The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/15/2021 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – March 15, 2021 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 City of Tigard Tigard Planning Commission Agenda (Rev.1) MEETING DATE: March 15, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: https://www.tigard- or.gov/city_hall/public_hearing_feed.php Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time is between 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. 95th AVENUE SUBDIVISION (PDR2020-00002/SUB2020-00005) Staff: Associate Planner Agnes Lindor PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development review and subdivision application. The proposal includes a 23-lot subdivision that contains 15 lots for rowhouse development and eight lots for single detached house development. The proposal also includes extension of a public street from 95th Avenue to the east, preservation of the onsite wetland, stormwater facilities, and public amenities along the edge of the wetland. LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Avenue 6. TRAINING 8:05 p.m. LAND USE LAW Staff: City Attorney, Shelby Rihala 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:35 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m. March 15, 2021 Page 1 of 8 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, March 15, 2021 Location: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: https://boxcast.tv/channel/pyjnvrar8xo1rw6bwbss Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time was between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Hu Vice President Jackson Alt. Commissioner Dick Alt. Commissioner Miranda Commissioner Quinones Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schuck Commissioner Keshavan (K7) Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: Commissioner Brook Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner; Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer; Shelby Rihala, City Attorney COMMUNICATIONS Vice President Jackson said he’d attended the final meeting of the River Terrace 2.0 CAC on the previous Wednesday. He noted that it was b asically an encapsulation of everything up to that point and that there will be more coming down the pipe eventually that will affect the Planning Commission. MINUTES President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the March 1, 2021 minutes; there being none, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. 95th AVENUE SUBDIVISION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 8 PDR2020-00002, SUB2020-00005 President Hu opened the public hearing. The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development review and subdivision application. The proposal includes a 23-lot subdivision that contains 15 lots for rowhouses and 8 lots for single detached houses. The proposal also includes extension of a new public street from 95th Avenue to the east, preservation of the onsite wetland, stormwater facilities, and public amenities along the edge of the wetland. LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Avenue HEARING STATEMENTS President Hu read the required statements and procedural items from th e hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: Commissioner Craig Schuck disclosed that he’s familiar with Emerio Design and that one of the managers there is a friend of his. He said he’d never discussed this case with anyone from that firm and doesn’t think anyone at Emerio even knows he’s a commissioner. He believes he can proceed with the case in an unbiased way. No one expressed an issue with that information . Site visitations: Commissioners Jackson, Watson, Alt. Miranda, and Quinones. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Lindor introduced herself. She pulled up a PowerPoint Presentation Exhibit A) and went over the area the project is proposed to be located. She noted the site is R12 and 2.7 acres in size. It’s surrounded by an apartment development to the north and east – and a single detached housing development to the south and west. The site also contains a wetland and a significant tree grove that’s located along the south ern property line. She noted that it’s a consolidated planned development review which includes the concept plan, the detailed plan, and a subdivision for 23 lots. She talked about the project summary and showed the commissioners a slide of the concept plan. She spoke about the detailed plan and explained the stormwater tract, the wetland area, and the associated buffer. She spoke about the flexibility requests which include minimum lot size, lot width and lot frontage, side setbacks, landscape area percentage, access width and driveway spacing. In exchange for the flexibility, the public benefit that’s proposed is the preservation of the significant wetland and a majority of the tree grove. There’s approximately 600 feet of hard surface trail that will be placed along the edge of the significant wetland buffer. It’s stubbed on the east side for potentia l future connection. It also connects to a new public street to the north. Bench seating is proposed along the trail and the trail will be placed in a public access easement - along with a maintenance agreement. She noted she’d received an email from Patty Woolsey who was concerned about traffic and she’d received a phone call from Devayani Nadarajah who had a question about what the notice was for. Ms. Devayani stated no objections to the proposal at that time. Lastly, Agnes provided a memo dated 3/15/21 that she said she would like the Planning Commissioners to incorporate into the motion. The memo (Exhibit B) detailed some scrivener errors that had been noted in an email from President Hu earlier in the week. With the submittal into the motion, Agnes will make those corrections and incorporate them into the final decision. March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and recommends approval of the Planned Development Review, Consolidated Plan (PDR2020-00002); and Subdivision (SUB2020-00002). Subject to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report. QUESTIONS There were several questions about construction parking, the vegetative corridor, undergrounding utilities, bike lanes , sidewalks, and street widening. Associate Planner Agnes Lindor and Principal Engineer Jeremy Tamargo answered the questions. One of the commissioners asked about a stormwater problem that a neighbor had written about in an email. Jeremy noted that the citizen who had written the email is located uphill and on the other side of the street from where th e proposed development is going to be. All the proposed stormwater will be managed on site, but in the case of that particular comment – it’s actually regarding an uphill drainage issue, so that’s a separate maintenance issue to be addressed by the city’s operations staff. President Hu said he was concerned that the pedestrian access on Tract C would be just a wood chips walking path. “How do we require them to go a step further and pave all the pedestrian access easement on Tract C?” Agnes answered: “I’ve already talked with the applicant about that. It’s going to be all hard surface paved. We do not want the bark chips because it’s basically a maintenance nightmare. It would have to be redone with more bark chips on a regular basis, so we’re requiring that it be all paved.” There was a question about whether the stub street could be changed to something more attractive since it won’t be going through in the foreseeable future anyway. Perhaps put a sidewalk or a fence – or something to make it look more finished. Jeremy answered, “There are no plans to connect to 93rd with the proposed development due to the de sire to not impact the wetland there. So that’s why the extension to the development site is not going to occur. At this time the standard street barricades are at the terminus of the street; so that’s very typical. What you see at the end of a stub street are reflective barricades that make it safer for cars that are traveling on that roadway - so they’re aware that the street terminates at that point.” APPLICANT PRESENTATION Steve Miller of Emerio Design said that since there had been so much discussion already about so many aspects of the project, out of respect for everybody’s time, rather than giving a presentation he would just make a few comments and then open it up to see if there were any more questions. He noted that they did their neighborhood meeting and they’d heard from some of the neighbors on SW 93rd. He said they have some concerns with the hazardous trees that are in the wetland area and how it could impact their homes . Since this apparently had been an ongoing concern for the neighbors, they brought it up with the city and let them know that the concern exists. Their arborist noted that they could remove some of the trees and leave them in the wetland so they minimize that impact - but that’s actually a conversation for later during the plan review. He just March 15, 2021 Page 4 of 8 wanted to let the neighbors know that they’d been heard and that it’s up to the city regarding what they can do in that area. But he said they’re willing to help out to the extent they can with those trees. Mr. Miller said, “We certainly have every intention of creating a wonderful deve lopment for this area. We’re doing the frontage improvements to 95th as required. We’re constructing the new public street to the city standards. We talked with the neighbors to the north and they have some interest in accessing this street so I think you may get people that are interested in this street improvement. We do understand the concerns of the people to the north that are uphill of our project that are having stormwater issues. I wish there was something we could do for them but as was pointed out, that is upstream of our project so it is not something that we’re impacting and our water will be contained in the storm water planters and will minimize any adverse effects downstream. In terms of the soft path – the woodchip path came at a recommendation from our arborist so we would minimize the impact on the root systems of the trees that are in the wetland. Staff has brought to our attention that they would like it to be a hard surface. And if that’s the decision the city would like to have, we’re willing to do that. But I did want to let you know that the path being soft was recommended by the arborist mainly due to potential impacts to the trees in the wetlands. We’re willing to do what you’d like though. Another public benefit that this project p rovides is needed housing, and I think we all understand that in the Metro area housing is needed at a big rate, so maximizing the efficiency of developing the property is very important. So , we did want to bring the density up; however, we are below the maximum density if this wetland was not there. I think it’s a reasonable compromise to bring a mix of housing types into the neighborhood that minimizes the impact but still provides a reasonable density to address the scenario that we are confronted with here in the Metro area.” QUESTIONS There was a question earlier about whether there are any safety measures being taken to ensure that people don’t get backed over in the alleyway that serves homes along the western edge. Are there any considerations for traffic calming devices? Jeremy Tamargo answered: That alleyway is only serving eight lots and you generally hope that your neighbors will police one another and look out for one another in this type of situation, but everything is not perfect. We anticipate that they may do that themselves, and there are signs that say “Slow Children Playing” or things of that nature, and we can certainly do that if you’d like. But we do believe that they will probably be policing one another on making sure they travel slowly down that easement and that they’re not rushing. Regarding some of these developments, we often hear, “Oh, I have large vehicles and I’m moving into a small area.” I think people need to pay attention to what they’re moving into. If they have large trucks, maybe this isn’t the right place for them to live. Maybe they need to think about what they have and how they can manage that. So, there’s a lot of responsibility that goes on to the future tenants that will live here to make sure that they’re doing what they need to do to live in their neighborhood , and to protect one another. And they need to make sure they have vehicles that can accommodate their homes after March 15, 2021 Page 5 of 8 purchasing. Obviously, that’s not ideal, but there is responsibility that goes to the future buyers of these homes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - President Hu asked if there was anyone on the line waiting to testify . TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None TESTIMONY NEUTRAL - None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Devayani Nadarajah, who lives at 8623 SW Hamlet Street through an interpreter provided public testimony expressing concerns about using the adjacent property to calculate density for this project. QUESTION FOR THE CALLER I’m trying to make sure I understand – did you say that part of the parcel that’s up for development is not owned by the people developing it?” The caller replied, “No, the property that is being developed is to the north of it. People are calling it a wetland area and they’re using that when calculating the density in this location. I’m saying that the property that belongs to our client - is not a wetland, and they are using that in calculating the density for that particular lot.” Patty Woolsey, 11085 SW 95th Avenue provided testimony expressing concerns about stormwater, and why the project is not providing full width street improvements. Amanda Cruz, 11025 SW 95th Avenue provided testimony concerning stormwater, traffic, wildlife habitat, noise levels and duration of the project. APPLICANT/STAFF RESPONSE The applicant responded to Ms. Nadarajah stating that all density calculations were based on Development Code requirements, and they only utilized the subject property to determine th ose calculations. Staff responded to Patty Woolsey regarding her concerns about stormwater, noting that the project will address stormwater for the site and that street improvement can only be provided along the frontage of the site; a three -quarter street improvement. Regarding Ms. Cruz’ concerns, the applicant addressed the co mments relating to stormwater and traffic and provided an estimated schedule for the project. Staff stated that disturbance to the wetland is not proposed or allowed, and there will be no tree removal within the wetland or buffer. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED March 15, 2021 Page 6 of 8 DELIBERATION President Hu asked that each of the commissioners give their thoughts on this application. Following are some of the comments: Alternate Commissioner Miranda – appreciates the arborist’s assertion to put wood chips down as a way to protect the trees and believes staff should reconsider using the wood chips rather than the paved path. Commissioner Schuck – understands the project and has no questions. He supports the project and said that he also likes the idea of going back to wood chips in terms of it being a more natural path. Vice President Jackson – is in support, considering the density is in the normal range. Alternate Commissioner Dick – likes the wood chips better than a paved path. Commissioner Roberts – is in support. He likes the wood chip idea better as well. Commissioner Watson – will support this. She likes that they’re doing a lot to further development and address housing shortages while also maintaining wetlands. She suggested using permeable pavers on the pathway if possible, or some other alternative that is not a maintenance issue, but also doesn’t excavate or damage the tree roots in some manner. She realizes that it would need to be ADA compliant. President Hu – expressed concern about using wood chips as they have to be properly maintained. He said that right now those pathways are very much right inside the property lin e of Units 18 to 23. If the wood chips are allowed to disintegrate and disappear over time , he thinks the unit owners may be tempted to build a fence completely enclosing their property line , and therefore eliminating that public path altogether. He’s in favor of some sort of semi-permanent permeable solution if that’s possible. He thinks Commissioner Watson’s compromises are pretty good, but he trusts that city staff can figure that out. Alternate Commissioner Miranda noted that she’s an alternate commissioner and unable to vote; however, she suggests that if the voting commissioners want to require permeable pavement on the ADA compliant public walkway, they would need to include that in the motion. MOTION – CONCEPT PLAN Vice President Jackson made the following motion: “I move for approval of the Concept Plan PDR2020-00002 and adoption of findings and the staff report based on the testimony received - and including the memo dated 3/15/21 for text corrections.” Seconded by Commissioner Roberts VOTE A vote was taken - all were in favor, none opposed. March 15, 2021 Page 7 of 8 RESULT MOTION TO APPROVE the Concept Plan PASSES unanimously. MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN AND SUBDIVISION Vice President Jackson made a motion: “I move for approval of application PDR2020-00002 and SUB2020-00005 Detailed Plan and Subdivision and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report based on the testimony received and also including the text changes noted in the staff memo dated 3/15/21.” Motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts CALL FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT(S) A vote was not taken at this point. President Hu asked if any of the commissioners wanted to make a motion for amendments to the Detailed Plan and Subdivision motion. Commissioner Watson said, “I will provide a motion that they look at the permeable paver alternative to the hard pavement for the pathway. If they can come up with the design that can preserve the tree roots and general health.” She asked if that was adequate. There was further discussion about ADA requirements, and she rescinded the previous motion. Commissioner Watson made another motion: “I would like to amend the motion to require that they consult with their arborist and landscape architect in order to determine whether a permeable paver system can be ADA accessible and also feasible in preserving the trees and wetlands in tract C.” Associate Planner Agnes Lindor interjected “Only a portion of the trail is in Tract C, so I don’t know if you want to limit it to just Tract C.” Commissioner Watson: “Okay, let’s just say wherever the pedestrian trail is happening, that’s where the permeable pavers would be happening. And the designer needs to design a system that accomplishes code compliance and also tree preservation - and permeable pavers are a potential design solution. It has to be ADA accessible, whether it’s permeable or not. If that’s what’s possible. It has to meet code. So, they need to propose a permeable system that meets code if possible, to preserve the trees. The trees are the possible… the tree preservation is what needs to give if this doesn’t work out. It has to meet code regardless.” President Hu restated the amended motion: Commissioner Watson is forwarding a motion to require the applicant to submit a design for the pedestrian access easement that’s ADA accessible, using a permeable pavement material that meets code, if possible, to preserve the trees.” Commissioner Keshavan (K7) Tiruvallur seconded the motion. VOTE March 15, 2021 Page 8 of 8 Those in Favor: Commissioners Whitehurst, Watson, Roberts, K7 and Quinones. Opposed: Commissioner Schuck Abstaining: Commissioners Jackson and Hu President Hu declared that by a vote of 5 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 abstaining, the MOTION TO AMEND the original Detailed Plan and Subdivision motion PASSES. President Hu then brought the original motion by Vice President Jackson to include the amendment up for a vote. Vice President Jackson had moved: “I move for approval of application PDR2020-00002 and SUB2020-00005 Detailed Plan and Subdivision and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report based on the testimony received and also including the text changes noted in the staff memo dated 3/15/21.” VOTE The vote on Commissioner Jackson’s original motion including Commissioner Watson’s amendment was 8-0 in FAVOR. RESULT Motion to Recommend APPROVAL of the Detailed Plan and Subdivision including the 3/15 memo and Commissioner Watson’s amendment PASSES unanimously 8-0. TRAINING City Attorney Shelby Rihala gave the commissioners training on Land Use Law. She later gave them a handout summing up her presentation (Exhibit C). OTHER BUSINESS – None ADJOURNMENT President Hu adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e 95th Avenue Planned Development Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development March 15, 2021 EXHIBIT A C I T Y O F T I G A R D Project Location: 10970 SW 95th Ave C I T Y O F T I G A R D Project Information: Area: 2.7 Acres Zone: R-12 Sensitive Lands: Sig. Wetland Sig. Tree Grove C I T Y O F T I G A R D Project Summary Proposed Applications: Consolidated Planned Development Review Concept Plan Detailed Plan Subdivision for 23 lots C I T Y O F T I G A R D Project Summary 23-lot Subdivision 8 lots for Single Detached Houses 15 lots for Rowhouse Development Lots 1-8 alley loaded Preservation of Significant Wetland and Tree Grove Tract D -36,905 SF Tract A & B -Stormwater Tract C –Open space C I T Y O F T I G A R D Concept Plan: C I T Y O F T I G A R D Detailed Plan: C I T Y O F T I G A R D Flexibility Requests: Minimum Lot Width (RH): 18 feet for Lots 18, 19, and 22 Minimum Lot Size (SDH and RH) RH: Lots 1-8, 17-19, 22, and 23 ranging 1,770 -2,451 SF SDH: Lots 9-16 ranging 2,158 -2,730 SF Minimum Side Setback (SDH and RH) RH: Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, and 21 SDH: Side setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 9-16 C I T Y O F T I G A R D Flexibility Requests: Minimum Landscape Area (RH): 10% Minimum Driveway Spacing (RH): 12 feet for Lot 23 Minimum Shared Access Width: 15 feet for Lots 4 -8 Minimum Lot Frontage (SDH): 26 -28 feet for Lots 9 -16 Minimum Local Street Spacing: 110 feet C I T Y O F T I G A R D Public Benefit: Preservation of significant wetland and tree grove 600 feet of hard surface trail that meanders along the edge of the significant wetland buffer; Connection to the east for potential future connection; and Connection to new public street. Bench seating along trail; and Public access easement and maintenance agreement for the trail. C I T Y O F T I G A R D Public Benefit: C I T Y O F T I G A R D Findings The proposal provides detailed information on how all applicable criteria and standards are met or met through conditions of approval. There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed development. The public benefit provided is sufficient to warrant the type of flexibility requested. All impacts from the development will be mitigated to the extent practicable. C I T Y O F T I G A R D Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and recommends approval of the: Planned Development Review Consolidated Plan PDR2020-00002); and Subdivision (SUB2020-00002) subject to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report. C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e 95th Avenue Planned Development Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item #5 Community Development March 15, 2021 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Re: PDR2020-00002 95th Ave Date: March 15, 2021 This memo is intended to address scrivener errors in that staff report. Staff asks that Planning Commission incorporate this memo into the motion in order to correct them in the final Planning Commission Decision. Page 6: Condition #28: remove semicolon in last sentence These coordinates can be established by; GPS tie networked to the City’s GPS survey or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. Page 8: Section 18.770.030.D: add the word “adjustments” The applicable development standards are addressed later in this report. The applicant has requested adjustments specific through this process, which are also identified later in this report. Page 9: Section 18.770.030.H: change “increased” to “increase” The proposal does not include any increased in density. Page 11: Section 18.770.040.B: remove word “to” (below table) Development Standards: The flexibility request includes to the following development standards: Page 18: Section 18.830.040.A.2.a: replace “minimum” with “maximum” (below table) Minimum Maximum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Page 21: Section 18.110.050: replace “minimum” with “maximum” EXHIBIT B Minimum Maximum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Page 22: Section 18.280.050.B: replace “minimum” with “maximum” Minimum Maximum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Page 25: Section 18.280.050.G.2: remove semicolon and add the word “by” The applicant submitted an urban forestry plan, prepared by Morgan Holen; by Morgen Holen Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor. Page 28: Section 18.420.060.B.1: remove semicolon and add the word “by” The applicant submitted an urban forestry plan, prepared by Morgan Holen; by Morgen Holen Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor Section 18.420.060.B.3: remove semicolon and add the word “by” A supplemental report was prepared and submitted by the project arborist, Morgan Holen; by Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC. Page 30: Section 18.420.060.E.3: add period This standard will be met. Page 46: 18.910.140: remove semicolon in last sentence of first paragraph These coordinates can be established by; GPS tie networked to the City’s GPS survey or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. Planning Commission Training City Attorney Shelby Rihala shelbyr@tigard-or.gov I. Role of PC a. Overall i. Conflict resolution—contentious issues that PC resolves ii. May be first experience with government or land use iii. PC sets tone for deliberations—model behavior iv. Members chosen to make sometimes difficult decisions b. Legislative i. Adoption of new policy ii. Personal opinions are expected and allowed c. Quasi-Judicial i. Act as impartial tribunal ii. Base decision on testimony and eviden ce in the record only iii. Free of actual bias 1. Failure to disclose ex parte contact is substantive error a. Include site visits after application filed if results in factual info relied on in decision b. Communication with staff not ex parte, only if limited to info in the record 2. Must place on the record the content of the ex parte contact and the right to rebut 3. Bias = actual personal interest in outcome, ex. Living near development, church neighbor 4. Member with conflict cannot participate or vote; only reason for abstention iv. Criteria matter 1. Legal requirement in OR, only standards and criteria that apply are adopted ones, existing on the date the application was submitted 2. Goal Post Rule: can’t change interpretation mid -process 3. Only amend rules after application is complete 4. Vague standards: EXHIBIT C a. Ordinance must enable participants to know what must be shown i. Ok = compatible, be in public interest, best use, etc ii. Not ok = court of appeals just held phrase youth activity center” not defined in code, not listed as a permitted use in any zone, and not defined or used in any statute or administrative rule, so no applicant could reasonably predict whether the county would determine what activity would constitute a youth activity center iii. Often a close call determining whether a local government has impermissibly developed new standards and criteria through QJ decision making as opposed to merely refining, by interpretation, existing codified standards and criteria v. Importance of findings 1. Based on written decisions 2. Purpose: know what decision was and why 3. Accept staff report or discuss and ask staff to come back with different findings 4. Common problems: a. Conclusory: explain why b. Conflicting evidence: resolve conflicts c. Missing findings: include all decisions in findings d. Unresponsive: address each applicable approval criteria II. After the Hearing a. Keep hearing and deliberation separate: i. May ask questions to clarify or get info, but not to argue case ii. Hold argument until deliberations, not through witnesses b. Request for continuance i. Initial evidentiary hearing 1. Any party may request 2. Must provide at least 7 days 3. Consult with staff ii. Continued hearing: time and date certain 1. If record is left open and new evidence submitted, any party may respond 2. Reopen Record for at least 7 days 3. Opponents get last word on evidence; applicant gets last word on argument iii. Final rebuttal 1. Written submission at least 7 days after close of record 2. Limited to argument only and cannot include new evidence 3. Not subject to 120-day rule III. Decision a. Substantial evidence standard: whether the evidence in the reco rd would permit a reasonable person to make the disputed finding b. Conditions: i. Means of addressing approval criteria only, not every issue that’s been raised or special concerns ii. Not a substitute for compliance with approval criteria: approval decision must demonstrate compliance with all discretionary approval standards is “feasible” IV. Testimony at Council a. Free speech vs respect for the process b. Importance of findings on the record PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 51 Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date: March 15, 2021 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 5/12/2021 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: 95th AVENUE SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR2020-00002 SUBDIVISION SUB2020-00005 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development review and subdivision application. The proposal includes a 23-lot subdivision that contains 15 lots for rowhouse development and eight lots for single detached house development. The proposal also includes extension of a public street from 95th Avenue to the east, preservation of the onsite wetland, stormwater facilities, and public amenities along the edge of the wetland. APPLICANT: Steve Miller; Emerio Desgin, LLC 6445 SW Fallbrook Place #100 Beaverton, OR 97008 OWNER: Carl Anderson / Marc Allen Anderson 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Avenue; WCTM 1S1135AC Tax Lots 01700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.110, 18.210, 18.280, 18.290, 18.410, 18.420, 18.770, 18.830, 18.910, 18.920, and 18.930. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 51 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Consolidated Planned Development Plan and Subdivision will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Criteria as outlined in Section VI of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following Conditions of Approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must submit an Autocad file of proposed street names and assignment of addresses and pay the address fee. Contact Oscar Contreras at 503-718-2678 for the submission of the Autocad file. The address fee must be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Agnes Lindor (503)718-2429 or AgnesL@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 2. This bond amount will be for newly planted trees. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 3). This fee amount will be for newly planted trees and preserved trees. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a Subdivision Plat Naming form that was approved by the Washington County Surveyor’s Office. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant will record an equitable servitude stating that rowhouse development must be built on Lots 1 through 8 and 17 through 23. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 51 The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov.. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 8. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines 9. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 11. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must submit plans showing the following required street improvements to Engineering for review and approval: SW 95th Avenue (half-street improvements): o 29’ right-of-way dedication from centerline o 18’ pavement (12’ travel lane, 6’ bike lane) ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o 0.5’ curb o 5’ planter strip o 5’ sidewalk o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 51 o 8’ public utility easement New unnamed public local residential street (full-street improvements): o 42’ right-of-way dedication (total) o 26’ pavement ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o (2) 0.5’ curb (both sides of street) o (1) 5’ planter strip (south side of street) o (1) 4.5’ additional right-of-way dedication for transitional grading (north side of street) o (1) 5’ sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 8’ public utility easement (south side of street) 12. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit 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. Specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information will delay processing of project documents. 13. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must 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 must be provided onsite. 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 must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 14. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. 15. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 16. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 17. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 51 constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. 18. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water services to be designed in accordance with the City of Tigard Standards for review and approval. 19. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. 20. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water services prior to issuance of city permits. 21. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the joint access easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway access and for the proposed pedestrian access path for review and approval. 22. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). 23. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. 24. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. 25. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov.. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 51 26. Prior to final plat approval, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The Applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 27. Prior to final plat approval, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. 