause] If not, then this meeting stands adjourned. [gavel] [tape side 10 ends] September 9, 2003 Council Meeting Page 71 of 71 Exhibit a Page -7 7 CERTFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that I caused to have filed on March 3, 2004, the original of this FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 2003- 194 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 550 Capitol N.E., Public Utility Commission Building, Salem, Oregon, 97310, by special delivery. DATED: ..j_____, 2004. (156ict-e/t-i Ku2_ (D k_.-- Catherine Wheatley City Recorder, City of Tigard Land Use Board of Appeals - File No. 2003-194 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on March 3, 2004, I prepared for service a true and correct copy of this FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 2003-194 to be delivered by certified mail to the following: John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, Oregon 97223 Greg Kurahashi Kurahashi & Associates 15580 SW Jay Street, Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 DATED: 1LrP 3 , 2004 CaW4C-e/Le-fLe Catherine Wheatley City Recorder, City of Tigard Land Use Board of Appeals— File No. 2003-194