28. Prior to final plat approval, the final plat must contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments must be on the same line and must be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat must 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 or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. 29. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, pay the final plat fee, and any other necessary data or narrative. The final plat and data or narrative must be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. Final plat will include signature lines for the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 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. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, the applicant must submit one copy of the final plat, for City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures. 30. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public utility easements, a joint access easement and public access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. 31. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit the Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. 32. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities underground. 33. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide evidence that the Homeowners Association (HOA) is formed and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) document is in place with language in regard to the maintenance of tracts and private accesses. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development review and subdivision PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 51 application. The proposal includes a 23-lot subdivision that contains 15 lots for rowhouse development and eight lots for single detached house development. The proposal also includes extension of a public street (SW Longstaff Street) from 95th Avenue to the east, preservation of the onsite wetland, stormwater facilities, and public amenities along the edge of the wetland. Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject site and found one preapplication conference (PRE2020-00020) for a 23-lot subdivision. No other previous land use records were found. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue and is 2.84 acres in size. The site is bordered by SW 95th Avenue on the west side and SW 93rd Avenue is stubbed to the site to the south. The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12) and located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. Surrounding properties to the north and east are zoned R-12 and properties to the south and west are zoned R-4.5. The site contains a single detached house and two accessory structures that will be demolished to accommodate the development. The site also contains a significant wetland and significant tree groves. SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal and be given an opportunity to provide comments prior to a decision being made. Staff mailed a Type III Notice of Public Hearing regarding this application to affected parties on February 22, 2021 and posted the site on February 26, 2021. Staff received the no public comments. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The following summarizes the review criteria applicable to this decision, in the order in which they are addressed: Applicable Review Criteria 18.770 Planned Developments 18.830 Subdivisions 18.110 Residential Zones 18.210 Residential General Provisions 18.280 Rowhouses 18.290 Single Detached Houses 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.910 Improvement Standards 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following subsections address only the approval criteria applicable to this decision. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 51 18.770 Planned Developments 18.770.020 Applicability This chapter applies to all proposed or existing planned developments. The applicant is proposing a planned development application. This chapter applies. 18.770.030 General Provisions B. Planned development approval is required to establish a new planned development or to substantially redevelop an existing planned development. Substantial redevelopment is defined as a proposal that involves substantial changes to uses, structures, site improvements, operating characteristics, or original findings of fact. The applicant is requesting a planned development approval to establish a new planned development. C. An applicant may choose to submit a single consolidated planned development application or two consecutive planned development applications consisting of a concept plan application and a detailed plan application. The applicant is proposing a consolidated planned development application. D. The proposed development must comply with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as specifically adjusted through the planned development approval process. Planned development review satisfies the requirements for site development or conditional use review and a separate site development, conditional use, or adjustment application is not required. The applicable development standards are addressed later in this report. The applicant has requested specific through this process, which are also identified later in this report. E. If sensitive lands review is required, a sensitive lands application must be submitted concurrently with a consolidated or detailed plan application. A sensitive lands application may not be submitted concurrently with a concept plan application. The site does contain a significant wetland, significant tree groves, and low to moderate value significant habitat areas. A sensitive lands review is not required because the applicant is not proposing any development within the significant wetland. The standards for significant tree groves and significant habitat areas are voluntary. F. If land division is proposed, a subdivision or land partition application must be submitted concurrently with a consolidated or detailed plan application. A subdivision or land partition application may not be submitted concurrently with a concept plan application. A subdivision is proposed and has been submitted with this application. G. If the proposed development has more than one base zone designation, density and floor area standards are calculated for each base zone as provided by this title. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 OF 51 The site only contains one base zone, R-12. Density is calculated later in this report and is based on the two proposed housing types. H. Density and floor area allocations and increases allowed with planned development approval are as follows: 1. Minimum density and floor area may be allocated anywhere on the site regardless of the underlying base zone designation. 2. Maximum density and floor area may be increased subject to the limitation of Subparagraph 18.770.060.B.10.b. The proposal does not include any increased in density. I. Uses and housing types allowed with planned development approval are based on the underlying zoning as follows: 1. Residential zones. All housing types and civic uses are allowed. Commercial uses not allowed by the underlying base zone may be allowed where appropriately located, designed, and scaled. 2. Commercial zones. Apartments and civic uses not allowed by the underlying base zone may be allowed where appropriately located, designed, and scaled. 3. Industrial zones. No additional uses are allowed beyond what is allowed in the applicable base zone. The site is located in the R-12 zone where rowhouses and single detached houses are allowed. J. The following development standards may not be adjusted with planned development approval: 1. Minimum density or minimum floor area ratio. 2. Maximum parking ratio. 3. Any development standard that contains an express prohibition. The applicant is not requesting any adjustments that are prohibited. 18.770.040 Required Analysis In addition to the submittal requirements in Paragraph 18.710.030.C.3, a consolidated or concept plan application must include the information listed below. The graphic illustrations must adequately demonstrate the required information. Examples of graphic illustrations include, but are not limited to, the following: maps, site plans, massing studies, elevation drawings, photo simulations, and digitally created 3-dimensional drawings. Manually created artistic renderings are usually not adequate on their own to illustrate the required information. A. Proposal summary. A written description and graphic illustration of the planned development proposal with enough specificity to convey the overall land use pattern, development scale, circulation network, and housing types and densities. The description must include a statement about the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal and why the applicant believes the public benefits from the proposal are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of flexibility requested. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 51 The development is a 23-lot subdivision that consists of 15 lots for rowhouse development and eight lots for single detached house development. The lots for rowhouse development (Lots 1-8 and 17- 23) range from 1,770 square feet to 2,750 square feet and lots for single detached houses (Lots 9-16) range from 2,158 square feet to 2,730 square feet. A public street (SW Longstaff Street) will be extended along the north portion of the lot from SW 95th Avenue to the east. The new public street is stubbed to the east property and a fire turn around is proposed between Lots 20 and 21. Lots 1 through 8 front onto SW 95th Avenue, which will also be improved, but access to these rowhouse lots will be through an alley. All other lots will have access from the new public street. The development includes two stormwater tracts (Tracts A and B), one is located at the corner of SW 95 th Avenue and the new public street and the second one is behind Lots 9 through 12. The significant wetland and its associated buffer that is located on the south portion of the site will be place d in Tract D and will be protected. Lastly, a hard surface public pedestrian path is proposed along the edge of the wetland from the east property line. The path is located along the rear portion of Lots 17 through 23 and open space Tract C. The path provides a connection to the new public street between Lots 20 and 21 and along the east side of the proposed alley. The path will be placed within a public access easement and there will be benches placed along the path. The applicant is requesting flexibility for ten development standards, described below. The narrative states that the proposal supports the purpose of providing a range of housing types at varying densities and promoting opportunities for walkability. The public benefit includes the construction of a hard surface path with a public pedestrian easement, which is sufficient to warrant the type of flexibility requested. A written description and graphic illustration of the planned development proposal with enough specificity to convey the overall land use pattern, development scale, circulation network, and housing types and densities was submitted and is sufficient. The description includes a statement about the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal and why the applicant believes the public benefits from the proposal are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of flexibility requested. B. Flexibility request. A detailed written description of all proposed adjustments to development standards and the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must be accompanied by professional studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must also include a table that lists each applicable development standard and the associated proposed standard in a side-by-side column format. The proposal includes nine flexibility requests affecting the following development standards: Applicable Development Standard Proposed Standard 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Lot width of 20 feet 18 feet for Lots 18, 19, and 22 18.280.050.D/Table 18.280.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, and 21 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Minimum lot size of 2,500 SF Lots 1-8, 17-19, 22, and 23 range from 1,770 to 2,451 SF PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 51 18.280.050.G/Table 18.280.1: Minimum landscape area 20% 10% for Lots 1-8 and 17-23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum driveway spacing of 18 feet 12 feet for Lot 23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum shared access width of 20 feet 15 feet along Lots 4-8 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum lot size of 3,050 SF Lots 9-16 range from 2,158 to 2,730 SF 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Side setbacks of 3 feet for Lot 9-16 18.830.040.A2.c: Minimum lot frontage of 40 feet 26-28 feet for Lots 9-16 18.920.030.I.4: Minimum local street spacing of 125 feet 110 feet The applicant provided the following detailed description of the flexibility requests: Development Standards: The flexibility request includes to the following development standards: - Minimum lot size for both rowhouse and single detached house lots - Minimum lot width for rowhouse lots - Minimum lot frontage for single detached house lots - Minimum side setbacks for both rowhouse and single detached house lots - Minimum landscape area for rowhouse lots Flexibility is being requested to the above referenced development standards due to the constraints on the site. The site contains a significant wetland and associated buffer as well as significant tree groves. The wetland, buffer, and a majority of the s ignificant tree grove will remain preserved. In order to achieve the density required for the site, these standards need to be adjusted. Because the development standards are related, when one is adjusted it impacts other standards. A reduction in minimum lot size resulting in a reduced width, street frontage, setbacks, and landscape area. Due to the sensitive lands on site and density requirements, the flexibility requests are warranted. Minimum Driveway Spacing and Shared Access Width The minimum driveway spacing for rowhouse lots is 18 feet. The driveway for Lot 23 is only 12 feet from the driveway on Lot 22 (located west of Lot 23) and ten feet from the east property line. There is not sufficient room to move the driveway to the east an additional six feet due to the location of the catch basin at the end of the street. The minimum shared access width for rowhouse lots is 20 feet. The proposed shared access is 20 feet wide, however, along Lots 4 through 8 the pavement width is 15 feet due to the pedestrian access proposed that connects to the new public street. Due to the site constraints from the wetland and associated buffer, there is not sufficient space for 20 feet of pavement width and a five-foot pedestrian access. The applicant is proposing a mountable curb in order to provide 20 feet of vehicular access but also a separated pedestrian path. Based on this, the flexibility request is supported. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 51 Minimum Local Street Spacing The minimum local street spacing standard is 125 feet. The intersection spacing between SW Anna Belle Court and the proposed public street is 110 feet. SW Anna Belle Court is a private street designed to only serve the Ash Creek Village, a 13-lot subdivision, and cannot be extended beyond its current terminus. Similarly, the proposed public street for this development site is also limited to serving the proposed development and cannot be extended further east or south due to existing development and the presence of the existing wetland on the site. Due to the limited nature of the two streets as well as the environmental constraint on the applicant’s site, the flexibility request is supported. C. Public benefits proposal. A detailed written description of all proposed public benefits. The description must be accompanied by drawings, plans, or details as needed to convey the location, size, and overall nature of each public benefit. Public benefits include features, amenities, or protections that in some way exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users. The applicant provided the following description of all proposed public benefits: The proposal includes approximately 600 feet of hard surface pedestrian path along the edge of Tract D from the east property line. The path is located along the rear portion of Lots 17 through 23 and open space Tract C. The path provides a connection to the new public street between Lots 20 and 21 and along the east side of the proposed alley. The path will be placed within a public access easement and there will be benches placed along the path. D. Environmental analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and any existing natural features on the site. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal addresses any existing sensitive lands, significant tree groves, land forms, or other natural features on the site. The applicant provided the following description of the relationship between the planned development proposal and any existing natural features on the site: The site is currently developed with a 1,400 square foot single detached house and two accessory structures, with one of the accessory structures located within the wetland buffer. The site contains a significant wetland, significant tree groves, and low to moderate value habitat areas. The wetland and associated buffer will be placed in a protected tract. The majority of the significant tree grove and habitat areas are also located within the proposed tract. As proposed, the development will result in improved environmental conditions by removing structures from the wetland buffer and also providing protection to the existing sensitive lands on the site. E. Compatibility analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and the surrounding community. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal integrates with and responds to existing development patterns through a discussion about the arrangement, location, and massing of all proposed buildings, uses, and site improvements, including streets and paths. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 51 The applicant provided the following description of the relationship between the planned development proposal and the surrounding community: The surrounding areas include similar uses that are proposed with this development. The property to the north and east contains an apartment development that includes seven apartment buildings and borders Highway 217. Properties to the north, south, and west are developed with single detached homes on larger lots that were platted in between 1950s and early 1990s. To the northwest of the site is a recent subdivision with lot sizes similar to the proposed development. Across Highway 217, a majority of the site contain single story office buildings and big box retail stores. Immediately northeast of the site, is a pocket of R-4.5 zoning that contains the cemetery. As proposed, the development compliments the existing uses in the area and provides for a balanced community that includes single detached houses on larger lots, the newer smaller lot subdivision, and the apartment development. Tract D, which contains the wetland and associated buffer, also provides a natural separation between the proposed development and existing single detached houses to the south. F. Land use analysis. A detailed written description that demonstrates the need for or benefit of any civic or commercial uses proposed in a residential zone or civic or residential uses proposed in a commercial zone where not allowed in the underlying base zone. The description must be accompanied by professional studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the proposed land uses. The description must also include a table that lists each proposed land use category by location. All proposed uses are allowed in the R-12 zone. This analysis is not required. G. Impact identification. A detailed written description of the impacts of the planned development proposal on adjacent properties or the surrounding community that would not occur if the site developed without a planned development approval. If impacts exist, the description must include a detailed mitigation proposal where practicable. The narrative provided a description of impacts and how such impacts will be mitigated. The development does not generate a significant number of trips to trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis. The site is already adjacent to similar uses and housing types. There will not be additional noise impacts to surrounding properties. Tract D also provides for a natural separation between the development and existing single detached houses to the south. All necessary utilities, including sewer, water, storm, gas, power, and telephone, to serve the development are already available in SW 95th Avenue and will be extended with the new public street. A stormwater report was submitted and stated that water quality swales will be provided for treatment as well as detention facilities. All stormwater improvements will meet City and CWS standards. 18.770.050 Approval Process A. A consolidated planned development application is processed through a Type III -PC procedure as provided in Section 18.710.070. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 OF 51 The proposed application is a consolidated planned development application and requires a public hearing before Planning Commission. The hearing is scheduled for March 15, 2021. 18.770.060 Approval Criteria A. Consolidated planned development. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a consolidated planned development application when all of the following criteria are met. 1. All concept plan approval criteria listed in Subsection 18.770.060.B are met; and The criteria are addressed below, this criterion is met. 2. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. There are already existing utilities on the site that are sufficient to serve the proposed development. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line in SW 95th Avenue and along the north property line of the site. Water service is provided by TVWD. There is an existing water line in SW 95th Avenue. The applicant provided a letter from TVWD that indicates the service level of the existing line is sufficient to serve this development. The applicant will work with TVWD to ensure adequate water service is provided to the development. A stormwater report was submitted stating that the development will provide water quality swales for treatment and detention facilities that will comply with City of Tigard and CWS standards. All other utilities including power, gas, and telephone, are already available on the site and the applicant will work with each provider to ensure adequate service is provided. The site is served by a public street, SW 95th Avenue, that borders the site on the west side. The SW 95th Avenue will be improved with sidewalks and a new public street will be provided along the north portion of the site will be extended to the east property line. This criterion is met. B. Concept plan. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a concept plan application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The information and analysis required by Section 18.770.040 is sufficiently detailed and of high enough quality to effectively evaluate the proposed development; The information and analysis was written in sufficient detail and high -quality for staff to effectively evaluate the proposed development, as demonstrated in the findings for the remaining approval criteria. This criterion is met. 2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The site is approximately 2.84 acres in size. The lot is bordered by SW 95th Avenue on the west side. The site contains a significant wetland, significant tree groves, and low to moderate value habitat areas. The wetland and associated buffer will be placed in a protected tract. The majority of the significant tree grove and habitat areas are also located within the proposed tract. The current site is developed with a single detached house and two accessory structures; one of the accessory structures is located within the wetland buffer and will be removed and the area restored. The proposed development is situated on the north and west portions of the site. As proposed, the characteristics of the site are PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 15 OF 51 suitable for the development and results in protection of existing natural features. This criterion is met. 3. The proposed development is reasonably compatible with and thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding community; The surrounding areas include similar uses that are proposed with this development. The property to the north and east contains an apartment development that includes seven apartment buildings and borders Highway 217. Properties to the north, south, and west are developed with single detached homes on larger lots that were platted in between 1950s and early 1990s. To the northwest of the site is a recent subdivision with lot sizes similar to the proposed development. As proposed, the development is compatible with the existing uses in the area and provides for a balanced community that includes single detached houses on larger lots, the newer smaller lot subdivision, and the apartment development. Tract D, which contains the wetland and associated buffer, also provides a natural separation between the proposed development and existing single detached houses to the south. The proposal includes approximately 600 feet of hard surface pedestrian path along the edge of Tract D from the east property line. This criterion is met. 4. The proposed development includes features, amenities, or protections that exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users, and the proposed benefits are sufficient to wa rrant the type and amount of development flexibility requested; The proposal includes flexibility requests affecting the following development standards: Applicable Development Standard Proposed Standard 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Lot width of 20 feet 18 feet for Lots 18, 19, and 22 18.280.050.D/Table 18.280.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, and 21 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Minimum lot size of 2,500 SF Lots 1-8, 17-19, 22, and 23 range from 1,770 to 2,451 SF 18.280.050.G/Table 18.280.1: Minimum landscape area 20% 10% for Lots 1-8 and 17-23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum driveway spacing of 18 feet 12 feet for Lot 23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum shared access width of 20 feet 15 feet along Lots 4-8 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum lot size of 3,050 SF Lots 9-16 range from 2,158 to 2,730 SF 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Side setbacks of 3 feet for Lot 9-16 18.830.040.A2.c: Minimum lot frontage of 40 feet 26-28 feet for Lots 9-16 18.920.030.I.4: Minimum local street spacing of 125 feet 110 feet PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 OF 51 The site contains a significant wetland, significant tree groves, and low to moderate value habitat areas. Currently, there is an accessory structure within the wetland buffer. The accessory structure will be removed and the wetland and associated buffer will be placed in a protected tract. The majority of the significant tree grove and habitat areas are also located within the proposed tract. In order to provide this level of protection for the sensitive resources on the site, the proposed lots and structures must be limited to the edges of the property outside of the open space tract. This clustering of the proposed development necessitates the proposed adjustments to the base zone development standards, which is the intended purpose of a planned development. As proposed, the development will result in improved environmental conditions by removing structures from the wetland buffer and also providing protection to the existing sensitive lands on the site. The proposal includes approximately 600 feet of hard surface pedestrian path along the edge of Tract D from the east property line. The path is located along the rear portion of Lots 17 through 23 and open space Tract C. The path provides a connection to the new public street between Lots 20 and 21 and along the east side of the proposed alley. The path will be placed within a public access easement and there will be benches placed along the path. This public benefit, coupled with the protection of extensive significant wetlands and tree groves on the property, is sufficient to warrant the type and amount of development flexibility requested. This criterion is met. 5. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve existing, healthy, and noninvasive trees and tree groves to the greatest extent possible; The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve existing, healthy, and noninvasive trees and tree groves to the greatest extent possible because the majority of the significant tree grove on the site is preserved within the proposed open space tract. This criterion is met. 6. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve all natural drainages to the greatest extent possible, except where the applicant has demonstrated that modifying a natural drainage results in the same or better environmental function as the existing drainage; The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve all natural drainages to the greatest extent possible because the existing drainage pattern on the site is to the south and the development is proposed on the north and west portions of the site, which preserves the natural drainage to the extent possible. All stormwater from proposed development will be directed to the proposed stormwater facilities and then to SW 95th Avenue. As proposed, the development will preserve all natural drainages on the site. This criterion is met. 7. Any impacts from the proposed development are mitigated to the extent practicable; The narrative provided a description of impacts and how such impacts will be mitigated. The development does not generate a significant number of trips to trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis. The site is already adjacent to similar uses and housing types. There will not be additional noise impacts to surrounding properties beyond what might be expected from a residential development. Tract D also provides for a natural separation between the development and existing single detached houses to the PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 OF 51 south. All necessary utilities, including sewer, water, storm, gas, power, and telephone, to serve the development are already available in SW 95th Avenue and will be extended with the new public street. A stormwater report was submitted and stated that water quality swales will be provided for treatment as well as detention facilities. All stormwater improvements will meet City and CWS standards. This criterion is met. 8. The city engineer has determined that any adjustments to street or access standards do not result in unsafe conditions; The proposed development includes a flexibility request to the local street spacing standard. The intersection spacing between SW Anna Belle Court and the applicant’s proposed public street is 110 feet, which is less than the City’s minimum requirement spacing of 125 feet along a local street. SW Anna Belle Court is a private street designed to only serve the Ash Creek Village, a 13-lot subdivision, and cannot be extended beyond its current terminus. Similarly, the proposed public street for the applicant’s development site is also limited to serving the proposed development and cannot be extended further east or south due to existing development and the presence of the existing wetland on the site. Due to the limited nature of the two streets as well as the environmental constraint on the applicant’s site, the applicant has provided preliminary justification for the flexibility request to the local street standard. Therefore, the city engineer has determined that proposed adjustments to street or access standards do not result in unsafe conditions. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit the Final Intersection Sight Distance Certification for review and approval by the City verifying that sight distances and spacing along SW 95th Avenue are adequate. Through the conditions of approval, this criterion is met. 9. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted through this approval process; and The proposal, as provided in this report, meets all applicable development standards, except those included in the flexibility request. The flexibility request is addressed elsewhere in this report. This criterion is met. 10. The proposed development is within the following limits: a. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 50 percent, b. Maximum density or floor area may be increased by up to 30 percent, and c. Minimum landscape area may be reduced down to 10 percent. The applicant is proposing to reduce the landscaping to 10 percent. Maximum height and density are not proposed to be increased. This criterion is met. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the planned development criteria have been fully met. 18.830 Subdivisions A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions an application for a preliminary plat when all of the following are met: PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 OF 51 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations; The proposed preliminary plat complies or can be made to comply with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations, as demonstrated by the analysis contained within this administrative decision, and through the imposition of conditions of approval. All necessary conditions must be satisfied as part of the development and building process. This criterion is met. 2. The proposed lots must comply with the following: a. All development standards are met. The development standards, including density standards for residential and nonresidential development, are provided in the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. The development standards, including setbacks and height standards will be verified at time of building permit submittal. The applicant is requesting flexibility requests for the following development standards: Applicable Development Standard Proposed Standard 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Lot width of 20 feet 18 feet for Lots 18, 19, and 22 18.280.050.D/Table 18.280.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, and 21 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Minimum lot size of 2,500 SF Lots 1-8, 17-19, 22, and 23 range from 1,770 to 2,451 SF 18.280.050.G/Table 18.280.1: Minimum landscape area 20% 10% for Lots 1-8 and 17-23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum driveway spacing of 18 feet 12 feet for Lot 23 18.280.050.E.: Minimum shared access width of 20 feet 15 feet along Lots 4-8 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum lot size of 3,050 SF Lots 9-16 range from 2,158 to 2,730 SF 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Side setbacks of 3 feet for Lot 9-16 18.830.040.A2.c: Minimum lot frontage of 40 feet 26-28 feet for Lots 9-16 The gross site area is 121,056 square feet. Approximately, 21,833 square feet will be dedicated for public streets and 36,905 square feet for sensitive lands, resulting in 62,318 square feet of net development area. The proposal includes both rowhouse development and single detached house development. The minimum and maximum density for rowhouse development is based on the required minimum and maximum lot size (2,500 square feet and 2,750 square feet, respectively). Minimum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Because two housing types are being proposed with different methods of calculating density, maximum density is determined by using the rowhouse lot size because it would result in the highest PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 OF 51 possible density on the site. The maximum density is 24 lots (62,318 / 2,500). Minimum density is determined using the single detached house lots size because it would result in the lowest density on the site. Minimum density is 16 lots (62,318 / 3,050 x .80). The proposal is for 23 lots; therefore, density standards are met. This criterion is met. b. Each lot for quad, rowhouse, or single detached house development is rectilinear in shape with straight side lot lines at right angles to front lot lines, and straight rear lot lines parallel to front lot lines, except where not practicable due to location along a street radius or because of existing natural features or lot lines. Side and rear lot lines that are segmented may not contain cumulative lateral changes in direction that exceed 10 percent of the distance between opposing lot corners, as measured using the process of Subsection 18.40.060.C. The proposal includes lots for rowhouse and single detached house development. All proposed lots meet the rectilinear standard. This criterion is met. c. Each lot has a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way, except for the following types of lots: i. Rowhouse lots have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way; ii. Lots with curved frontages along cul-de-sacs or eyebrows have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way as measured along the arc of the front lot line; and iii. Lots at the terminus of a private street have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a private right-of-way. The proposal includes lots for rowhouse and single detached house development. All lots for rowhouse development have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage either on SW 95th Avenue or the new public street. Lots for single detached house development have lot frontages on the new public street that range from 26 to 28 feet. The applicant is requesting a flexibility request to allow for the reduced frontages. This criterion is met. d. Lots created using the density and dimensional standards for cottage cluster, courtyard unit, quad, and rowhouse development must record a deed restriction that prohibits any type of development other than the type proposed with the subdivision application. This deed restriction cannot be removed except through another land division process. The applicant is proposing a rowhouse development on Lots 1 through 8 and 17 through 23. As proposed, the development meets density requirements. In order to ensure that rowhouse development gets built, the applicant must record a deed restriction. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant will record an equitable servitude stating that rowhouse development must be built on Lots 1 through 8 and 17 through 23. As conditioned this criterion is met 3. The proposed plat name is not duplicative and satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 OF 51 The applicant did not submit a Subdivision Plat Naming form that was approved by the Washington County Surveyor’s Office. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a Subdivision Plat Naming form that was approved by the Washington County Surveyor’s Office. This criterion is met through a condition of approval. 4. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjacent 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 A dedication will be provided on SW 95th Avenue and for the new public street that extends east from SW95th Avenue. The streets will be improved in compliance with city standards. All proposed streets will conform to the surrounding approved land divisions. This criterion is met 5. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant’s narrative provides an explanation for all common improvements, as required. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed in detail under Section 18.910, Improvement Standards of this decision. This criterion is met FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the applicable subdivision criteria have been fully met. 18.110 Residential Zones 18.110.030 Land Use Standards A. General provisions. A list of allowed, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in residential zones is provided in Table 18.110.2. If a use category is not listed, see Section 18.60.030. The proposal is for Residential Use, which is allowed in the R-12 zone. This standard is met. B. Development standards. The standards for residential development in residential zones are located in the applicable housing type chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards. The standards for nonresidential development in residential zones are located in Chapter 18.350, Residential Zone Development Standards, and the applicable plan district chapter, if any The proposed development is residential. The applicable standards in Chapter 18.280, Rowhouses and Chapter 18.290, Single Detached are described below. 18.110.040 Housing Types A. A housing type is not a use category. It describes a type of development that can contain a Residential Use. B. A list of allowed, limited, and prohibited housing types in commercial zones is provided in Table 18.110.3. C. Housing types that are allowed or allowed on a limited basis are subject to the standards and provisions of the applicable development standards chapter, which is indicated in parentheses in the first column of Table 18.110.3. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 OF 51 The development includes rowhouse and single detached development, which are both allowed housing types in the R-12 zone. 18.110.050 Densities The maximum and minimum density standards for the housing types listed in Table 18.110.3 are provided in the applicable development standards chapter for each housing type and calculated using the methods in Section 18.40.130. The gross site area is 121,056 square feet. Approximately, 21,833 square feet will be dedicated for public streets and 36,905 square feet for sensitive lands, resulting in 62,318 square feet of net development area. The proposal includes both rowhouse development and single detached house development. The minimum and maximum density for rowhouse development is based on the required minimum and maximum lot size (2,500 square feet and 2,750 square feet, respectively). Minimum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Because two housing types are being proposed with different methods of calculating density, maximum density is determined by using the rowhouse lot size because it would result in the highest possible density on the site. The maximum density is 24 lots (62,318 / 2,500). Minimum density is determined using the single detached house lots size because it would result in the lowest density on the site. Minimum density is 16 lots (62,318 / 3,050 x .80). The proposal is for 23 lots; therefore, density standards are met. This criterion is met FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable residential zone standards have been fully met. 18.210 Residential General Provisions 18.210.020 Fence and Wall Standards Fences and walls may be located within required setbacks. Fences and walls located within required setbacks are subject to the standards in this section. Fences and walls located outside required setbacks are subject to the standards in the applicable housing type chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards. A. Fences and walls in a required front setback may be a maximum of 3 feet in height where abutting a local or neighborhood street and a maximum of 6 feet in height where abutting a collector or arterial street. B. Fences and walls in a required side, street side, or rear setback may be a maximum of 8 feet in height. Fences and walls 7 feet or more in height require a building permit. C. Fences and walls with barbed or razor wire are prohibited. D. Fences and walls must meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. Fences or wall are not proposed at this time. This standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable residential general provisions have been fully met. 18.280 Rowhouses 18.280.020 Applicability PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 OF 51 A. The standards of this chapter apply to rowhouse development in the R-7, R-12, R-25, MUR-1, and MUR-2 zones. Additional standards apply in the River Terrace Plan District, as provided in Chapter 18.640, River Terrace Plan District. An applicant may elect to apply the standards of Chapter 18.230, Apartments, when proposing rowhouse development in base zones where apartment development is allowed. The proposed development is located within the R-12 zone therefore, this chapter applies. 18.280.040 General Provisions All lots approved for rowhouse development in the R-7, R-12, and R-25 zones through the provisions of this chapter will be conditioned to record a deed restriction prohibiting any type of development other than rowhouse development on the lot. This deed restriction cannot be removed except through a land division or lot line adjustment process that brings the lot into conformance with the standards for development of other housing types. A rowhouse deed restriction imposed as a condition of a previous or concurrent land division or lot line adjustment process meets this standard. The applicant is proposing a rowhouse development on Lots 1 through 8 and 17 through 23. As proposed, the development meets density requirements. In order to ensure that rowhouse development gets built, the applicant must record a deed restriction. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant will record an equitable servitude stating that rowhouse development must be built on Lots 1 through 8 and 17 through 23. As conditioned this criterion is met 18.280.050 Development Standards A. Number of dwelling units. A rowhouse development must contain at least two dwelling units. There is no maximum number of dwelling units, except that in the R-7 zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per grouping is 5. The proposal includes three buildings with four units one building with three units. This standard is met. B. Density. Minimum and maximum densities are provided in Table 18.280.1. The gross site area is 121,056 square feet. Approximately, 21,833 square feet will be dedicated for public streets and 36,905 square feet for sensitive lands, resulting in 62,318 square feet of net development area. The proposal includes both rowhouse development and single detached house development. The minimum and maximum density for rowhouse development is based on the required minimum and maximum lot size (2,500 square feet and 2,750 square feet, respectively). Minimum density of detached house development is also determined based on minimum lot size (3,050 square feet), but minimum density is determined by taking 80 percent of maximum density. Because two housing types are being proposed with different methods of calculating density, maximum density is determined by using the rowhouse lot size because it would result in the highest possible density on the site. The maximum density is 24 lots (62,318 / 2,500). Minimum density is determined using the single detached house lots size because it would result in the lowest density on the site. Minimum density is 16 lots (62,318 / 3,050 x .80). The proposal is for 23 lots; therefore, density standards are met. This criterion is met C. Lot width. Minimum lot widths are provided in Table 18.280.1. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 23 OF 51 Lots 1 through 18, 17, 20. 21, and 23 meet the minimum lot width of 20 feet. For Lots 18, 19, and 22 the applicant is requesting a reduced lot with to 18 feet through a flexibility request. This standard is met. D. Setbacks. Minimum and maximum setbacks are provided in Table 18.280.1. The development standards, including setbacks and height standards will be verified at time of building permit submittal. The applicant is requesting a flexibility request to reduce the side setback from five feet to three feet for Lots 4, 5, 8, 17, 20, and 21. This standard is met. E. Parking. The provisions and standards of Sections 18.410.030 and 18.410.040 apply, except for Subsection 18.410.040.E. The following additional standards also apply: 1. Number of spaces. a. A minimum of 1 off-street parking space must be provided for each rowhouse. b. An on-street parking credit may be granted for some or all the required off -street parking as provided in Section 18.410.090. The rowhouses proposed on Lots 1 through 8 have two-car garages and the rowhouses proposed on Lots 17 through 23 have one-car garages. These standards will be verified at building permit submittal. This standard is met. 2. Access. Access to off-street parking areas for rowhouse development may be taken through tandem driveways, shared access, or from an alley. The following requirements apply to each situation in addition to the relevant sections of Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation. a. Tandem driveways. If access is taken from a street other than an alley and access is not shared development-wide, the following standards apply. See Figure 18.280.1 for examples. i. A maximum of 1 driveway is allowed for every 2 dwelling units, except that each rowhouse grouping of three or more dwelling units may include 1 driveway that provides access to a single dwelling unit. Shared access is subject to the requirements of Subsection 18.920.030.C. ii. The minimum width for a driveway is 15 feet, except that a single unshared driveway may be 10 feet in width. iii. The maximum width for a driveway is 18 feet, except that the maximum width for a single unshared driveway is 12 feet. iv. Driveways must be located a minimum of 18 feet apart to minimize vehicle conflicts with pedestrians. Distance between driveways is measured along the front property line. b. Shared access. If access for all dwelling units in a rowhouse development is shared and off-street parking areas are provided at the side or rear of a rowhouse development rather than at the front of each dwelling unit, the minimum paved width of the shared access is 20 feet and the maximum width is 24 feet. c. Alley access. If access is taken from an alley, the following standards apply: i. A maximum of one access is allowed for each dwelling unit. ii. The minimum paved width of an alley access is 10 feet. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 OF 51 The rowhouses proposed on Lots 1 through 8 will be served by a shared access and each rowhouse will have an individual driveway. The proposed shared access is 20 feet wide, including a five-foot sidewalk with mountable curb. The pavement width is approximately 15 feet along Lots 4 through 8. The applicant is seeking flexibility on the shared access width. The rowhouses proposed on Lots 17 through 22 are provided by tandem driveways. The tandem driveways are 18 feet wide, except Lot 23. Lot 23 is part of a building that has three units and has a single driveway that is 10 feet. All tandem driveways are 18 feet apart except the driveway on Lot 23 that is 12 feet from the tandem driveway on Lot 22. The applicant has requested flexibility to this standard. This standard it met. 3. Location. Off-street parking areas, including detached parking structures, must be located a minimum of 20 feet from any street property line, except alley property lines, where no minimum setback is required. 4. Parking structures. Parking structures in rowhouse developments are subject to the following: a. Detached parking structures must be located a minimum of 40 feet from a street property line where rowhouses provide main entrances. b. The maximum size for a detached parking structure is 200 square feet per rowhouse served by the structure. c. The maximum height for a detached parking structure is 15 feet. 5. Screening. Screening of parking areas is not required, except that in the R-7 zone, off- street parking areas provided at the side or rear of buildings and not in structures must be screened from adjacent properties to the S-3 standard, as provided in Table 18.420.2. The required screening must be provided on the same site as the development. Off-street parking areas are not proposed. These standards do not apply. F. Pedestrian access. Rowhouse developments of 5 or more dwelling units must provide a paved, accessible pedestrian path that connects the main entrance of each rowhouse to the following: 1. Sidewalks in the right-of-way abutting the site; 2. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities; 3. Parking areas; and 4. Common open space and play areas. All rowhouses will have a pedestrian path to the sidewalk on SW 95th Avenue or the new public street. This standard is met. G. Landscaping. The provisions and standards of Chapter 18.420, Landscaping and Screening do not apply to rowhouse development, with the exception of Sections 18.420.030 and 18.420.040. The following additional standards also apply: 1. The minimum landscape area standards are provided in Table 18.280.1. All required landscape areas must meet the L-1 standard, as provided in Table 18.420.1. The applicant is requesting to reduce the landscape standard from 20 percent to 10 percent through a flexibility request. The landscape standard will be verified at building permit submittal. This standard is met. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 25 OF 51 2. A minimum of 15 percent tree canopy must be provided. The method for determining tree canopy is provided in Section 10 Part 3 Subpart M of the Urban Forestry Manual (UFM). All required trees must be a minimum caliper of 1.5 inches at the time of planting and meet the standards in Section 13 Part 2 and Appendix 3 of the UFM for soil volume and species. Trees planted to meet this standard are development trees. The applicant must pay the tree inventory fee listed in the city’s Master Fees and Charges Schedule. The applicant submitted an urban forestry plan, prepared by Morgan Holen; Morgen Holen & Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor. The plan s hows that all lots for rowhouse development will provide a minimum of 15 percent tree canopy. This standard is met. 3. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site’s street frontage by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site’s frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. a. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. b. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. The site has 259 feet of frontage on SW 95th Avenue and 457 feet of frontage along the new public street. Based on 716 feet of frontage, 18 street trees are required. The Tree Canopy Site Plan (Sheet 7), shows 19 street trees. There are eleven street trees on SW 95th Avenue and on a portion of the new street adjacent to Tract A that are planted in the planter strip in the right-of-way. The remaining eight trees are planted on Lots 11 through 15, 17, 18, and 22 within the public utility easement. This standard is met. H. Waste collection. 1. Dumpsters are prohibited in rowhouse developments. 2. Waste collection and service areas may not be located in required setbacks and must be screened to the S-1 standard, as provided in Table 18.420.2. Dumpsters are not proposed, and individual trash cans will be placed in garages of the homes. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable rowhouse standards have not been fully met, but can be met through conditions of approval. 18.290 Single Detached Houses 18.290.030 Development Standards PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 26 OF 51 Development standards for single detached houses are provided in Table 18.290.1. Table 18.290.1 Development Standards for Single Detached Houses Standard R-12 [1] Proposed Minimum Lot Size 3,050 sq ft 2,158 – 2,750 sq ft Minimum Lot Width 0 ft 26 – 28 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front 15 ft 15 ft - Street side 10 ft N/A - Side 5 ft 3 ft - Rear 15 ft 15 ft - Garage [3] 20 ft 20 ft Maximum Height 35 ft 35 ft Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Area [4] 20% 20% Minimum Parking 1 off-street vehicle parking space per house [5] [1] Development standards for single detached houses and allowed accessory uses and structures in the R -25 zone apply only to lots with existing nonconforming development. New construction of single detached houses is not allowed except as provided in Chapter 18.50, Nonconforming Circumstances. [3] The minimum garage setback applies to garages and carports. The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 feet where vehicle access is taken from an alley. [4] The minimum landscape area must be planted to the L-1 standard. Landscaping standards are provided in Chapter 18.420, Landscaping and Screening. Single detached house development is exempt from the gener al provisions of Section 18.420.030. [5] The minimum parking standard may be met with an on-street parking credit. On-street parking credit standards are provided in Section 18.410.090. The proposal includes flexibility to the minimum lot size; all lots (Lots 9 through 16) proposed for single detached house development range from 2,158 to 2,750 square feet. The lot width is 28 feet for Lot 9 and 26 feet for Lots 10 through Lot 16. The preliminary plat shows that that the front and rear setbacks will be met. The applicant is requesting flexibility to the side setback from five feet to three feet. The narrative states that the lots will comply with lot coverage and landscaping standards. Compliance with development standards will be confirmed upon building permit submittal. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable single detached house standards have not been fully met, but can be met through conditions of approval. 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.410.020 Applicability The provisions of this chapter apply to all new development and all modifications to existing development, including changes of use, unless stated otherwise. The proposal is for a new development, this chapter applies. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 27 OF 51 18.410.030 General Provisions A. Location. Required off-street parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves, except where an on-street credit has been granted through the provisions of Section 18.410.090. Off-street parking is provided on each lot for rowhouse and single detached house development. This standard is met. 18.410.070 Off-Street Parking Quantity Standards A. Off-street parking requirements. The ratios for providing minimum and maximum vehicle parking spaces are provided in Table 18.410.3. If application of the maximum parking standard results in less than 6 parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, the development is allowed up to 6 parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard results in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, the development is allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. The parking standards for rowhouse development and single detached house development are provided in Sections 18.280.050.E and 18.290.040, respectively. Accordingly, compliance with this standard will be confirmed during the building permit submittal process for all future development. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, the applicable off-street parking and loading standards have been fully met. 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.420.020 Applicability A. Landscaping standards. Landscaping standards apply to new and existing development that must provide a minimum amount of landscape area as required by the applicable development standards chapter. The proposal is for a new development, this section applies. B. Screening standards. Screening standards apply to new and existing development with uses or site improvements that must be screened from other uses or the street as required by the applicable development standards chapter. The proposal is for a new development, this section applies. C. Tree canopy standards. Site and parking lot tree canopy standards apply to the following types of new and existing development, except that parking lot tree canopy standards do not apply to subdivisions or partitions: 1. Subdivisions and partitions; 2. Apartments; 3. Nonresidential development, including mixed-use developments; 4. Wireless communication facilities; and 5. Mobile home parks. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 28 OF 51 The proposal is for a subdivision, this section applies. 18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards A. Site tree canopy standards, which are stated as a percentage of effective tree canopy cover for an entire site, are provided in UFM Section 10, Part 3, Subparts N and O. Parking lot tree canopy standards are provided below. B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot tree canopy standards and must meet the requirements of UFM Sections 10 through 13. An urban forestry plan must: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a project landscape architect or project arborist, i.e. a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, except that land partitions may demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; An Urban Forestry Plan that was coordinated and approved by Morgan Holen; Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, has been submitted. This standard is met. 2. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree preservation and removal site plan standards; A tree preservation and removal site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been submitted. There are 26 individual trees (24 located on-site) and one stand of trees made up of 180 trees. Twenty-one on-site individual trees will be removed and 94 trees in Stand #1 will be removed. The trees are proposed for removal in order to accommodate the proposed site and street improvements. This standard is met. 3. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree canopy and supplemental report standards and provide the minimum effective tree canopy cover; A supplemental report was prepared and submitted by the project arborist, Morgan Holen; Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC. This report includes the required inventory data for existing open grown trees, as outlined in Section 10, Part 3, Subsection D of the Urban Forestry Manual. The site is zoned R-12; accordingly, the minimum required effective tree canopy for the entire site is 33 percent and 15 percent for each rowhouse lot (Section 10, Part 3, Subsections N of the Urban Forestry Manual). Through the supplemental report and as shown below, the project arborist demonstrates how the effective tree canopy for the entire site and each rowhouse lot is met. Through preservation of the existing trees and planting of 22 new trees, the effective tree canopy for the entire site is 81.6 percent. Effective canopy for rowhouse lots is shown in the table below. Lot # Lot Area Preserved Stands (2x) Planted Trees Total Canopy Effective Canopy 1 2,451 - 491 491 20.0% 2 1,938 - 491 491 25.3% 3 1,936 - 491 491 25.4% 4 2,223 - 491 491 22.1% 5 2,220 - 491 491 22.1% 6 1,929 - 491 491 25.5% 7 1,926 - 491 491 25.5% PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 29 OF 51 8 2,405 - 491 491 20.4% 17 2,094 - 491 491 23.4% 18 1,851 - 491 491 26.5% 19 1,770 - 884* 884 49.9% 20 2,738 - 884* 884 32.3% 21 2,750 1,413 - 1,413 51.4% 22 1,793 - 491 491 27.4% 23 2,078 - 884* 884 42.5% * Native tree received 1.25 times canopy credit. This standard is met. 4. Demonstrate compliance with parking lot tree canopy standards, where applicable, by providing the minimum effective tree canopy cover of 30 percent for all parking areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percentage of tree canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard; and The proposal is for a 23-lot subdivision, a parking lot is not proposed. This standard does not apply. 5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910, Improvement Standards. a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site’s street frontage by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site’s frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. The site has 259 feet of frontage on SW 95th Avenue and 457 feet of frontage along the new public street. Based on 716 feet of frontage, 18 street trees are required. The Tree Canopy Site Plan (Sheet 7), shows 18 street trees. There are 10 street trees on SW 95 th Avenue and on a portion of the new street adjacent to Tract A that are planted in the planter strip in the right-of-way. The remaining eight trees are planted on Lots 11 through 16, 19, and 22 within the public utility easement. This standard is met. E. Urban forestry plan implementation. 1. Implementation of the urban forestry plan must be inspected, documented, and reported by the project arborist or landscape architect in compliance with the inspection requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 1, wherever an urban forestry plan is in effect. In PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 30 OF 51 addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the Director for the purpose. The urban forestry plan will be inspected, documented, and reported by the project arborist in compliance with the inspection requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 1. This standard is met through conditions of approval. Prior to commencing any site work, the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 2. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan must be guaranteed and required in compliance with the tree establishment requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 2. The proposal is a 23-lot subdivision. Tree establishment bonds are not required for subdivisions. This standard does not apply. 3. Spatial and species-specific data must be collected in compliance with the urban forestry inventory requirements in UFM Section 11, Part 3 for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan. Section 11, Part 3, Subsection B of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire Urban Forestry Plan. Therefore, a condition of approval is added to address this requirement. This standard will be met Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 3). This fee amount will be for preserved and newly planted trees. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable landscaping and screening standards are not fully met but can be through conditions of approval. 18.910 Improvement Standards 18.910.020 General Provisions A. Applicability. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs, and other public improvements shall occur in compliance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this chapter and adequate public facilities are available. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 31 OF 51 Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. The proposal includes the construction of new structures, this chapter applies. 18.910.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this chapter are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. As shown in the preliminary site plan, the proposed development has frontage on and seeks approved access to SW 95th Avenue, classified as a neighborhood route. Access to this development is proposed via an unnamed public local residential street. As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, are proposed along the applicant’s frontage on SW 95th Avenue in accordance with the standards of this chapter. The proposed frontage improvements will meet the standards of this section. Improvements must meet the following minimum requirements: SW 95th Avenue (half-street improvements): o 29’ right-of-way dedication from centerline o 18’ pavement (12’ travel lane, 6’ bike lane) ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o 0.5’ curb o 5’ planter strip o 5’ sidewalk o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk o 8’ public utility easement New unnamed public local residential street (full-street improvements): o 42’ right-of-way dedication (total) o 26’ pavement ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o (2) 0.5’ curb (both sides of street) o (1) 5’ planter strip (south side of street) PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 32 OF 51 o (1) 4.5’ additional right-of-way dedication for transitional grading (north side of street) o (1) 5’ sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 8’ public utility easement (south side of street) Through conditions of approval, this standard is met. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final plat; however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of 1 acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or partitions. c. The street is located within the mixed use central business district (MU-CBD) zone and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name “the public” as grantee. Dedication of right-of-way along the SW 95th Avenue frontage as well as for the new unnamed local public street will be created through the recording of the final plat. Street improvements along SW 95th Avenue and for the new unnamed local public residential street must be constructed in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards. This standard is met. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 33 OF 51 2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.920.030.H and I. Access to this development is proposed via a new unnamed local public residential street. The applicant has proposed a shared easement for access to Lots 1 through 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the joint access easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record a joint access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Public emergency access easements are required and shown on the plans, subject to approval of TVF&R. Access is addressed under Chapter 18.920, later in this decision. This standard is met. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.030.N; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Avenue, an existing street. The street grade will remain unchanged. Access to this development is proposed via the new unnamed public local residential street. The street grades will be approved by the engineer and will meet city requirements. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. This standard is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Tigard Downtown Plan District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are provided in Table 18.910.1. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 34 OF 51 Right-of-way and roadway widths for SW 95th Avenue must meet the minimum widths specified in 18.910.3 for a neighborhood route. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. Right-of-way and roadway widths for the new unnamed public local residential street must meet the minimum widths specified in 18.910.6 for a local residential street. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. This standard is met. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. 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. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has submitted a proposed circulation plan. The proposed development abuts developed properties to the north, east, and south. Connection to the existing 93rd Avenue stub street is precluded by the presence of the large wetland located on the proposed development site. The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the delineated wetland. The proposed hammerhead turnaround must meet all requirements for emergency vehicle access and turnaround. The proposed development will provide a pedestrian connection from the unnamed new public local residential street to the Reserve at Ashbrook complex, located immediately east of the proposed development. A public access easement must be provided for the proposed pedestrian connection shown in Tract C of the preliminary civil plan set. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the proposed public access easement and maintenance agreement for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public access easement with Washington County and provided a recorded copy to the city. This standard is met. G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.920.030.H. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 35 OF 51 Street spacing and access management is discussed under Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre- existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15 percent for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Frontage improvements along SW 95th Avenue, a neighborhood route, must be constructed in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards. See Section 18.920.030.F for findings regarding connectivity for the proposed internal street. This standard is met. I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. The proposed unnamed local residential street has been designed to intersect the existing SW 95th Avenue at a right angle. The standard is met. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 36 OF 51 The applicant has proposed right-of-way dedication for SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. This standard is met. K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Partial street improvements are not proposed. As provided in the Preliminary Civil Plan, the applicant has proposed for street improvements for SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter. This standard is met. M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant will provide a name for the new street at the time of the final plat, in accordance with Washington County naming convention standards. This standard is met. N. Grades and Curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10 percent on arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The preliminary civil plans provided by the applicant meet City standards for grades and curves for streets. This standard is met. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way, and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except: 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with city engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city configuration standards. The narrative and preliminary civil plan set show intent to comply with this requirement. This standard is met. R. Alleys, public or private. 1. Alleys shall be no less than 20 feet in width. In commercial and industrial zones, alleys shall be provided unless other permanent provisions for access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 37 OF 51 2. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than 12 feet. The applicant has proposed a shared access to serve Lots 1 through 8 of the planned development. The proposed shared access is 20 feet in width, which meets the standard for a minimum of 20 feet in width. The proposed shared access with the new unnamed local residential street at an angle of 90 degrees. The standard is met. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. All boundary, internal monuments, and street monuments must be protected in accordance with the City’s and County’s requirements and standards. T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 3. Private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, cottage cluster, courtyard units, and apartment developments. A private street is not proposed. The applicant has proposed a shared access to serve Lots 1 through 8 of the planned development within an easement. See findings in 18.910.030.R. V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least 2 dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final approval. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with regulations adopted by the city’s direction. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 38 OF 51 Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. This standard can be met through a condition of approval. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within 1 year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed or 3 years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed unless 3 years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1.5 inches in thickness. The development will require frontage improvements along SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street. This section is applicable. The standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. CC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10 percent or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3000 vpd 2,000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more The proposed development is for a 23-lot planned development. Based on the proposed trip generation, a traffic study is not required for this proposed development. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 39 OF 51 18.910.040 Blocks A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by Paragraph 18.910.040.B.1. 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. The applicant has submitted a proposed circulation plan. The proposed development abuts developed properties to the north, east and the south. Connection to the existing 93rd Avenue stub street is precluded by the presence of the large wetland located on the proposed development site. The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the delineated wetland. The proposed hammerhead turnaround must meet all requirements for emergency vehicle access and turnaround. The proposed development will provide a pedestrian connection from the unnamed new public local residential street to the Reserve at Ashbrook complex, located immediately east of the proposed development. A public access easement must be provided for the proposed pedestrian connection shown in Tract C of the preliminary civil plan set. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. This standard is met. 18.910.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. The proposed site plan, and preliminary plat show proposed and existing easements. All street frontages include an eight-foot public utility easement. All easement will be recorded with the final plat. This standard is met. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 40 OF 51 18.910.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All public and private streets adjacent to industrially zoned properties shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least 1 side of the street. All other public and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. No industrial street is proposed or deemed necessary. The development will include sidewalks along the development frontage. This standard is met. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 0.50 miles of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. There is an existing sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the development, both to the north and south of the proposed development. However, there is no existing right-of-way available between the applicant’s site and the existing sidewalk to the north or to the south to extend a sidewalk to match the existing sidewalk. In addition, there is an existing large healthy Ponderosa Pine tree immediately adjacent to the stubbed sidewalk to the north that would need to have the sidewalk meandered around the tree in order to preserve the tree and there is no right-of-way or pedestrian easements available to facilitate the location of the sidewalk. Therefore, extension of the sidewalk to the north or the south to meet the existing sidewalk is not a criterion for this development. This standard is met. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least 5 feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.910.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. The preliminary site plan shows the planter strip requirements are met for both the SW 95th Avenue frontage improvements and for the new unnamed public residential street. This standard is met. D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 41 OF 51 The property owner will take full responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips. This standard is met. E. Application for permit and inspection. Separate street opening permits are required for sidewalk segments that are not part of a current subdivision approval: 1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provisions of this section are satisfied. 2. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time; b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk; c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on 1 or both sides of the street; or d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible. 3. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. The submitted site plan shows proposed sidewalks for the development. The development will require a PFI Permit for construction and will include inspection requirements. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). This standard is met with conditions of approval. 18.910.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements and the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 42 OF 51 C. Over sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the approval authority where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows connection to an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main located SW 95th Avenue and an existing eight-inch main located in an easement immediately north of the proposed development site. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final plat, the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. Prior to final building inspection, the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. No over-sizing of sanitary sewer is proposed or deemed necessary. With conditions of approval, these standards are met. 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The applicant submitted preliminary plans that comply with these requirements. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right -of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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, and the City Engineer. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 43 OF 51 have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. Stormwater facilities showing preliminary compliance with CWS standards for water quality and water quantity are shown in Tracts A and B on the civil plan set. The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows construction of a proposed 12-inch storm sewer main within the new unnamed public local residential street to serve the proposed development. The stormwater facility in Tract A will outfall to an existing 12-inch storm main located within SW 95th Avenue. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. Prior to final plat, all public stormwater drainage systems, including water quality and detention facilities, must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. 18.910.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the City Engineer unless specified in Table 18.910.1. 2. 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 rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this chapter and on the adopted bicycle plan. The City’s TSP identifies bike lanes along SW 95th Avenue, consistent with the neighborhood route street section. The required half street frontage improvements will include widening the pavement cross section to provide a future bike lane. This standard is met. 18.910.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 44 OF 51 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: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. 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 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. The applicant acknowledges these requirements in the application narrative. All existing and proposed utilities must be undergrounded prior to final plat approval. This standard is met. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. A public utility easement is proposed adjacent to all rights of way for the placement of underground franchised utilities. Vison clearance areas at the corners were shown on the site plans. Obstruction in the corner vision clearances is prohibited. This standard is met. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding 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 undergrounding 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 undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. 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 the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 3. Properties within the MU-CBD zone shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Paragraphs 18.910.120.C.1 through 3 shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding is not proposed or deemed necessary. Prior to final plat approval, all existing and proposed utilities must be undergrounded. This standard does not apply. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 45 OF 51 D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this chapter. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the city at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the city. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the city council for their review and approval annually. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding is not proposed or deemed necessary. Prior to final plat approval, all existing and proposed utilities must be placed underground. A fee-in-lieu of undergrounding is not proposed or required. This standard does not apply. 18.910.130 Cash or Bond Required A. Guarantee. All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of 1 year following acceptance by the city council. B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.830.070. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. Prior to final plat approval, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two- year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to final plat approval, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide evidence that the Homeowners Association (HOA) is formed and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) document is in place with language in regard to the maintenance of tracts and private accesses. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 46 OF 51 18.910.140 Monuments—Replacement Required Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. Prior to final plat approval, the final plat must contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments must be on the same line and must be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat must 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 or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, pay the final plat fee, and any other necessary data or narrative. The final plat and data or narrative must be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. Final plat will include signature lines for the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 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. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, the applicant must submit one copy of the final plat, for City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable improvement standards have not been fully met but can be through conditions of approval. 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation 18.920.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures, and to a change of use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access requirements. This application is for a 23-lot subdivision, which is considered development. Accordingly, the provisions of Chapter 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation apply. 18.920.030 General Provisions B. Access plan requirements. A plan demonstrating compliance with the access, egress, and circulation requirements of this Chapter must be provided prior to any land use approval or development permit issuance. The applicant has submitted scaled plans that show how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled, in compliance with the standards outlined in this chapter. This standard is met. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Subsections 18.920.030.H, I and J must connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and must be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 47 OF 51 As demonstrated on the applicant’s plans, Lots 1 through 8 will have access through a private access easement that serves as an alley and connects to the new public street. Lots 9 through 23 will have direct access onto the new public street. This standard is met. H. Access management. 1. An access report must be submitted with all new development that 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 (depending on jurisdiction of facility). 2. Driveways must not 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 is 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 area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a case where a development has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent lot. If shared access is not possible or practicable, the driveway must be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector is 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial is 600 feet. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet. Preliminary Civil Plans have been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate preliminary compliance with the access, egress and circulation requirements of this chapter. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit a Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. With a condition of approval, this standard is met. I. Minimum access requirements for residential uses. 1. Vehicular access and egress for residential uses must comply with the standards provided in Table 18.920.1. Table 18.920.1 Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements: Residential Uses Housing Type Minimum Driveways Required Minimum Access Required Minimum Pavement Width Rowhouses See Chapter 18.280 Single Detached Houses 1 10 ft 10 ft PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 48 OF 51 The site plan shows all houses will have a 10-foot driveway. Access for rowhouses is addressed under Chapter 18.280. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable access, egress and circulation standards have not been fully met but can be through conditions of approval. 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas 18.930.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to all development, including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures, and to a change of use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access requirements. This application is for a 23-lot subdivision, which is considered development. Accordingly, the provisions of Chapter 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas apply. 18.930.030 Vision Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the MU-CBD zone, a vision clearance area must be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area must be maintained free of vehicles, hedges, plantings, fences, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding 3 feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade. Trees exceeding 3 feet in height may be located in this area, provided all branches below 8 feet are removed. The clear vision triangles was addressed in the narrative. The applicant is not proposing any development on the subject lots at this time. Accordingly, compliance with vision clearance requirements will be confirmed during the building permit submittal process for all future development. These standards are met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable vision clearance areas standards have been fully met or can be met through conditions of approval. ADDITIONAL CITY AND AGENCY REQUIREMENTS: Easements: Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public access and utility easements including for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the city. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record a joint access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Fire and Life Safety: Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow, location of fire hydrants, and emergency vehicle turn around. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 49 OF 51 Public Water System: The existing public water mains surrounding the proposed development are under the jurisdiction of TVWD. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from TVWD for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water services prior to issuance of city permits. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS Design and Construction which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. In addition, a maintenance plan must be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Grading and Erosion Control: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan review and approval. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over one acre, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. Prior to commencing and site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines must be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The design engineer must also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for the approval of new street names and assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. Contact Oscar Contreras with Engineering Division at 503-718-2678 to ensure new addresses are assigned. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must Autocad file of proposed street names and assignment of addresses and pay the address fee. The address fee must be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 50 OF 51 SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no objections to this proposal. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter (CWS file 20-002561) stating the development site contains a wetland and vegetated corridor in marginal/degraded condition. The agency also submitted written comments, dated February 11, 2021, stating that a storm water connection permit is required. The decision has been conditioned to comply with CWS requirements. Comcast was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that any relocations needed will be responsibility of developer. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and provided written comments dated February 12, 2021. The agency provided recommendation to avoid or minimize negative impacts on wildlife. ODOT was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that no additional state review is necessary. ODOT Rail Division was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no comments this proposal. Tigard Tualatin School District was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no objections to this proposal. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and responded on February 16, 2021. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided comments regarding Fire Apparatus Access, Firefighting Water Supplies, Fire Hydrants, and Building Access and Fire Service Features. A condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply with all TVF&R standards. Tualatin Valley Water District was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated that the development plans need to be submitted to TVWD for review and approval. A condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply with all TVF&R standards. Washington County was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal and stated they had no comments this proposal Attachments: Attachment 1: Concept and Detailed Plan Set Attachment 2: Zoning Map Attachment 3: Agency Comments PDR2020-00002 95TH AVE SUBDIVISION PAGE 51 OF 51 March 8, 2021 PREPARED BY: Agnes Lindor Associate Planner March 8, 2021 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director COVERSHEET & CONCEPTPLAN1 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONBENCHMARK INFORMATION PROJECT CONTACTS OWNER/APPLICANT:PLANNER:SURVEYOR: 23-LOT SUBDIVISION TAX LOT 01700 TIGARD, OREGON SW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 35, T 1S, R 1W, W.M. INDEX: Attachment 1 EXISTING CONDITIONSMAP2 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND Attachment 1 SITE DENSITY AREAS DETAILED PLAN3 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND SITE DATA Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT4 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY GRADINGAND STREET PROFILE5 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - PROFILE Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY SITE ANDUTILITY PLAN6 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - SECTIONPROPOSED SW 95TH AVENUE -SECTION Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY WATERQUALITY POND FENCING7 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED RETAINING WALL/FENCE - PLAN RETAINING WALL - FENCE TYPICAL SECTION A-A A A A A A A AA AA Attachment 1 TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL SITE PLAN6445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONTREE PROTECTION NOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT: LEGEND MARCH 3, 2021 Attachment 1 TREE CANOPY SITE PLAN6445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONNOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT:LEGEND MARCH 3, 2021 Attachment 1 Existing Stand Inventory Stand No. Dominant Tree Species Tree Species Common of 2nd Tree Species Common of 3rd Average DBH1 Total Canopy (sq. ft.) Total Canopy Preserved (sq. ft.)Comments 1 ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)30 59,858 34,485 Stand 1 consists of 180 trees six inches and larger in diameter with contiguous canopy cover of which 94 are planned for removal and 86 are planned for retention. Refer to the supplemental arborist report for a more detailed description of the stand. Contact the project arborist for a listing of individual trees. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)10 Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)18 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Location Common Name DBH1 Treatment 101 On-site dogwood 6,6 Remove 103 On-site ash 5 Remove 104 On-site cherry 5,6 Remove 10250 Off-site Oregon white oak 19 Protect 10268 On-site linden 2x18 Remove 10269 On-site English hawthorn 12,22 Remove 10421 On-site pear 11 Remove 10423 On-site Douglas-fir 18 Remove 10424 On-site apple 9 Remove 10425 On-site western redcedar 10 Remove 10426 On-site ash 4,7 Remove 10427 On-site pin oak 2x7 Remove 10428 On-site red maple 10,2x12 Remove 10779 On-site Oregon white oak 45 Remove 10780 On-site red oak 10,13 Remove 10781 On-site Oregon white oak 47 Remove 10799 On-site giant sequoia 45 Remove 10800 On-site Oregon white oak 26 Remove 10801 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 10802 On-site Oregon white oak 50 Remove 10803 On-site mimosa 2x6 Remove 10804 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 20742 Off-site Oregon white oak * Remove off-site^ 20770 On-site Oregon white oak 22,36 Retain 20771 On-site Oregon ash 19 Retain 20772 On-site Norway maple 6 Retain 1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5-feet above the ground level in inches; trees with multiple trunks splitting below DBH are measured separately and individual trunk measurements are separated by a comma, except multiple trunks of the same size are indicated as quantity x size. *Asterisk indicates inaccessible off-site tree where diameter could not be measured.TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL TABLE10 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com2667 WILLAKENZIE ROAD, SUITE 1AEUGENE, OREGON 97401TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONAttachment 1 SW NORTH DAKOTA STSW 93RD AVESW 91ST AVESW 94TH AVESW 92ND AVESW 90TH AVESW 95TH AVE42' WIDE PUBLIC ST SW 95TH AVEH W Y 2 1 7 AERIAL ANDNEIGHBORHOODCIRCULATION MAP11 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONAttachment 1 Vicinity Map 0.07Scale: Miles Attachment 2 City of Tigard REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 27, 2021 TO: Affected agency FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov PDR2020-00002 / SUB2020-00005 -95th AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development concept plan, located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue. The plan includes a 23-lot subdivision with rowhouse and single detached house development. Longstaff Street will be extended to the east along the site. The site also includes preservation of the wetland on the south portion of the site and public amenities adjacent to the wetland. LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Ave; Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 1S135. ZONE: R-12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.110, Residential Zones; 18.210, Residential General Provisions; 18.280, Rowhouses; 18.290, Single Detached Houses; 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading; 18.420, Landscaping and Screening; 18.670, Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.770, Planned Developments; 18.910, Improvement Standards; 18.920, Access Egress and Circulation; 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. LINK TO MATERIALS: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard- or_gov/EvrUCyBJWxRBkxUA3kx5fZMBj0vkalezyyFjK_4Ob8OROA?e=Ag5Xyc other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting: X David C. Moore, Tigard-Tualatin School District CFO, 503-431-4016 Attachment 3 1 Agnes Lindor From:MARTIN Carrie A <Carrie.A.MARTIN@odot.state.or.us> Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:30 AM To:Agnes Lindor Cc:TACKETT Karla R; MANN Prescott E Subject:REQUEST FOR COMMENTS - Tigard - PDR2020-00002 / SUB2020-00005 Attachments:REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Tigard 1-28-21.pdf Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender Hello Agnes, ODOT Rail has no comments. Thank you, Carrie Martin Crossing Compliance Specialist Commerce and Compliance Division Rail Crossing Safety Section 3930 Fairview Industrial Drive SE Salem OR 97302 Carrie.A.Martin@odot.state.or.us Ph: 971-719-0906 Fax: 503-378-6880 _____________________________________________ From: MANN Prescott E <Prescott.E.MANN@odot.state.or.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:14 PM To: MARTIN Carrie A <Carrie.A.MARTIN@odot.state.or.us> Cc: TACKETT Karla R <Karla.R.TACKETT@odot.state.or.us> Subject: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS.pdf Hi Carrie, this location is in your area of acquaintance. Please review, respond and cc me on your response. Thank you << File: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS.pdf >> Attachment 3 Attachment 3 City of Tigard REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: January 27, 2021 TO: Affected agency FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov PDR2020-00002 / SUB2020-00005 - 95th AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development concept plan, located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue. The plan includes a 23-lot subdivision with rowhouse and single detached house development. Longstaff Street will be extended to the east along the site. The site also includes preservation of the wetland on the south portion of the site and public amenities adjacent to the wetland. LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Ave; Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 1S135. ZONE: R-12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.110, Residential Zones; 18.210, Residential General Provisions; 18.280, Rowhouses; 18.290, Single Detached Houses; 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading; 18.420, Landscaping and Screening; 18.670, Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.770, Planned Developments; 18.910, Improvement Standards; 18.920, Access Egress and Circulation; 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. LINK TO MATERIALS: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard- or_gov/EvrUCyBJWxRBkxUA3kx5fZMBj0vkalezyyFjK_4Ob8OROA?e=Ag5Xyc other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting: Attachment 3 Attachment 3 1 Agnes Lindor From:Naomi Vogel <Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 3:00 PM To:Agnes Lindor Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comments: PDR2020-00002 / SDR2020-00005 95TH Ave PD/SUB Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender Hi Agnes, 95th Avenue is a city street and the trips associated with this development will not trigger a review of the nearest County maintained road sections. No comments to add from the County. Thank you, Naomi Vogel | Associate Planner 503-846-7639 Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us From: Agnes Lindor <agnesl@tigard-or.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:47 AM To: Jeremy Tamargo <jeremyt@tigard-or.gov>; Mark VanDomelen <markv@tigard-or.gov>; Jeffrey Lain <jeff.lain@tigard-or.gov>; John Goodrich <johng@tigard-or.gov>; Oscar Contreras <OscarC@tigard-or.gov>; prescott.e.mann@odot.state.or.us; elizabeth.j.ruther@state.or.us; PortlandPermits@usace.army.mil; Ian Crawford <icrawford@wccca.com>; Naomi Vogel <Naomi_Vogel@co.washington.or.us>; Samantha.ridderbusch@centurylink.com; Jackie Humphreys <HumphreysJ@CleanWaterServices.org>; Kevin_Arnold@comcast.com; brian.kelley@nwnatural.com; steve.hursh@pgn.com; Kristen Tabscott <kTabscott@pridedisposal.com>; J Devenport <jdevenport@ttsd.k12.or.us>; gsmoke@ttsd.k12.or.us; John Wolff (TVFR) <john.wolff@tvfr.com>; Ryan Smith <ryan.smith@tvwd.org>; Sarah Alton <sarah.alton@tvwd.org>; Development_Review@trimet.org; Wells, Russell <russell.wells@ziply.com>; or.metro.engineering@ziply.com; ODOT_R1_DevRev <ODOT_R1_DevRev@odot.state.or.us> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comments: PDR2020-00002 / SDR2020-00005 95TH Ave PD/SUB PDR2020-00002 / SUB2020-00005 - 95th AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a consolidated planned development concept plan, located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue. The plan includes a 23-lot subdivision with rowhouse and single detached house development. Longstaff Street will be extended to the east along the site. The site also includes preservation of the wetland on the south portion of the site and public amenities adjacent to the wetland. LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Ave; Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 1S135. ZONE: R-12. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.110, Residential Zones; 18.210, Residential General Provisions; 18.280, Rowhouses; 18.290, Single Detached Houses; 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading; 18.420, Landscaping and Screening; 18.670, Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.770, Planned Developments; 18.910, Improvement Standards; 18.920, Access Egress and Circulation; 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. Attachment 3 2 LINK TO MATERIALS: https://tigard-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/agnesl_tigard- or_gov/EvrUCyBJWxRBkxUA3kx5fZMBj0vkalezyyFjK_4Ob8OROA?e=Ag5Xyc other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. Planning Commission public hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 15, 2021 at7:00PM. Thanks, Agnes Lindor | Associate Planner City of Tigard | Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesL@tigard-or.gov DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules “City General Records Retention Schedule.” CAUTION: This email originated from outside the County. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders. Always follow the guidelines defined in the KnowBe4 training when opening email received from external sources. Contact the ITS Service Desk if you have any questions. Attachment 3 M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 11, 2021 To: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner, City of Tigard From: Jackie Sue Humphreys, Clean Water Services (CWS) Subject: 95th Avenue Planned Development, PDR2020-00002/SUB2020-00005, 1S135AC01700 Please include the following comments when writing your conditions of approval: PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON THE SITE AND LAT RECORDING A Clean Water Services (CWS) Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization must be obtained prior to plat approval and recordation. Application for CWS Permit Authorization must be in accordance with the requirements of the Design and Construction Standards, Resolution and Order No. 19-5 as amended by R&O 19-22, or prior standards as meeting the implementation policy of R&O 18-28, and is to include: a. Detailed plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.04. b. Detailed grading and erosion control plan. An Erosion Control Permit will be required. Area of Disturbance must be clearly identified on submitted construction plans. If site area and any offsite improvements required for this development exceed one-acre of disturbance, project will require a 1200-CN Erosion Control Permit. c. Detailed plans showing each lot within the development having direct access by gravity to public storm and sanitary sewer. d. Provisions for water quality in accordance with the requirements of the above named design standards. Water Quality is required for all new development and redevelopment areas per R&O 19-5, Section 4.04. Access shall be provided for maintenance of facility per R&O 19-5, Section 4.07.6. Attachment 3 e. If use of an existing offsite or regional Water Quality Facility is proposed, it must be clearly identified on plans, showing its location, condition, capacity to treat this site and, any additional improvements and/or upgrades that may be needed to utilize that facility. f. If private lot LIDA systems proposed, must comply with the current CWS Design and Construction Standards. A private maintenance agreement, for the proposed private lot LIDA systems, needs to be provided to the City for review and acceptance. g. Show all existing and proposed easements on plans. Any required storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water quality related easements must be granted to the City. h. Applicant shall comply with the conditions as set forth in the Service Provider Letter No. 20-002561, dated October 27, 2020. i. Clean Water Services shall require an easement over the Vegetated Corridor conveying storm and surface water management to Clean Water Services that would prevent the owner of the Vegetated Corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor and any easements therein. j. Detailed plans showing the sensitive area and corridor delineated, along with restoration and enhancement of the corridor. k. If there is any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. l. Any proposed offsite construction activities will require an update or amendment to the current Service Provider Letter for this project. CONCLUSION This Land Use Review does not constitute CWS approval of storm or sanitary sewer compliance to the NPDES permit held by CWS. CWS, prior to issuance of any connection permits, must approve final construction plans and drainage calculations. Attachment 3 X Attachment 3 Department of Fish and Wildlife Sauvie Island Wildlife Area North Willamette Wildlife District 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road Portland, OR 97231 503-621-3488 FAX 503 -621 -3025 odfw.com February 12, 2021 City of Tigard-Planning Division c/o Agnes Lindor 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: PDR2020-00002/SUB2020-00005 Dear Ms. Lindor, Thank you for providing Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) an opportunity to review plan details for PDR2020-00002/SUB2020-00005, a proposed 23 lot subdivision and road extension adjacent to a wetland. After reviewing the documents provided the agency has some recommendations to avoid or minimize negative impacts to wildlife. 1) The proposed project consists of removal of a mixed woodland adjacent to the wetland; in particular the removal of multiple Oregon White Oak (OWO) trees. OWO is a priority habitat type in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion (Oregon Conservation Strategy, ODFW 2016). OWO habitat is limited (less than 5% of historic range) and even single oaks, mature trees in particular, are important wildlife habitat elements on the landscape. In general, ODFW recommends protecting and enhancing Oregon white oak habitat where it remains. a. ODFW recommends retention of more OWO trees than is currently proposed. Ideally, some of the larger diameter OWO currently identified for removal. b. Where removal of OWO trees is unavoidable, ODFW recommends replacing removed trees by replanting OWO in Tract D (buffer area). 2) Conduct vegetation removal in a manner that does not result in the “take” of protected bird species and/or their active nests. E.g., Time and conduct removal of trees, shrubs and other vegetation (native or non-native species) to avoid / minimize take of protected bird species and their active nests. Develop and implement a bird protection plan including BMPs similar to those found in: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/index.cfm?a=322164 3) To mitigate for wildlife habitat losses in Tracts A, B, and C, ODFW recommends improving habitat conditions in Tract D (wetland and buffer) by: a. Controlling/removing non-native invasive plants and planting native trees and shrubs. b. Add Large Woody Debris in Tract D – Create an additional 3-5 large woody debris structures in Tract D to enhance wildlife habitat conditions. Oregon Kate Brown, Governor Attachment 3 4) After the existing shed in Tract D is removed by hand, revegetate the area with native trees, shrubs, and grasses/forbs. 5) Beavers are common in Ash Creek and the adjacent Fanno Creek drainages. To protect the many benefits that beavers have on wetlands and watersheds it is recommended that project planners and the landowner implement measures to prevent issues with beavers and review information on ways to keep beavers on the landscape. This document may be of help: Living With Wildlife-Beavers . Local ODFW staff may be able to help landowners contact specialists skilled in constructing flow devices if desired. If clarification or further information is needed for any of these recommendations please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Amy Darr Assistant District Wildlife Biologist North Willamette Watershed District Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 18330 NW Sauvie Island Rd. Portland, OR 97231 503-621-3488 x 231 Attachment 3 www.tvfr.com Training Center 12400 SW Tonquin Road Sherwood, Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-1600 South Operating Center 8445 SW Elligsen Road Wilsonville, Oregon 97070-9641 503-259-1500 Command and Business Operations Center and North Operating Center 11945 SW 70th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-9196 503-649-8577 February 16, 2021 Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: 95th Ave Planned Development 23-lot Tax Lot I.D: 1S135 / 10970 SW 95th Ave Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. These notes are provided in regards to the plans received January 2021. There may be more or less requirements needed based upon the final project design, however, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue will endorse this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: 1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (OFC 503.1.1) 2. DEAD END ROADS AND TURNAROUNDS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. Diagrams can be found in the corresponding guide. http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1438 (OFC 503.2.5 & D103.1) 3. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet (26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants (OFC D103.1)) and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (OFC 503.2.1) 4. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, “No Parking” signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read “NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 5. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows (OFC D103.6.1-2): 1. 20-26 feet road width – no parking on either side of roadway 2. 26-32 feet road width – parking is allowed on one side 3. Greater than 32 feet road width – parking is not restricted Attachment 3 Residential One- and Two-Family Development 3.4 – Page 2 6. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and marked “NO PARKING FIRE LANE” at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background (or as approved). (OFC 503.3) 7. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet and shall extend 20 feet before and after the point of the hydrant. (OFC D103.1) 8. TURNOUTS: Where access roads are less than 20 feet and exceed 400 feet in length, turnouts 10 feet wide and 30 feet long may be required and will be determined on a case by case basis. (OFC 503.2.2) 9. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (OFC 503.2.3) 10. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4 & D103.3) 11. ACCESS ROAD GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 15%. 12. ANGLE OF APPROACH/GRADE FOR TURNAROUNDS: Turnarounds shall be as flat as possible and have a maximum of 5% grade with the exception of crowning for water run-off. (OFC 503.2.7 & D103.2) 13. GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following (OFC D103.5, and 503.6): 1. Minimum unobstructed width shall be not less than 20 feet (or the required roadway surface width). 2. Gates serving three or less single-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. 3. Gates shall be set back at minimum of 30 feet from the intersecting roadway or as approved. 4. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel 5. Electric automatic gates shall comply with ASTM F 2200 and UL 325. 14. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Temporary address signage shall also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1) 15. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES: Shall be prohibited on fire access routes unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC 503.4.1). Traffic calming measures linked here: http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1578 Attachment 3 Residential One- and Two-Family Development 3.4 – Page 3 FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES: 16. FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY FOR INDIVIDUAL ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS: The minimum available fire flow for one and two-family dwellings served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to OFC Appendix B. (OFC B105.2) 17. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects, or 600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as no adverse modifications have been made to the supply system. Water availability information may not be required to be submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B) 18. FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY FOR RURAL ONE- AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS: Rural one- and two-family dwellings, where there is no fixed and reliable water supply and there is approved access, shall not be required to provide a firefighting water supply. (OFC B103) 19. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION IN MUNICIPAL AREAS: In areas with fixed and reliable water supply, approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1) FIRE HYDRANTS: 20. FIRE HYDRANTS – ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where the most remote portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.1) 21. FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Table C 105.1. (OFC Appendix C) 22. FIRE HYDRANT(S) PLACEMENT: (OFC C104) • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. (OFC 507.5.1) • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets may be considered when approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the Fire Marshal. 23. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT IDENTIFICATION: Private fire hydrants shall be painted red in color. Exception: Private fire hydrants within the City of Tualatin shall be yellow in color. (OFC 507) 24. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC C102.1) 25. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of blue reflective markers. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the center line of the access roadway that the fire hydrant Attachment 3 Residential One- and Two-Family Development 3.4 – Page 4 is located on. In the case that there is no center line, then assume a center line and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 507) 26. PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6 & OFC 312) 27. CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES 28. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers; building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, including monument signs. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch. (OFC 505.1) If you have questions or need further clarification, or would like to discuss any alternate methods and/or materials, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, John Wolff John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal II John.wolff@tvfr.com Cc: A full copy of the New Construction Fire Code Applications Guide for Residential Development is available at http://www.tvfr.com/DocumentCenter/View/1438 Attachment 3 February 18th, 2021 ODOT #11964 Updated ODOT Response Project Name: 95th Avenue Planned Development Applicant: Steve Miller, Emerio Design Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Jurisdiction Case #: PDR2020-00002 / SDR2020-00005 Site Address: 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97 Legal Description: 01S 01W 35AC Tax Lot(s): 01700 State Highway: OR 217/Greenburg Rd Interchange The site of this proposed land use action is in the vicinity of the OR 217/Greenburg Rd interchange. ODOT has permitting authority for this facility and an interest in ensuring that this proposed land use is compatible with its safe and efficient operation. COMMENTS/FINDINGS ODOT has received information from City staff that the proposed 23 lot residential subdivision does not meet City Code criteria/thresholds for requirement a traffic impact analysis. Therefore, ODOT has determined that no additional state review is necessary. Development Review Planner: Marah Danielson 503.731.8258, marah.b.danielson@odot.state.or.us Traffic Contact: Avi Tayar, P.E. 503.731.8221 Abraham.tayar@odot.state.or.us Oregon Kate Brown, Governor Department of Transportation Region 1 Headquarters 123 NW Flanders Street Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 731.8200 FAX (503) 731.8259 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2021 TO: Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner FROM: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer PROJECT: PDR2020-00002: 95th Avenue Subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT: CHAPTER 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this chapter are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. 5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or Attachment 3 f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.020.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Subsection 18.910.030.E. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. As shown in the preliminary site plan, the proposed development has frontage on and seeks approved access to SW 95th Avenue, classified as a neighborhood route. Access to this development is proposed via an unnamed public local residential street. As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, are proposed along the applicant’s frontage on SW 95th Avenue in accordance with the standards of this chapter. The proposed frontage improvements will meet the standards of this section. Improvements must meet the following minimum requirements: SW 95th Avenue (half-street improvements): o 29’ right-of-way dedication from centerline o 18’ pavement (12’ travel lane, 6’ bike lane) ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o 0.5’ curb o 5’ planter strip o 5’ sidewalk o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk o 8’ public utility easement New unnamed public local residential street (full-street improvements): o 42’ right-of-way dedication (total) o 26’ pavement ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o (2) 0.5’ curb (both sides of street) o (1) 5’ planter strip (south side of street) Attachment 3 o (1) 4.5’ additional right-of-way dedication for transitional grading (north side of street) o (1) 5’ sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 8’ public utility easement (south side of street) Through conditions of approval, this standard is met. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final plat; however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of 1 acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or partitions c. The street is located within the mixed use central business district (MU-CBD) zone and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title. 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name “the public” as grantee. Dedication of right-of-way along the SW 95th Avenue frontage as well as for the new unnamed local public street will be created through the approval of the final plat. Street improvements along SW 95th Avenue and for the new unnamed local public residential street must be constructed in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this chapter provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code, Section 503. Attachment 3 2. Access shall be in compliance with Subsections 18.920.030.H, I, and J. Access to this development is proposed via a new unnamed local public residential street. The applicant has proposed a shared driveway for access to Lots 1 through 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the joint access easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway access for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record a joint access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.030.N; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Avenue, an existing street. The street grade will remain unchanged. Access to this development is proposed via the new unnamed public local residential street. The street grades will be approved by the engineer and will meet city requirements. Improvements associated with public infrastructures including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Attachment 3 Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov) This standard is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Tigard Downtown Plan District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are provided in Table 18.910.1. The approval authority shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: 1. The type of road as provided in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter - functional street classification. 2. Anticipated traffic generation. 3. On-street parking needs. 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements. 5. Requirements for placement of utilities. 6. Street lighting. 7. Drainage and slope impacts. 8. Street tree location. 9. Planting and landscape areas. 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 11. Access needs for emergency vehicles. Right-of-way and roadway widths for SW 95th Avenue must meet the minimum widths specified in 18.910.3 for a neighborhood route. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. Right-of-way and roadway widths for the new unnamed public local residential street must meet the minimum widths specified in 18.910.6 for a local residential street. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other lots within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. Attachment 3 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. 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. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has submitted a proposed circulation plan. The proposed development abuts developed properties to the north, east and the south. Connection to the existing 93rd Avenue stub street is precluded by the presence of the large wetland located on the proposed development site. The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the delineated wetland. The proposed hammerhead turnaround must meet all requirements for emergency vehicle access and turnaround. The proposed development will provide a pedestrian connection from the unnamed new public local residential street to the Reserve at Ashbrook complex, located immediately east of the proposed development. A public access easement must be provided for the proposed pedestrian connection shown in Tract C of the preliminary civil plan set. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the proposed public access easement and maintenance agreement for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public access easement with Washington County and provided a recorded copy to the city. This standard is met. G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.920.030.H. Street spacing and access management is discussed under Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15 percent for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or Attachment 3 planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. Frontage improvements along SW 95th Avenue, a neighborhood route, must be constructed in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards. See Section 18.920.030.F for findings regarding connectivity for the proposed internal street. I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75o unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right -of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. The proposed unnamed local residential street has been designed to intersect the existing SW 95th Avenue at a right angle. The standard is met. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. The applicant has proposed right-of-way dedication for SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Partial street improvements are not proposed. As provided in the Preliminary Civil Plan, the applicant has proposed for street improvements for SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter. L. Cul-de-sacs. 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: 1. All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular shall be approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the 2 streets to the radius point of the bulb. Attachment 3 3. 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. A cul-de-sac is not proposed or deemed necessary. This criterion does not apply. M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant will provide a name for the new street at the time of the final plat, in accordance with Washington County naming convention standards. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10 percent on arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The preliminary civil plans provided by the applicant meet City standards for grades and curves for streets. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Chapter 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way, and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except: 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city configuration standards. The narrative and preliminary civil plan set show intent to comply with this requirement. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. The proposed development is not adjacent to an existing railroad right-of-way. This standard is not applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: Attachment 3 1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5. If a lot has access to 2 streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. The proposed development is not adjacent to an arterial or collector. This standard is not applicable. R. Alleys, public or private. 1. Alleys shall be no less than 20 feet in width. In commercial and industrial zones, alleys shall be provided unless other permanent provisions for access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made. 2. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than 12 feet. The applicant has proposed a shared access to serve Lots 1 through 8 of the planned development. The proposed shared access is 21 feet in width, which meets the standard for a minimum of 20 feet in width. The proposed shared access with the new unnamed local residential street at an angle of 90 degrees. The standard is met. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 3. Private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, cottage cluster, courtyard units, and apartment developments. A private street is not proposed. The applicant has proposed a shared access to serve Lots 1 through 8 of the planned development within an easement. See findings in 18.910.030.R. U. Railroad crossings. Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the public works director and approved by the commission. The development is not adjacent to a railroad crossing. This standard is not applicable. Attachment 3 V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least 2 dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final approval. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. New traffic signals are not proposed or deemed necessary. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with regulations adopted by the city’s direction. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. This standard can be met through a condition of approval. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. This standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within 1 year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed or 3 years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90 percent of the structures in the new Attachment 3 development are completed unless 3 years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1.5 inches in thickness. The development will require frontage improvements along SW 95th Avenue and the new unnamed local residential street. This section is applicable. The standard will be met through the PFI permitting process. BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city within the 5-year time period will be refunded to the developer. Traffic calming is not proposed or deemed necessary for the proposed development. CC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10 percent or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0—3,000 vpd 2,000 vpd 3,001—6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the City Engineer: i. High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site. ii. Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access drive. iii. Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points. Attachment 3 iv. The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard. v. The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through operation. vi. The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility; or b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility; or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. The proposed development is for a 23-lot planned development. Based on the proposed trip generation, a traffic study is not required for this proposed development. 18.910.040 Blocks A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by Paragraph 18.910.040.B.1. 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. The applicant has submitted a proposed circulation plan. The proposed development abuts developed properties to the north, east and the south. Connection to the existing 93rd Avenue stub street is precluded by the presence of the large wetland located on the proposed development site. The site plan has been designed to minimize impacts to the delineated wetland. The proposed hammerhead turnaround must meet all requirements for emergency vehicle access and turnaround. The proposed development will provide a pedestrian connection from the unnamed new public local residential street to the Reserve at Ashbrook complex, located immediately east of the proposed development. A public access easement must be provided for the proposed pedestrian connection shown in Tract C of the preliminary civil plan set. Prior to final plat approval, the Attachment 3 applicant must record all public easements with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. This standard is met. 18.910.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. Easements for public utilities must be provided at the time of final plat. 18.910.060 Reserved 18.910.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All public and private streets adjacent to industrially zoned properties shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other public and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. The preliminary site plan shows sidewalk improvements along the development frontage and the new public street. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 0.50 miles of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. There is an existing sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the development, both to the north and south of the proposed development. However, there is no existing right-of-way available between the applicant’s site and the existing sidewalk to the north or to the south to extend a sidewalk to match the existing sidewalk. In addition, there is an existing large healthy Ponderosa Pine tree immediately adjacent to the stubbed sidewalk to the north that would need to have the sidewalk meandered around the tree in order to preserve the tree and there is no right-of-way or pedestrian easements Attachment 3 available to facilitate the location of the sidewalk. Therefore, extension of the sidewalk to the north or the south to meet the existing sidewalk is not a criterion for this development. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least 5 feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.910.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. The preliminary site plan shows the planter strip requirements are met for both the SW 95th Avenue frontage improvements and for the new unnamed public residential street. This standard is met. D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. The property owner will take full responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips. E. Application for permit and inspection. Separate street opening permits are required for sidewalk segments that are not part of a current subdivision approval: 1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provisions of this section are satisfied. 2. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time; b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk; c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on 1 or both sides of the street; or d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible 3. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate Attachment 3 line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). F. Council initiation of construction. In the event one or more of the following situations are found by the council to exist, the council may adopt a resolution to initiate construction of a sidewalk in accordance with city ordinances: 1. A safety hazard exists for children walking to or from school and sidewalks are necessary to eliminate the hazard; 2. A safety hazard exists for pedestrians walking to or from a public building, commercial area, place of assembly or other general pedestrian traffic, and sidewalks are necessary to eliminate the hazard; 3. Fifty percent or more of the area in a given block has been improved by the construction of dwellings, multiple dwellings, commercial buildings or public buildings or parks; and 4. A criterion which allowed noncompliance under this chapter no longer exists and a sidewalk could be constructed in compliance with city standards. The above described situations have not been found by the council to exist. This standard does not apply. 18.910.080 Public Use Areas A. Dedication requirements. 1. Where a proposed park, playground, or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the city is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. 2. Where considered desirable by the commission in compliance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the city does not indicate proposed public use areas, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. B. Acquisition by public agency. If the developer is required to reserve land area for a park, playground, or other public use, such land shall be acquired by the appropriate public agency within 18 months following plat approval, at a price agreed upon prior to approval of the plat, or such reservation shall be released to the subdivider. Public use areas are not proposed or deemed necessary. 18.910.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements and the comprehensive plan. Attachment 3 B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the approval authority where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows connection to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main located SW 95th Avenue and an existing 8-inch main located in an easement immediately north of the proposed development site. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final plat approval, the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. No oversizing of sanitary sewer is proposed or deemed necessary. 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The applicant submitted preliminary plans that comply with these requirements. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right -of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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, and the City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on Clean Water Services requirements. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions Attachment 3 have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. Stormwater facilities showing preliminary compliance with CWS standards for water quality and water quantity are shown in Tracts A and B on the civil plan set. The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows construction of a proposed 12-inch storm sewer main within the new unnamed public local residential street to serve the proposed development. The stormwater facility in Tract A will outfall to an existing 12-inch storm main located within SW 95th Avenue. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. Prior to final plat, all public stormwater drainage systems, including water quality and detention facilities, must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. 18.910.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the City Engineer unless specified in Table 18.910.1. 2. 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 rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this chapter and on the adopted bicycle plan. B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. C. Minimum width. 1. The minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is 5 feet per bicycle travel lane. 2. The minimum width for multi-use paths separated from the road and classified as regional or community trails in the Greenway Trail System Master Plan is 10 feet. The width may be reduced to 8 feet if there are environmental or other constraints. Attachment 3 3. The minimum width for off-street paths classified as neighborhood trails, according to the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, is 3 feet. 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the City Engineer. The City’s TSP identifies bike lanes along SW 95th Avenue, consistent with the neighborhood route street section. The required half street frontage improvements will include widening the pavement cross section to provide a future bike lane. 18.910.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. 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 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding 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 undergrounding 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 undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. 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 the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 3. Properties within the MU-CBD zone shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Paragraphs 18.910.120.C.1 through 3 shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. Attachment 3 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this chapter. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the city at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the city. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the city council for their review and approval annually. Prior to final plat approval, all existing and proposed utilities must be placed underground. A fee-in- lieu of undergrounding is not proposed or required. 18.910.130 Cash or Bond Required A. Guarantee. All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of 1 year following acceptance by the city council. B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.830.070. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. Prior to final plat, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to final plat, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide evidence that the Homeowners Association (HOA) is formed and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) document is in place with language in regard to the maintenance of tracts and private accesses. 18.910.140 Monuments—Replacement Required Attachment 3 Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. Prior to final plat approval, the final plat must contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments must be on the same line and must be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat must 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 or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, pay the final plat fee, and any other necessary data or narrative. The final plat and data or narrative must be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. Final plat will include signature lines for the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 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. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, the applicant must submit one copy of the final plat, for City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures. 18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the city, permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by council resolution. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.160 Reserved 18.910.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing. The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance. All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the city. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.180 Notice to City A. Commencement. Work shall not begin until the city has been notified in advance. Attachment 3 B. Resumption. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the city is notified. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city. The city may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.200 Engineer’s Written Certification Required The developer’s engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the city that all improvements, workmanship, and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to city acceptance of the subdivision’s improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. This standard is met through the PFI permitting process. CHAPTER 18.920 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.920.030 General Provisions I. Access management. 1. An access report must be submitted with all new development that 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 (depending on jurisdiction of facility). 2. Driveways must not 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 is 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 area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a case where a development has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent lot. If shared access is not possible or practicable, the driveway must be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector is 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial is 600 feet. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet. Preliminary Civil Plans have been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate preliminary compliance with the access, egress and circulation requirements of this chapter. Attachment 3 Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit a Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. With a condition of approval, this standard is met. ADDITIONAL CITY OR AGENCY COMMENTS: Easements: Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public access and utility easements including for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the city. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record a joint access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. Fire and Life Safety: Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. Public Water System: The existing public water mains surrounding the proposed development are under the jurisdiction of Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from TVWD for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water services prior to issuance of city permits. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS Design and Construction which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. In addition, a maintenance plan must be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI permit. Plans must be submitted to the city for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Grading and Erosion Control: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan for review and approval. The plan must comply to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre Attachment 3 of land. The site is larger than one acre. Prior to commencing any site improvements, the applicant must obtain a NPDES permit. Prior to commencing any site improvements, the applicant must submit a final grading plan the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines must be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The design engineer must also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and permits will be necessary when the lots develop. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for the approval of new street names and assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. Contact Oscar Contreras with Engineering Division at 503-718- 2678 to ensure new addresses are assigned. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must pay the addressing fee. The address fee will be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must submit an Autocad file of proposed street names and assignment of addresses and pay the address fee. Contact Oscar Contreras at 503-718-2678 for the submission of the Autocad file. The address fee will be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 2. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: Attachment 3 • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes, Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines 3. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City’s web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 5. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant must submit plans showing the following required street improvements to Engineering for review and approval: SW 95th Avenue (half-street improvements): o 29’ right-of-way dedication from centerline o 18’ pavement (12’ travel lane, 6’ bike lane) ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o 0.5’ curb o 5’ planter strip o 5’ sidewalk o 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk o 8’ public utility easement New unnamed public local residential street (full-street improvements): o 42’ right-of-way dedication (total) o 26’ pavement ▪ Pavement section must meet current public improvement design standards and details at time of application for PFI Permit. o (2) 0.5’ curb (both sides of street) o (1) 5’ planter strip (south side of street) Attachment 3 o (1) 4.5’ additional right-of-way dedication for transitional grading (north side of street) o (1) 5’ sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 0.5’ public access behind sidewalk (south side of street) o (1) 8’ public utility easement (south side of street) 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit 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. Specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information will delay processing of project documents. 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must 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 must be provided onsite. 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 must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 8. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSI/IESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. 9. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 11. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. 12. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants and water services prior to issuance of city permits. 13. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. Attachment 3 14. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the joint access easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway access and for the proposed pedestrian access path for review and approval. 15. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). 16. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary. 17. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. 18. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Principal Engineer at (971) 713-0281 or JeremyT@tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 19. Prior to final plat approval, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The Applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 20. Prior to final plat approval, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. 21. Prior to final plat approval, the final plat must contain State Plane Coordinates on two monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system geodetic control network (GC Attachment 3 22). These monuments must be on the same line and must be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat must 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 or by random traverse using conventional survey methods. 22. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit for City review four (4) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, pay the final plat fee, and any other necessary data or narrative. The final plat and data or narrative must be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. Final plat will include signature lines for the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 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. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat, the applicant must submit one copy of the final plat, for City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures. 23. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must record all public utility easements, a joint access easement and public access easement and maintenance agreement with Washington County and provide a recorded copy to the City. 24. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit the Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. 25. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities underground. 26. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide evidence that the Homeowners Association (HOA) is formed and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) document is in place with language in regard to the maintenance of tracts and private accesses. Attachment 3 Summary of October 13th, 2020 Neighborhood Meeting for 95th Ave. Subdivision/Planned Development Steve Miller introduced himself as the planner from Emerio Design and noted neither he nor his company are the property owner, developer, contractor or builder. Rather, his firm has been hired by the developer to accomplish the land use planning, surveying and engineering necessary for the development. Mr. Miller provided a brief explanation of the project as follows: - Twenty-three lot subdivision/planned development. - Single-family residential attached and detached dwellings. - All houses will meet maximum height requirements of 35 feet. - SW 95th Ave. will be improved adjacent to the site’s frontage as required by City Code. - A new public street will be extended through the project site to accommodate the development. - All required street improvements and other public improvements will be built to design and constructed to city standards. - The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12). - A pre-application conference with the City of Tigard was held for the project prior to this meeting. - A public hearing will be required and the same people that were notified for the neighborhood meeting. will be notified for the public hearing. - Open Spaced will be provided. - The existing wetland will be preserved as part of the development. There was a small audience of six (6) people who attended the neighborhood meeting and they had only a few questions. 1. The attendees primary concern was with the dead and dying trees located on the south side of the wetland adjacent to the lots that front SW 93rd Avenue. This appears to be an on-going problem for the neighbors, and they contacted the City in 2015 to get help. The results of the meeting with the City was an application for nuisance trees followed by the City taking action to cut down the most dangerous specimens. Emerio Design informed the attendees that they would advise the City of their concerns and see if there is a way for the developer to remove dead and dying trees from the wetland without being penalized. 2. Standing water that collects on property from the surrounding properties. It has been running out to the lowest spots on the property located at 11090 SW 95th Ave. Emerio Designed informed the attendees that all stormwater would be contained on-site as required by City code. 3. What is the maximum height? The maximum height of the houses is in the R-12 zone is 35 feet. 4. Is there a public hearing for the PD? Yes. 5. Is design review required? No, other than what is required as part of the PD process. 6. What will the price of the houses be? Mr. Miller was unsure of the exact price point since floor plans and elevations have yet to be determined and it’s based upon current market conditions as well. 7. Will a traffic analysis be performed? No, the city is not requiring a traffic analysis for a 23-lot subdivision. 1 Steve Miller From:Tim <timboylan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 7:22 PM To:Steve Miller; Amber Boylan Subject:SW 93rd Ave Tree Info Attachments:93rd Ave Tree - Rear Fall 2.jpg; 93rd Ave Tree - Rear Fall 1.jpg; 93rd Ave Tree - Street View 2.jpg; 93rd Ave Tree - City of Tigard Action.jpg; 93rd Ave Tree - Street View 1.jpg; Tigard Hazard Tree Dispute Resolution Application Completed 11-03-15.pdf; 93rd Ave Tree - House Impact.JPG [External Sender] Steve, Thank you for taking the time to review the plans for the 95th Ave development. Per our conversation, this email highlights some of the tree concerns we have about the property.  We live at the North end of SW 93rd Ave (the low end of the street)  The storm drains in front of our house border the 95th Ave property and do not lead anywhere.  As a result, water drains into the wetlands noted on the 95th Ave plans.  Per discussions with several arborists over the years this, along with decades of no maintenance of the property, has created an environment that's not conducive to healthy trees.  Over the past 15 years we've experienced multiple problems related to dead, unsafe, and downed trees or branches rooted on the 95th Ave. property.  These include trees that have fallen on our property/house, damaging fence lines and structures (see attached photos)  In 2015 we contacted the City who dispatched an arborist to review trees that appeared to be on the verge of falling.  The result was an application for nuisance trees (see attached application) followed by the City taking action to cut down the most dangerous specimens (see attached photo). We support conservation of healthy trees, but have concerns that not taking action to remove the damaged or dying trees as part of this project will create additional risk for residents that currently border the target property, as well as the new structures. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the City before plans are submitted. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or if you need additional information. Thank you, Tim & Amber Boylan ___________________ Amber Boylan amberboylan@gmail.com 971-245-5052 Home 2 Tim Boylan timboylan@gmail.com 503-704-9296 Cell SITE DENSITY AREAS COVERSHEET & PARKINGLAYOUT1 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONBENCHMARK INFORMATION SITE DATAPROJECT CONTACTS OWNER/APPLICANT:PLANNER:SURVEYOR: 23-LOT SUBDIVISION TAX LOT 01700 TIGARD, OREGON SW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 35, T 1S, R 1W, W.M. INDEX: LEGEND EXISTING CONDITIONSMAP2 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND PRELIMINARY PLAT3 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND PRELIMINARY GRADINGAND STREET PROFILE4 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - PROFILE PRELIMINARY SITE ANDUTILITY PLAN5 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - SECTIONPROPOSED SW 95TH AVENUE -SECTION PRELIMINARY WATERQUALITY POND FENCING6 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED RETAINING WALL/FENCE - PLAN RETAINING WALL - FENCE TYPICAL SECTION A-A A A A A A A AA AA TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL SITE PLAN7 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONTREE PROTECTION NOTES: ’ ARBORIST STATEMENT: LEGEND TREE CANOPY SITE PLAN8 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONNOTES: ’ ARBORIST STATEMENT:LEGEND Existing Stand Inventory Stand No. Dominant Tree Species Tree Species Common of 2nd Tree Species Common of 3rd Average DBH1 Total Canopy (sq. ft.) Total Canopy Preserved (sq. ft.)Comments 1 ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)30 59,858 34,485 Stand 1 consists of 180 trees six inches and larger in diameter with contiguous canopy cover of which 94 are planned for removal and 86 are planned for retention. Refer to the supplemental arborist report for a more detailed description of the stand. Contact the project arborist for a listing of individual trees. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)10 Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)18 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Location Common Name DBH1 Treatment 101 On-site dogwood 6,6 Remove 103 On-site ash 5 Remove 104 On-site cherry 5,6 Remove 10250 Off-site Oregon white oak 19 Protect 10268 On-site linden 2x18 Remove 10269 On-site English hawthorn 12,22 Remove 10421 On-site pear 11 Remove 10423 On-site Douglas-fir 18 Remove 10424 On-site apple 9 Remove 10425 On-site western redcedar 10 Remove 10426 On-site ash 4,7 Remove 10427 On-site pin oak 2x7 Remove 10428 On-site red maple 10,2x12 Remove 10779 On-site Oregon white oak 45 Remove 10780 On-site red oak 10,13 Remove 10781 On-site Oregon white oak 47 Remove 10799 On-site giant sequoia 45 Remove 10800 On-site Oregon white oak 26 Remove 10801 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 10802 On-site Oregon white oak 50 Remove 10803 On-site mimosa 2x6 Remove 10804 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 20742 Off-site Oregon white oak * Remove off-site^ 20770 On-site Oregon white oak 22,36 Retain 20771 On-site Oregon ash 19 Retain 20772 On-site Norway maple 6 Retain 1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5-feet above the ground level in inches; trees with multiple trunks splitting below DBH are measured separately and individual trunk measurements are separated by a comma, except multiple trunks of the same size are indicated as quantity x size. *Asterisk indicates inaccessible off-site tree where diameter could not be measured.TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL TABLE9 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com2667 WILLAKENZIE ROAD, SUITE 1AEUGENE, OREGON 97401TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SW NORTH DAKOTA STSW 93RD AVESW 91ST AVESW 94TH AVESW 92ND AVESW 90TH AVESW 95TH AVE42' WIDE PUBLIC ST SW 95TH AVEH W Y 2 1 7 AERIAL ANDNEIGHBORHOODCIRCULATION MAP10 106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 Steve Miller From:Gunta Mets <metsgunta@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 8:46 PM To:Steve Miller Subject:10970 meeting follow up [External Sender] Dear Steven, Thank you so much for inviting me to the community meeting you had today. I am an owner of the property of 11076 SW 95th Ave. I have a concern regarding the trees on the property 10970 that I would like your company to address. I am aware that many of the trees growing alongside my property line, including some of the trees in the wetland, are dangerous. Mark Anderson was aware of that. In fact, he was advised by a licensed arborist which ones of them would have to removed. I am told that city of Tigard arborist has advised him the same. My immediate concern is about the oak tree and the ash tree that are growing right next to our property. Both of them are rotting. The oak tree is rotting from the inside at the 'v' junction. These trees have several times damaged the roof of my house. We are prepared to file a petition for injunctive relief against those trees. My other concern is standing water that collects on my property from the surrounding properties. It has been running out to the lowest spots on 11090 property. As you made me aware that during the developing the drain pipes could be extended towards my property to help to resolve this issue. I would kindly ask you to consider doing that. If you would have any questions I can be reached at 971-226-0185 or by email at mestgunta@hotmail.om Sincerely, Gunta Mets NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SIGN IN SHEET Proposed Project: 23 Lot Subdivision (PD) Proposed Project: Location: 10970 SW 95th Avenue Project Contact: Emerio Design, LLC – Steve Miller Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting due to COVID-19 Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 Name Address E-Mail Please identify yourself (check all that apply) Resident Property owner Business owner Other Gunta Mets 11076 SW 95th Ave. metsgunta@hotmail.com X X Tim and Amber Boylan North end of SW 93rd Ave (the low end of the street) amberboylan@gmail.com timboylan@gmail.com X X Jeff Roberts – Crandall Group jeff@crandallgroup.com X Wade and Linda Springstead I am on the property on the South east corner of the wetland of your proposed development hihprus@hotmail.com lwspringstead@hotmail.com X X Continued sign-in sheet for proposed project: 23 Lot Subdivision Date: 2/11/2020 Name Address E-Mail Please identify yourself (check all that apply) Resident Property owner Business owner Other 1 Steve Miller From:wade springstead <hihprus@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:28 AM To:Steve Miller Cc:Leslie Garcia; Linda Springstead Subject:19070 sw 95th ave [External Sender] 2 3 Gentlemen I am on the property on the South east corner of the wetland of your proposed development. I am enclosing some pictures of a tree that I am concerned about that has been damaged and has had limbs fall on my property and causing property damage in the past please address these as you are doing your survey you can contact me at 503-954- 5691 with any questions or further explanation thank you Wade and Linda Springstead Sent from my iPhone Signed: 8/24/2020 11:30:51 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 150 N First Avenue Hillsboro Oregon 97124 In the Matter of the Estate of: Case No: 20PB05402 MARC ALLEN ANDERSEN LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION Deceased THIS CERTIFIES that CARL ANDERSEN has/have been appointed, and is/are at the date hereof the duly appointed, qualified and acting Personal Representative of the estate of MARC ALLEN ANDERSEN, deceased, and that no will of the decedent has been proved in this court. ***ALL ASSETS INCLUDING ANY REAL PROPERTY ARE RESTRICTED; TRANSFER, SALE, WITHDRAWAL, ENCUMBRANCE ONLY UPON ORDER OF THE COURT.*** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington, in which proceedings for administration upon the estate are pending, do hereby subscribe my name and affix the seal of this Court on this the 24th day of August, 2020. WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT By:____________________________ I certify that this copy of the Letters is a true, complete, and accurate copy of the original Letters filed with this court. I certify that the Letters are still in full effect and have not been revoked or set aside. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this ______day of_____________________, 20_____. WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT By: Court Clerk SEAL Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 1 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) First American Title Insurance Company 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phn - (503)222-3651 (800)929-3651 Fax - (877)242-3513 PUBLIC RECORD REPORT FOR NEW SUBDIVISION OR LAND PARTITION THIS REPORT IS ISSUED BY THE ABOVE-NAMED COMPANY ("THE COMPANY") FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF: Samm-Miller LLC 1327 Jay Court West Linn, OR 97068 Phone: (503)819-3610 Fax: Date Prepared : July 27, 2020 Effective Date : 8:00 A.M on July 17, 2020 Order No. : 7019-3525206 Subdivision : The information contained in this report is furnished by First American Title Insurance Company (the "Company") as an information service based on the records and indices maintained by the Company for the county identified below. This report is not title insurance, is not a preliminary title report for title insurance, and is not a commitment for title insurance. No examination has been made of the Company's records, other than as specifically set forth in this report. Liability for any loss arising from errors and/or omissions is limited to the lesser of the fee paid or the actual loss to the Customer, and the Company will have no greater liability by reason of this report. This report is subject to the Definitions, Conditions and Stipulations contained in it. REPORT A. The Land referred to in this report is located in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, and is described as follows: As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. B. As of the Effective Date, the tax account and map references pertinent to the Land are as follows: As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. C. As of the Effective Date and according to the Public Records, we find title to the land apparently vested in: As fully set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof D. As of the Effective Date and according to the Public Records, the Land is subject to the following liens and encumbrances, which are not necessarily shown in the order of priority: As fully set forth on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. First American Title Insurance Company Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition Order No. 7019-3525206 Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 2 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) EXHIBIT "A" (Land Description Map Tax and Account) THE NORTH 259 FEET OF LOT 22 AND THE NORTH 259 FEET OF LOT 23, ASHBROOK FARM, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON. Map No.: 1S135AC01700 Tax Account No.: R272270 First American Title Insurance Company Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition Order No. 7019-3525206 Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 3 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) EXHIBIT "B" (Vesting) Marc Allen Andersen First American Title Insurance Company Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition Order No. 7019-3525206 Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 4 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) EXHIBIT "C" (Liens and Encumbrances) 1. Taxes for the fiscal year 2020-2021 a lien due, but not yet payable. 2. Taxes for the year 2019-2020 Tax Amount $ 5,095.83 Unpaid Balance: $ 5,095.83 , plus interest and penalties, if any Code No.: 023.81 Map & Tax Lot No.: 1S135AC01700 Property ID No.: R272270 Taxes for the year 2018-2019 Unpaid Balance: $ 4,872.92 , plus interest Taxes for the year 2017-2018 Unpaid Balance: $ 4,697.60 , plus interest Taxes for the year 2016-2017 Unpaid Balance: $ 4,487.07 , plus interest 3. Delinquent taxes may be subject to foreclosure proceedings by Washington County. Additional amounts may also be owing in connection with the foreclosure process. 4. City liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. 5. These premises are within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and are subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 6. Statutory powers and assessments of Clean Water Services. 7. Proof should be furnished that the following Judgment Lien is not against Marc Allen Andersen A Judgment for the amount herein stated and any other amounts due. Case No.: C021706DRC Entered: January 10, 2003 Amount: $309.00 per month for Child Support , plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, if any Creditor: Terry Lee Andersen Debtor: Mark Allen Andersen NOTE: A Statement of Identity which, when completed and returned will assist in checking such judgements and/or liens. This report is subject to such additional exceptions as may then appear proper. 8. A Judgment for the amount herein stated and any other amounts due. Case No.: 20CV20694 First American Title Insurance Company Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition Order No. 7019-3525206 Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 5 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) Entered: June 16, 2020 Amount: $9,208.74, plus interest, costs, if any Creditor: Hal R Hendrickson Debtor: Marc A Andersen The above judgment also recorded June 16, 2020 as Fee No. 2020 052835 NOTE: We find no outstanding voluntary liens of record affecting subject property. An inquiry should be made concerning the existence of any unrecorded lien or other indebtedness which could give rise to any security interest in the subject property. First American Title Insurance Company Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Land Partition Order No. 7019-3525206 Public Record Report for New Subdivision or Partition Page 6 of 6 (Ver. 20080422) DEFINITIONS, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definitions. The following terms have the stated meaning when used in this report: (a) "Customer": The person or persons named or shown as the addressee of this report. (b) "Effective Date": The effective date stated in this report. (c) "Land": The land specifically described in this report and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. (d) "Public Records": Those records which by the laws of the state of Oregon impart constructive notice of matters relating to the Land. 2. Liability of the Company. (a) THIS REPORT IS NOT AN INSURED PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. IT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT OR PRELIMINARY REPORT, OR ANY FORM OF TITLE INSURANCE OR GUARANTY. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT THEREFOR, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT FIRST AMERICAN'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. FIRST AMERICAN DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS COMPLETE OR FREE FROM ERROR, AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, AS-IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS. AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS REPORT, RECIPIENT AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN'S SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN ERROR OR OMISSION DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION OR NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARING THIS REPORT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE REPORT. RECIPIENT ACCEPTS THIS REPORT WITH THIS LIMITATION AND AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THIS REPORT BUT FOR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY DESCRIBED ABOVE. FIRST AMERICAN MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN. (b) No costs (including, without limitation attorney fees and other expenses) of defense, or pro secution of any action, is afforded to the Customer. (c) In any event, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (1) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records. (2) Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession ther eof. (3) Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the Public Records. (4) Discrepancies, encroachments, shortage in area, conflicts in boundary lines or any other facts which a survey would disclose. (5) (i) Unpatented mining claims; (ii) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, (iii) water rights or claims or title to water. (6) Any right, title, interest, estate or easement in land beyond the lines of the area specifically described or referred to in this report, or in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (7) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use or enjoyment on the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien o r encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the Public Records at the effective date hereof. (8) Any governmental police power not excluded by 2(d)(7) above, except to the extent that notice of the exer cise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the Public Records at the effective date hereof. (9) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, agreed to or actually known by the Customer. 3. Charge. The charge for this report does not include supplemental reports, updates or other additional services of the Company. Printed On: 07/27/2020, 2:06 PM Requester: DL Page: 1 First American Title Insurance Company 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503)222-3651 / Fax: (877)242-3513 PR: NWEST Ofc: 7019 (1011) Final Invoice To: Samm-Miller LLC 1327 Jay Court West Linn, OR 97068 Invoice No.: 1011 - 7019155504 Date: 07/27/2020 Our File No.: 7019-3525206 Title Officer: Dona Lane Escrow Officer: Customer ID: AD8122345 Attention: Scott Miller Liability Amounts Your Ref.: RE: Property: 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 Buyers: Sellers: Marc A Andersen Description of Charge Invoice Amount Guarantee: Subdivision/Plat Certificate $275.00 INVOICE TOTAL $275.00 Comments: Thank you for your business! To assure proper credit, please send a copy of this Invoice and Payment to: Attention: Accounts Receivable Department PO Box 31001-2281 Pasadena, CA 91110-2281 Description: Washington,OR Document-Year.DocID 2019.73326 Page: 1 of 1 Order: dd2 Comment: 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 1 CIVIL ENGINEERS & PLANNERS DATE: 11-13-2020 PROPERTY OWNERS: Carl H. Andersen 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 CIVIL ENGINEER, PLANNING & SURVEYOR: Emerio Design, LLC Attn: Steve Miller 6445 SW Fallbrook Pl., Suite 100 Beaverton, OR 97008 Cell: (541) 318-7487 E-mail: stevem@emeriodesign.com REQUEST: 23 Lot Planned Development Subdivision in the Medium Density Residential Zone (R- 12). The proposal will be developed pursuant to the applicable criteria of the City of Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) requirements. SITE LOCATION: 10970 SW 95th Avenue ZONING: Medium Density Residential Zone (R-12) TOTAL SITE SIZE: 2.84 Acres LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Map 1S135AC01700 LIST OF EXHIBITS: 1 - Vicinity Map and Washington Co Assessor Map 2 – Detailed Development Plan 3 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Report 4 – Pre-Application Notes 5 – Denali Summit PUD Architectural Pattern Books 6 – Clean Water Services Service Provider Letters 7 – Neighborhood Meeting Notices and Notes 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 2 8 – Title Report 9 – Arborist Report City of Tigard Community Development Code: The following sections of the Tigard Community Development Code are applicable to this land use approval: • Chapter 18.110 – Residential Zones • Chapter 18.290 – Single Detached Houses • Chapter 18.410 – Off-Street Parking and Loading • Chapter 18.420 – Landscaping and Screening • Chapter 18.510 – Sensitive Lands • Chapter 18.520 – Significant Tree Groves • Chapter 18.770 – Planned Developments • Chapter 18.830 – Subdivisions • Chapter 18.910 – Improvement Standards • Chapter 18.920 – Access, Egress & Circulation • Chapter 18.930 – Vision Clearance Areas ____________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION Background Information: The subject site is located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue and is further identified on Washington County Assessor Map 1S135AC; Tax Lot 1700. The subject property is approximately 2.84 acres in size. The site area is generally square in shape with an existing dwelling located at the northwest portion of the property. The site area is vegetated with a mix of trees, shrubs, and grass fields, and has an undulating topography. The property also contains a small wetland that will be preserved as part of this development proposal. The applicant and property owner are request preliminary plat approval for a 23-Lot Planned Development subdivision for single-family detached dwelling lots, as well as single-family attached rowhouses. The subject site is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12) with a Comprehensive Plan Map Designation of Medium Density Residential. As part of the planned development proposal, the applicant is requesting modifications to the minimum lot width for both the single-family detached lots (minimum lot width 26- feet) and rowhouse lots (minimum lot width 18 feet), minimum lot size – Single-family detached minimum = 2,182 sq. ft. and rowhouse lots = 1,770 sq. ft. (interior zero lot line lots), side yard setbacks of 3.5 feet, and the street spacing along a local residential street from 125- feet to 110-feet. The proposed residential lots range in size from 1,770 square feet (interior zero lot line row house lot) to 2,730 square feet (single-family detached). The subdivision will utilize the City’s potable water, sanitary sewer and storm water services. The required number of street trees will be planted as part of the improvements, and all tree canopy requirements will be met through a combination of tree preservation and new tree plantings. Storm water will be managed for the entire site via Tracts A and B, which are 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 3 the water quality detention/treatment facility to detain and treat storm water as per Clean Water Services (CWS) and City standards. The subject site does not contain any flood plain or drainage hazard areas. Clean Water Services documentation is included as part of the submitted application materials. ______________________________________________________________________________ II. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC) APPROVAL CRITERIA TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (the Code) Title 18 – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 18.110 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18.110.020 List of Base Zones The names and map symbols of the residential base zones are listed in Table 18.110.1. When this title refers to the residential zones, it is referring to the eight base zones listed here. 18.110.030 Land Use Standards A. General provisions. A list of allowed, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in residential zones is provided in Table 18.110.2. If a use category is not listed, see Section 18.60.030. 1. Allowed (A). Uses that are allowed, subject to all of the applicable p rovisions of this title. 2. Restricted (R). Uses that are allowed provided they are in compliance with special requirements, exceptions, or restrictions. 3. Conditional (C). Uses that require the approval of the Hearings Officer using discretionary criteria. The approval process and criteria are provided in Chapter 18.740, Conditional Use. 4. Prohibited (P). Uses that are not allowed under any circumstance. RESPONSE: The Applicant is proposing a 23-lot residential Planned Development subdivision in the Medium Density Residential Zone (R-12), which is an allowed use subject to all of the applicable provisions of the City’s Community Development Code. 18.110.040 Housing Types A. A housing type is not a use category. It describes a type of development that 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 4 can contain a Residential Use. B. A list of allowed, limited, and prohibited housing types in c ommercial zones is provided in Table 18.110.3. Terms and abbreviations used are defined as follows: 1. Yes, allowed (Y). Housing types that are allowed. 2. Limited (L). Housing types that require a conditional use approval or are allowed subject to specific limitations. 3. No, prohibited (N). Housing types that are not allowed under any circumstance. C. Housing types that are allowed or allowed on a limited basis are subject to the standards and provisions of the applicable development standards chap ter, which is indicated in parentheses in the first column of Table 18.110.3. D. All allowed housing types may be built on site or brought to the site as a manufactured home. Tiny houses are prohibited in all zones. RESPONSE: As part of the proposed Planned Development, the Applicant is proposing a combination of single-family attached row houses, as well as single-family detached houses. Both housing types are allowed housing types in the R-12 zone. 18.110.050 Densities The maximum and minimum density standards for the housing types listed in Table 18.110.3 are provided in the applicable development standards chapter for each housing type and calculated using the methods in Section 18.40.130. 18.40.130 Residential Density A. Calculating maximum number of residential units for apartment a nd single detached house development. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net development area by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot or dwelling unit in the applicable base zone. B. Calculating minimum number of residential units for apartment and s ingle detached house development. The minimum number of residential units per net acre is calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in Subsection 18.40.130.A by 80 percent. C. Residential density for other housing types. Minimum and maximum residential density for cottage clusters, courtyard units, rowhouses, and quads are provided in the development standards chapters for each housing type. D. Fractions. When a density calculation results in a fraction, the result will be 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 5 rounded down to the nearest consecutive whole number. RESPONSE: Density Estimate: Total Site Area: 121,056 square feet Sensitive Land Areas (Buffer & Wetland area): 36,807 square feet Land Dedicated for Public Right-of-Way 21,833 square feet Land Proposed for Private Street (Alley) 4,557 square feet Net Development Area: 62,416 square feet Net Development Area 62,416 square feet Minimum Lot Sie ÷ 3,050 square feet Maximum Number of Residential Units 20.46 Maximum Number of Residential Units 20.46 X 80% ___________________________________________________________ Minimum Number of Residential Units 16.36 Through the Planned Development process, which the Applicant is pursuing, the maximum density can be increased by up to 30%. As such, the maximum density for a Planned Development is 26.58 units. The Applicant’s proposal is for a 23 unit Planned Development, therefore, the Applicant’s proposal satisfies the density requirements of the City’s code. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.280 ROWHOUSES 18.280.050 Development Standards A. Number of dwelling units. A rowhouse development must contain at least two dwelling units. There is no maximum number of dwelling units, except that in the R-7 zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per grouping is 5. B. Density. Minimum and maximum densities are provided in Table 18.280.1. C. Lot width. Minimum lot widths are provided in Table 18.280.1. D. Setbacks. Minimum and maximum setbacks are provided in Table 18.280.1. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 6 RESPONSE: All proposed rowhouses will contain at least two (2) dwelling units. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing triplex and four-plex style rowhouses. Pursuant to Table 18.280.1, the minimum and maximum density for row houses in the R-12 zone is determined by the minimum and maximum lot size. The minimum and maximum lot size in the R-12 zone for row houses are 2,500 sq. ft. per unit to 2,750 sq. ft. per unit, respectively. As noted above, the net developable area of the site is 62,416 square feet. Thus, the maximum density for row houses in the R-12 zone is 24.97 units, and the minimum density for row houses is 22.70 units. Of the proposed 23 lots, 15 of the lots will be for row houses. As proposed, the Applicant’s proposal satisfies the maximum and minimum densities for row houses in the R-12 zone. Per Table 18.280.1, the minimum lot width for a row house in the R-12 zone is 20-feet. With the exception of three (3) lots (i.e. Lots 18, 19, and 22), which will have a minimum lot width of 18-feet, all of the proposed rowhouse lots are a minimum of 20-feet in width. The reason Lots 18, 19, and 22 are not 20-feet in width is because they are internal zero lot line lots, thus there are no side yard setbacks to accommodate. Since the Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development, the Applicant is seeking relieve from the 20-foot minimum lot width for these 3 rowhouse lots as part of the development proposal. All required setbacks for the rowhouses will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit review process for each structure. E. Parking. The provisions and standards of Sections 18.410.030 and 18.410.040 apply, except for Subsection 18.410.040.E. The following additional standards also apply: 1. Number of spaces. a. A minimum of 1 off-street parking space must be provided for each rowhouse. b. An on-street parking credit may be granted for some or all the required off-street parking as provided in Section 18.410.090. RESPONSE: In addition to satisfying the provisions and standards of Section 18.410.030 and 18.410.040, the Applicant’s proposal also satisfies the above criteria because all proposed row houses will have a minimum of 1 off-street parking space. The row houses proposed on lots 1 – 8 will have a two (2) car garage, as well as a driveway capable of parking two (2) additional vehicles. The row house proposed on lots 17 – 23 will have single car garages, as well as driveways capable of parking one additional vehicle. 2. Access. Access to off-street parking areas for rowhouse development may be taken through tandem driveways, shared access, or from an alley. The following requirements apply to each situation in addition to the relevant sections of Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 7 RESPONSE: The proposed row houses on lots 1 – 8 will be accessed via a private alley and each row house will have an individual driveway. The row houses on lots 17 – 23 will be accessed via the new proposed public street and likewise will have their own driveways. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criterion. F. Pedestrian access. Rowhouse developments of 5 or more dwelling units must provide a paved, accessible pedestrian path that connects the main entrance of each rowhouse to the following: 1. Sidewalks in the right-of-way abutting the site; 2. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities; 3. Parking areas; and 4. Common open space and play areas. RESPONSE: All proposed row houses will have access from a public sidewalk along either SW 95th Ave. or the new proposed public street along the site’s norther property boundary. The public sidewalks will connect with the proposed walking path within the development to provide access to the common open space. No common buildings or parking areas are proposed or necessary for the project. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criteria. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.290 SINGLE DETACHED HOUSES 18.290.030 Development Standards Development standards for single detached houses are provided in Table 18.290.1. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 8 [1] Development standards for single detached houses and allowed accessory uses and structures in the R-25 zone apply only to lots with existing nonconforming development. New construction of single detached houses is not allowed except as provided in Chapter 18.50, Nonconforming Circumstances. [2] The maximum front and street side setback is 20 feet. [3] The minimum garage setback applies to garages and carports. The minimum setback may be reduced to 0 feet where vehicle access is taken from an alley. [4] The minimum landscape area must be planted to the L-1 standard. Landscaping standards are provided in Chapter 18.420, Landscaping and Screening. Single detached house development is exempt from the general provisions of Section 18.420.030. [5] The minimum parking standard may be met with an on-street parking credit. On- street parking credit standards are provided in Section 18.410.090. RESPONSE: As part of the Planned Development proposal, the Applicant is requesting a reduction to the minimum lot size for the single-family detached houses. Lots 9 – 16 will be for single family detached houses and will have lot sizes ranging between 2,158 sq. ft. to 2,730 sq. ft. The future houses on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with the setbacks, lot coverage, and building height requirements during the building permit review process. All proposed single-family detached lots will be able to accommodate a minimum of one (1) off-street parking space. 18.290.040 Design Standards A. Entrances. The main entrance must meet the following standards: 1. The entrance must be set back no further than 8 feet from the widest street- 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 9 facing wall; and 2. The entrance must be offset no more than 45 degrees from a line parallel to the front lot line. If the front lot is curved, the offset is measured from a line tangent to the midpoint of the front lot line. B. Windows. A minimum of 12 percent of the area of all street-facing facades, excluding alley-facing facades, must include windows or doors. Door area is the portion of a door that moves and does not include the frame. Garage doors designed for vehicle access may not be used to meet this standard. 1. Windows in a garage door may be used to meet this standard. 2. A maximum of 2 percent of the required window area may be frosted glass. C. Attached garages and carports. The purpose of these standards is to prevent garages and carports from obscuring or dominating the street-facing facade of residential buildings. An illustration of garage door width is shown in Figure 18.290.1. An attached garage or carport must meet the following standards, except for garages or carports on flag lots or where vehicle access is taken from an alley. 1. A garage door or carport entrance designed for vehicle access may not be closer to the street property line than a facade that encloses living area along the same street frontage, except as follows: a. A garage door or carport entrance may extend up to 5 feet in front of a facade that encloses living area if there is a covered front porch with no horizontal dimension less than 5 feet and the garage door or carport entrance does not extend beyond the roof of the porch, excluding gutters. b. A garage door or carport entrance may extend up to 5 feet in front of a facade that encloses living area if there is a second story above the garage that includes a street-facing window with a minimum area of 12 square feet and a horizontal offset of no more than two feet from the plane of the garage door. 2. The total maximum width of all garage doors or carport entrances is 12 feet or 50 percent of the total width of the street-facing facade, whichever is greater. The width of a garage door is measured from inside the garage door frame. Where more than one garage door is proposed, the width of each garage door is measured separately. See Figure 18.290.1. RESPONSE: No dwellings are currently being proposed at this time. All future dwellings will be reviewed for compliance with the above criteria during the building permit review process for the future single-family dwellings. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 10 Chapter 18.410 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 18.410.020 Applicability The provisions of this chapter apply to all new development and all modifications to existing development, including changes of use, unless stated otherwise. 18.410.030 General Provisions A. Location. Required off-street parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves, except where an on-street credit has been granted through the provisions of Section 18.410.090. RESPONSE: All proposed units will have off-street parking in the form of a garage and driveway on the same lot as the use it serves. All units will be able to park, at a minimum, two (2) vehicles off-street. 18.410.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location. 1. Required bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of a required or main entrance of a primary building; and RESPONSE: Bicycle parking will be located in the garage of each unit. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies this criterion. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.420 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.420.020 Applicability A. Landscaping standards. Landscaping standards apply to new and existing development that must provide a minimum amount of landscape area as required by the applicable development standards chapter. B. Screening standards. Screening standards apply to new and existing development with uses or site improvements that must be screened from other uses or the street as required by the applicable development standards chapte r. C. Tree canopy standards. Site and parking lot tree canopy standards apply to the following types of new and existing development, except that parking lot tree canopy standards do not apply to subdivisions or partitions: 1. Subdivisions and partitions; RESPONSE: The Applicant is proposing a Planned Development subdivision, therefore, the about criteria are applicable to the Applicant’s proposal. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 11 18.420.030 General Provisions A. All required trees must meet the city’s Urban Forestry Manual (UFM) standards as follows: 1. Street trees must meet the street tree planting and maintenance standards in UFM Section 2 and street tree soil volume standards in UFM Section 12; 2. Parking lot trees must meet the parking lot tree canopy standards in UFM Section 13; and 3. All other trees must meet the tree canopy site plan requirements in UFM Section 10, Part 2. B. Trees proposed to be preserved must be protected in a manner that meets the tree protection standards in UFM Section 10, Part 3. C. Plants that are less than 18 inches in height at maturity, except lawn, are considered groundcover. Minimum container size at planting is either 4 inches or 1 gallon, and maximum plant spacing is either 1 foot or 2 feet on center, respectively. D. Plants that are more than 18 inches in height but less than six feet in height at maturity are considered small or medium shrubs. Minimum container size at planting is 1 gallon, and maximum plant spacing is 3 feet on center. E. Plants, excluding trees, that are more than six feet in height at maturity are considered large shrubs. Minimum container size at planting is 2 gallons, and maximum plant spacing is 7 feet on center. F. Plants listed as invasive or noxious on the Portland Plant List are prohibited. Trees listed on the UFM Nuisance Tree List are prohibited. G. All landscaping required by this chapter, including landscaping used to meet screening or tree canopy standards, must be maintained to applicable industry standards in perpetuity as provided in the most current version of the American National Standards Institute A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations. H. All trees required by this chapter are subject to the city’s urban forestry requirements regarding planting, maintenance, and removal of trees as provided in Title 8 of the Tigard Municipal Code. RESPONSE: Street trees are being proposed along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage, as well as along the south side of the new proposed public street. As noted on Sheet 7, Tree Canopy Site Plan, street trees proposed on Lots 9 – 23 will be planted within 6-feet of the public right-of-way. All required street trees will meet the street tree planting and 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 12 maintenance standards in UFM Section 2 and street tree soil volume standards in UFM Section 12 per the above criteria. Parking lot trees are not required. New trees that are required to meet the effective canopy requirements will conform to the applicable standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry manual. They will be planted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for tree planning and additional standards adopted by the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board. Nursey stock will meet the requirements of the American Association of Nurserymen for nursey stock for grade No. 1 or better. 18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot tree canopy standards and must meet the requirements of UFM Sections 10 through 13. An urban forestry plan must: 5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910, Improvement Standards. a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site’s street frontage by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number. More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site’s frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable. Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provi ded that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right - of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. RESPONSE: The subject property currently has 259 feet of frontage along SW 95th Avenue. With this development proposal, the Applicant will be dedicating 42-feet of right-of-way along the site’s northern boundary for a new public street. After the right- of-way dedication, the property will have 217 feet of frontage along SW 95 Ave., as well as 457 feet of frontage along the new proposed public street. Sheet 8, Tree Canopy Site Plan, shows eight (8) street trees along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage and ten (10) street trees along the new public street frontage. The total number of proposed street 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 13 trees, eighteen (18), exceeds the minimum number of required street trees as determined by dividing the length in feet of the site’s street frontages by 40 feet by one (1) street tree. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.510 SENSITIVE LANDS 18.510.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map,” and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, as provided in “Table 3.1, Vegetated Corridor Widths,” and “Appendix C, Natura l Resource Assessments,” of the CWS “Design and Construction Standards.” Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in “Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon,” Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant’s expense. RESPONSE: The subject site does contain sensitive land areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map”. This area has been mapped and the associated vegetated corridor has been delineated on the submitted plan set. No development is being proposed in the wetland and associated vegetated corridor. Chapter 18.520 SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVES 18.520.020 Applicability This chapter applies to all sites that contain more than 10,000 square feet of tree canopy within a mapped significant tree grove, as shown on the City of Tigard Significant Tree Grove Map, but not within any sensitive lands identified in Paragraphs 18.510.010.G.1 through 3. 18.520.050 Approval Criteria The approval authority must find that the request to use flexible standards is the least required to preserve the significant tree grove and an instrument or action acceptable to the city permanently preserves the significant tree grove, such as a conservation easement, open space tract, deed restriction, or dedication. RESPONSE: As has been noted previously in this narrative, the subject development requires planting of street trees equivalent to one (1) street tree per 40 feet of linear 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 14 street frontage. The required plantings are shown on Sheet 7 of the submitted plan set. The proposed development does not require any median trees. Sheets 6 – 9 of the submitted plan set and the arborist’s report submitted with this application have the required elements of the City’s Urban Forestry Plan. The arborist’s report, along with Sheets 6 – 9 provide all the information required from the City’s Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report requirements. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.770 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.770.040 Required Analysis In addition to the submittal requirements in Paragraph 18.710.030.C.3, a consolidated or concept plan application must include the information listed below. The graphic illustrations must adequately demonstrate the required information. Examples of graphic illustrations include, but are not limited to, the following: maps, site plans, massing studies, elevation drawings, photo simulations, and digitally created 3- dimensional drawings. Manually created artistic renderings are usually not adequate on their own to illustrate the required information. A. Proposal summary. A written description and graphic illustration of the planned development proposal with enough specificity to convey the overall land use pattern, development scale, circulation network, and housing types and densities. The description must include a statement about the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal and why the applicant believes the public benefits from the proposal are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of flexibility requested. RESPONSE: The Applicant is proposing a 23-lot mixed residential Planned Development. The project consists of fifteen (15) rowhouses and eight (8) single-family detached lots. As proposed, the Planned Development will provide three (3) housing types (i.e. alley loaded rowhouses, single-family detached, and front loaded rowhouses) that will allow for a range of housing types, price points, and provide a scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed density is in the middle range for the R-12 zoning and allowances provided by the Planned Development code. Most importantly, the Applicant’s proposed Planned Development will add needed housing to the City of Tigard inventory, which the State Legislature has determined to be necessary for all of Oregon’s incorporated Cities. Needed housing includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy, which the Applicant’s proposal provides. By providing buildable lands for residential uses and encouraging alternative plan designs through the Planned Development process, the City maximizes the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which allow for flexibility of housing locations, types and densities. The Applicant’s proposal reflects the City’s desire to provide a range of housing types to meet the needed housing inventory goal, while at 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 15 the same time preserving the existing natural features on the site – wetland and significant tree inventory. A new public street is proposed along the site’s northern property boundary with a sidewalk along the south side of the street. A new sidewalk will also be added along the site’s SW 95th Avenue frontage. Internally to the site the circulation patter will consist of a looping pedestrian path/trail beginning between lots 20 and 21. The pedestrian trail/path will begin as a concrete walking path between lots 20 and 21 and transition to a soft wood chops trail located in an easement along the rear of lots 13 – 23. By extending the soft path to the site’s eastern property boundary, it will allow for a pedestrian connection with the adjacent apartment complex that would not be available otherwise. The purpose of the soft path is to minimize impacts to the vegetated corridor behind these lots. The soft pat will meander thought Tract C, which will include a bench for residents to relax and enjoy the open space tract and wetland area. The soft trail will transition back into a concrete walking path at the east end of Tract B and extend along the east side of the alley to connect with the sidewalk associated with the new public street to complete the loop. As noted previously, the site contains a significant wetland area that will we be preserved as part of the development, which will enhance the overall ambiance of the site and create a natural buffer between the existing single-family dwellings to the south. Lastly, as noted above, the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal are to provide a range of needed housing types at price ranges and rent levels which allow for flexibility of housing locations, types and densities, while at the same time preserving the existing natural features on the site – wetland and significant tree inventory. B. Flexibility request. A detailed written description of all proposed adjustments to development standards and the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must be accompanied by professional studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must also include a table that lists each applicable development standard and the associated proposed standard i n a side-by- side column format. RESPONSE: As part of the planned development proposal, the applicant is requesting modifications to the minimum lot width for both the single-family detached lots (minimum lot width 26-feet) and rowhouse lots (minimum lot width 18 feet), minimum lot size – Single-family detached minimum = 2,182 sq. ft. and rowhouse lots = 1,770 sq. ft. (interior zero lot line lots), side yard setbacks of 3.5 feet, and the street spacing along a local residential street from 125- feet to 110-feet. The requested adjustments are necessary due to existing built environment surrounding the subject property, limitations in developing the property due to on-site wetlands and significant tree grove, and to provide density levels that make efficient use of the subject property in order to provided needed housing. The table below lists each 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 16 applicable development standard and the associated proposed standard in a side-by- side column format. Applicable Development Standard Proposed Standard 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Lot width of 20 feet 18 feet for Lots 18, 19, and 20 18.280.050.D/Table 18.280.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lots 4, 5, and 17 18.280.050.C/Table 18.280.1: Minimum lot size of 2,500 SF Lots 1-8, 17-19, 22, and 23 range from 1,770 to 2,451 SF 18.280.050.G/Table 18.280.1: Minimum landscape area 20% 10% for Lots 1 – 8 and 17 - 23 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum lot size of 3,050 SF Lots 9-16 range from 2,158 to 2,730 SF 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum side setback of 5 feet Interior setbacks of 3 feet for Lot 9-16 18.290.030/Table 18.290.1: Minimum landscape area of 20% 10% for Lots 1 – 8 and 17 - 23 18.830.040.A2.c: Minimum lot frontage of 40 feet 26 feet for Lots 9-16 18.920.030.I.4: Minimum local street spacing of 125 feet 110 feet 18.920.030(I)(4): The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet. Driveway spacing on Lot 23 is 12 feet from driveway on Lot 22. The flexibility being requested to the standards listed above are necessary due to the size and nature of the development. Because the site is constrained by the existing wetland and significant tree grove, it is necessary to request the flexibility outlined above to allow the site to develop at a reasonable density. Essentially, by preserving the wetland and significant tree grove, the Applicant is transferring the density elsewhere on the site that could have been achieved if the entire property were developable. By transferring the density to the developable portion of the property and preserving the existing wetland and significant tree grove, it has resulted in a “snowball affect” as it relates to satisfying the City’s applicable development standards. The flexibility being requested for the proposed development through the Planned Development approach are all related to the lot dimensions and corresponding on-site dimensional requirements (i.e. lot width, lot size, setbacks, lot frontage, etc.). By altering the lot sizes to achieve a reasonable density for the property, it has triggered a cascade effect resulting in the need to request additional flexibility to the other development standards (i.e. lot width, lot frontage, setbacks, street spacing, etc.), thus the “snowball affect”. When one dimensional standard is adjusted, such as the lot size, then all corresponding standards that influence the development of the lot are also impacted. You simply cannot adjust one standard without adjusting the others so that they all align to 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 17 achieve the desired outcome. Flexibility to development standards is a concept that embraces the notion that individual land uses, neighborhoods, and communities are dynamic and constantly evolving as society, technology, and preferences change. Developing land to achieve minimum and maximum densities creates consistency within neighborhoods, achieves planned intensities of residential development and encourages development parameters within which the market will operate to provide particular housing types. Establishing maximum densities also ensure that the intensity of residential development will match the availability of public services. By transferring density to the developable portion of the subject property and allowing for the flexibility requested through the Planned Development approach, it provides a mechanism for reducing land-use deficiencies to achieve public objectives by creating a means for differentiation of individual land parcels, enhancing housing flexibility, and is a positive growth technique. C. Public benefits proposal. A detailed written description of all proposed public benefits. The description must be accompanied by drawings, plans, or details as needed to convey the location, size, and overall nature of each public benefit. Public benefits include features, amenities, or protections that in some way exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users. RESPONSE: As part of this development proposal, the Applicant is proposing public benefits that consist of all required public improvements, protection of the on-site wetlands, as well as a sizeable portion of the significant tree grove, a looping pedestrian trial that will provide connectivity with the property to the east, open space with benches, a variety of housing types, and efficient use of the property by developing at the upper end of the density scale. Detailed plans and drawings have been submitted that express location, size, and nature of each public benefit. The primary public benefit provided by the proposed development allows for a sizeable portion of the Significant Tree Grove and all of the existing wetland on the property to be preserved for the general public and the users of the planned development to enjoy. The combination soft/hard pedestrian path will provide connectivity with the adjacent Reserve at Ashbrook development, as well as provide access to the open space tract (i.e. Tract C) behind Lots 9 – 23. The open space tract will have a couple benches that will allow residents of the planned development to relax and enjoy the natural environment that the preserved wetland will provide. Given the relatively small size of the subject property combined with the Significant Tree Grove and wetland located on the site, the Applicant believes the benefits being proposed as part of the planned development proposal exceed the minimum standards of this title and will help to maintain the unique charm of the neighborhood. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 18 D. Environmental analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and any existing natural features on the site. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal a ddresses any existing sensitive lands, significant tree groves, landforms, or other natural features on the site. RESPONSE: As mentioned previously, the subject property contains a wetland and a Significant Tree Grove as mapped by the City. Except for the trees that need to be removed to accommodate the new proposed public street, stormwater facility, and future structures, all other healthy trees will be retained. In addition, the existing wetland on the site will also be preserved along with the required buffer area. The submitted plans illustrate the relationship between the proposed planned development and the preservation of the wetland and significant tree grove. The site plan shows the 23 lots will be clustered along the western and northern boundaries of the site, which will leave a large area in the center of the property in its natural state. By preserving the existing natural features in the center of the site, it creates a functional relationship with the planned development by providing the future residents with a connection to the natural features. E. Compatibility analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and the surrounding community. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal integrates with and responds to existing development patterns through a discussion about the arrangement, location, and massing of all proposed buildings, uses, and site improvements, including streets and paths. RESPONSE: The proposed residential planned development is compatible with the surrounding community because the Applicant’s proposal is for residential development, which surrounds the subject property. By proposing a mix of single-family detached and attached housing, it will blend seamlessly with the existing multi-family and single-family detached units in the neighborhood. Also, by preserving the on-site wetland and significant tree grove to the extent practicable, it will continue to provide natural areas as buffers between the subject property and existing development to the south. Sheet 8 of the submitted plan set shows an aerial photo of the surrounding neighborhood and the relationship the proposed planned development subdivision will have with the surrounding community. The aerial photo shows new development to the north and northwest of the subject property, as well as how the wetland and the preserved portion of the significant tree grove will continue to provide a meaningful natural area between Highway 217 and SW 95th Ave. By retaining the wetland and a large portion of the significant tree grove, it will provide a buffer between the smaller lots in the Applicant’s proposed planned development and some of the larger lots to the south. Also, by rear loading the rowhouses along SW 95th Ave., it will create a better street scape along SW 95th Ave. to blend with the single-family lots across the street. Additionally, with the new Sage Built Homes small lot subdivision located immediately 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 19 northwest of the subject property across SW 95th Ave., the Applicant’s proposed planned development will blend nicely with those new homes and create a balanced community by blending single-family detached, rowhouses, and multi-family in one community. F. Land use analysis. A detailed written description that demonstrates the need for or benefit of any civic or commercial uses proposed in a residential zone or civic or residential uses proposed in a commercial zone where not allowed in the underlying base zone. The description must be accompanied by professional studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the proposed land uses. The description must also include a table that lists each proposed land use category by location. RESPONSE: The above analysis is not warranted for the Applicant’s Planned Development proposal because no commercial uses are being proposed in conjunction with the proposed residential development. Conversely, the Applicant is not proposing residential uses in a proposed commercial zone where it would not be allowed in the underlying base zone. As such, no analysis is warranted. G. Impact identification. A detailed written description of the impacts of the planned development proposal on adjacent properties or the surrounding community that would not occur if the site developed without a planned development approval. If impacts exist, the description must include a detailed mitigation proposal where practicable. RESPONSE: Aside from increased traffic associated with the proposed Planned Development, which does not rise to a level that warrants a Traffic Impact Analysis or mitigation, there will be no negative impacts on adjacent properties or to the surrounding community that would not occur if the site developed without a planned development approval. Because the subject site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12), the types of development contemplated for this property by the City’s CDC would include multi-family housing, rowhouses, and other medium to high density housing developments similar to what the Applicant is proposing. Lastly, as required by the City’s CDC, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 13, 2020 for the proposed development and, aside from some concern with hazardous trees along the site’s SW 93rd Ave. frontage, none of the attendees from the neighborhood raised concerns with the proposed development. 18.770.060 Approval Criteria A Consolidated planned development. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a consolidated planned development application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. All concept plan approval criteria listed in Subsection 18.770.060.B are met; and 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 20 2. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the propos ed development at the time of occupancy. RESPONSE: The Applicant is requesting a consolidated planned development review. Through this narrative and the submitted supporting documents, the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with the approval criteria in Subsection 18.770.060.B, as well as shown that adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy of the proposed dwelling units. In addition to having adequate water, sewer, and stormwater facilities available to serve the site, there are adequate neighborhood parks in the surrounding area and the existing transportation system will not be unnecessarily burdened by the proposed subdivision. There are two (2) existing parks, Woodard Park and Dirksen Nature Park, that are located within an easy biking distance of the proposed development. The Fanno Creek trail system is also located nearby the proposed subdivision. These public park and recreation facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. Lastly, due to the small size of the proposed subdivision, the City’s code does not require a transportation analysis to be performed as part of the Applicant’s proposal. This is significant because the City’s development code has identified thresholds for when a traffic analysis is necessary because these thresholds identify when a project may negatively impact the City’s transportation system. By not requiring a traffic analysis for the proposed subdivision, the City’s code by default acknowledges that there will be a low volume of traffic associated with the proposed development and that the surrounding transportation system will be adequate to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. Public transportation is also located within an easy walking distance of the proposed subdivision on SW Greenburg Road. B. Concept plan. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a concept plan application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The information and analysis required by Section 18.770.040 is sufficiently detailed and of high enough quality to effectively evaluate the proposed development; RESPONSE: The Applicant has provided the necessary information and analysis required by Section 18.770.040 above and through the submitted application materials. The analysis above is sufficiently detailed to describe the overall land use pattern, development scale, circulation network, housing types, and densities, as well as the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal. The submitted information and this narrative allow the decision maker to effectively evaluate the proposed development. 2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; RESPONSE: The Applicant has demonstrated through the submitted application 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 21 materials that the subject property’s characteristics; including, but not limited to size, shape, location, topography, and natural features are suitable for the proposed development. The site is rectangular in shape, is 2.84 acres in size, is located in a residentially zoned neighborhood, has relatively flat topography, and the existing natural features, wetlands, will be preserved. Also, the significant tree grove on the property will also be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The proposed Planned Development is compatible with the surrounding mix of existing residential developments (i.e. single- family attached and detached, and multi-family) in the area and will make efficient use of the land by achieving a density range in the upper range for the zoning district, while at the same time preserving the existing wetland on the property. 3. The proposed development is reasonably compatible with and thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding community; RESPONSE: The proposed development is compatible with and will be thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding community. Immediately across SW 95th Ave. from the subject site is a new Sage Built Homes development and to the north and east of the site is the new Reserve at Ashbrook apartment complex. The Applicant’s proposal will provide similar densities as these developments and the required public improvements to SW 95th Ave. will compliment the improvements already made across the street as part of the Sage Built Homes project. Additionally, the combination of rowhouses and single-family detached houses will further compliment the existing development in the area that consists of both multi-family and single-family housing. Lastly, with the preservation of the wetland and a large portion of the significant tree grove, it will minimize the impact on the neighbors to the south and east, as well as continue to provide habitat for the wildlife in the area. 4. The proposed development includes features, amenities, or protections that exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users, and the proposed benefits are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of development flexibility requested; RESPONSE: As part of this development proposal, the Applicant is proposing public benefits that consist of all required public improvements, protection of the on-site wetlands, as well as a sizeable portion of the significant tree grove, a looping pedestrian trial that will provide connectivity with the property to the east, open space with benches, a variety of housing types, and efficient use of the property by developing at the upper end of the density scale. Detailed plans and drawings have been submitted that express location, size, and nature of each public benefit. The primary public benefit provided by the proposed development allows for a sizeable portion of the Significant Tree Grove and all of the existing wetland on the property to be preserved for the general public and the users of the planned development to enjoy. The combination soft/hard pedestrian path will provide connectivity with the adjacent Reserve at Ashbrook development, as well as provide access to the open space tract (i.e. Tract C) behind Lots 9 – 23. The open 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 22 space tract will have a couple benches that will allow residents of the planned development to relax and enjoy the natural environment that the preserved wetland will provide. Given the relatively small size of the subject property combined with the Significant Tree Grove and wetland located on the site, the Applicant believes the benefits being proposed as part of the planned development proposal exceed the minimum standards of this title and will help to maintain the unique charm of the neighborhood. 5. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve existing, healthy, and noninvasi ve trees and tree groves to the greatest extent possible; RESPONSE: The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criterion because the proposed streets, buildings, and site improvements have been designed and located to preserve the significant tree grove on the property to the greatest extent possible. The Applicant has submitted a detailed arborist report as part of the overall application materials that further supports the tree removal and tree protections proposed with this application. See arborist report for more detail. 6. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve all natural drainages to the greatest extent possible, except where the applicant has demonstrated that modifying a natural drainage results in the same or better environmental function as the existing drainage; RESPONSE: The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criterion because all proposed streets, buildings, and site improvements have been designed to preserve all existing natural drainages in the area. The existing wetland on the property will not be impacted by the proposed development and all stormwater will be directed to the stormwater facilities in Tracts A and B. 7. Any impacts from the proposed development are mitigated to the extent practicable; RESPONSE: Aside from the necessary tree removal to accommodate the proposed public street, stormwater facility, and future dwellings, there are no negative impacts associated with the proposed development. New trees will be planted on the lots with the construction of the new homes, and street trees will be added to the streets to enhance the street scape and help mitigate for the tree removal. In addition, the existing wetland on the site will be preserved along with the required buffer area to protect the wetland and provide a buffer to the existing residences to the south. By planting trees on the new lots, adding street trees to the rights-of-ways, and protecting the existing wetland on the property, the Applicant has mitigated impacts from the proposed Planned Development to the extent practicable given the small size of the subject site. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 23 8. The city engineer has determined that any adjustments to street or access standards do not result in unsafe conditions; RESPONSE: The above criterion applies to the Applicant’s proposal because the Applicant is requesting a street spacing adjustment as part of this proposal. Due to the proximity of the Longstaff easement(s), there is a need to request a street spacing adjustment. The requested street spacing adjustment will be reviewed by the City’s Engineer as part of this development request to determine if the requested adjustment does not result in unsafe conditions. By providing driveways for the properties located along the north side of the new public street, it is the Applicant’s hope that the existing easements that comprise the Longstaff street can be terminated and all lots can take access from the new public street. 9. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted through this approval process; and RESPONSE: Except for the minor adjustments being requested through the Planned Development process, the proposed development complies with all applicable development standards as demonstrated by the submitted application materials and the responses provided in this narrative to the applicable review criteria. 10. The proposed development is within the following limits: a. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 50 percent, b. Maximum density or floor area may be increased by up to 30 percent, and c. Minimum landscape area may be reduced down to 10 percent. RESPONSE: The maximum building height in the R-12 zone is 35 feet. An increase of 50 percent would create a maximum building height of 52.5-feet. The Applicant does not anticipate building any units greater than 35 feet in height but can assure that none of the future homes on the proposed lots will not exceed a maximum building height of 52-feet. As mentioned previously, the Applicant is taking advantage of the maximum density increase by up to 30 percent. The Applicant does not need the maximum density increase of 30 percent, but a slight increase over the R-12 zone maximum is being requested for the project. The Applicant is also looking to reduce the minimum landscape area by 10 percent. C. Detailed plan. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a detailed plan application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The proposed detailed plan is substantially consistent with the approved concept plan; 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 24 2. The proposed detailed plan complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted or conditioned through the concept plan approval process; and 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. RESPONSE: The Applicant has demonstrated through this narrative and the submitted supporting documents that the proposed planned development complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted or conditioned through the concept plan approval process, and that adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. Since the Applicant is requesting consolidated review of the proposed planned development, the proposed plan is consistent with the concept plan as that are one in the same. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criteria. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.830 SUBDIVISIONS 18.830.040 Approval Criteria—Preliminary Plat A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions an application for a preliminary plat when all of the following are met: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations; RESPONSE: The Applicant has demonstrated through this narrative, the submitted plan set, and all other supporting documentation that the proposed 23 lot residential Planned Development complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations of the City of Tigard Community Development Code (CDC). 2. The proposed lots must comply with the following: a. All development standards are met. The development standards, including density standards for residential and nonresidential development, are provided in the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. b. Each lot for quad, rowhouse, or single detached house development is rectilinear in shape with straight side lot lines at right angles to front lot lines, and straight rear lot lines parallel to front lot lines, except where not practicable due to location along a street radius or because of existing natural features or lot lines. Side and rear lot lines that are segmented may not contain cumulative lateral changes in direction that exceed 10 percent of the distance between opposing lot corners, as measured using 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 25 the process of Subsection 18.40.060.C. c. Each lot has a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public or private right- of-way, except for the following types of lots: i. Rowhouse lots have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way; ii. Lots with curved frontages along cul-de-sacs or eyebrows have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way as measured along the arc of the front lot line; and iii. Lots at the terminus of a private street have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a private right-of-way. RESPONSE: All proposed lots comply with the above criterion. The proposed development satisfies the density requirements of both the R-12 zone and the Planned Development code. In addition, all proposed lots are rectilinear in shape with straight side lot lines are right angles to the front lot lines, as well as straight rear lot lines parallel to the front lot lines. All proposed lots will not have a minimum of 40-feet of frontage. However, all proposed rowhouse lots will have a minimum of 15-feet of frontage on a public. All proposed detached single-family lots will have a minimum of 26-feet of frontage on a public street. Since the Applicant is requesting Planned Development approval, the Applicant is concurrently requesting approval of lot widths for the single-family detached lots to be less than 40-feet in width. d. Lots created using the density and dimensional standards for cottage cluster, courtyard unit, quad, and rowhouse development must record a deed restriction that prohibits any type of development other than the type proposed with the subdivision application. This deed restriction cannot be removed except through another land division process. RESPONSE: As mentioned previously, 15 of the proposed 23 lots are for rowhouses. As such, the Applicant is agreeable, as a condition of any final approval, to record a deed restriction that prohibits any type of development other than the type proposed with the subdivision application. 3. The proposed plat name is not duplicative and satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; RESPONSE: At this time a plat name has not been finalized. As such, the Applicant requests that this criterion be made a condition of any final approval. With that being said, the Applicant understands that whatever the plat name is, it cannot be a duplicative and it must satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. 4. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 26 and partitions already approved for adjacent 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 RESPONSE: The proposed street layout was reviewed by City Staff during the Applicant’s Pre-Application meeting and it was determined that the proposed street layout conforms to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved in the surrounding area. The proposed street widths and general direction of the streets is consistent with the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criterion. 5. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. RESPONSE: The Applicant’s narrative provides an explanation for all common improvements, as required. Specific details of the proposed improvements are discussed later in this narrative under the Street and Utility Improvement Standards; Section 18.810. The Applicant’s proposal has met all of the preliminary plat approval standards for subdivisions. Chapter 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half- street improvements meeting the standards of this chapter are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. RESPONSE: The development is adjacent to SW 95th Ave., which is designated as a local public street. In addition, a new local public street is proposed along the site’s northern property boundary and will connect with SW 95th Ave. Sheet 4 of the submitted plans show that 5-feet of AC pavement will be added to SW 95th Ave. adjacent to the site, 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 27 with curb and gutter, a 5-foot planter strip, and a 5-foot sidewalk for a 30-foot half street. Sheet 4 also shows a 42-foot right of way dedication for the new public street. The improvements for the new public street will include a three-quarter street construction with 42 feet of right-of-way, 13- foot paved travel lanes, and installation of curb and gutter, five-foot planter strip, and five-foot sidewalk along the site’s frontage. Additionally, a 20-foot private street/alley will be provided along the rear of Lots 1 – 8 for access to their garages, as well as for access to the stormwater tracts, and it will connect with the right-of-way dedication for the new public street. Street trees and streetlights will also be provided as required on both SW 95th Ave. and the new public street. These criteria are met. 5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.020.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 28 on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Subsection 18.910.030.E. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. RESPONSE: As noted in this narrative, as well as on the submitted site plans, The Applicant has indicated that the street improvements will be provided. The Applicant does not propose to pay a fee in lieu for the required street improvements. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final plat; however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of 1 acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or partitions. c. The street is located within the mixed use central business district (MU- CBD) zone and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 29 whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title. 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name “the public” as grantee. RESPONSE: The site’s existing SW 95th Ave. right-of-way frontage is less than the current City’s required right-of-way. As such, the Applicant proposes to dedicate 10-feet of right-of-way along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage for a 30-foot half street. Improvements to SW 95th Ave. will include 5-feet of AC pavement, curb and gutter, 5- foot planter strip, and a 5-foot sidewalk to provide a full half street improvement along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage. A right of way dedication of 42 feet is proposed for the new public street to meet the City of Tigard standard street cross section of a Local Street. Dedication of right of way will be recorded via subdivision plat approval. This criterion is met. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this chapter provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code, Section 503. 2. Access shall be in compliance with Subsections 18.920.030.H, I, and J. RESPONSE: No access easements are proposed or necessary to serve the proposed 23 lot Planned Development. The above criteria do not apply to the Applicant’s proposal. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.030.N; and 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 30 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. RESPONSE: The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Ave. The street grades on the existing street will remain unchanged. Street grade of the new proposed public street will be less than 12 percent and meet the City’s standards. All the existing streets and new public and private streets are shown on the plan. This criterion is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Tigard Downtown Plan District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are provided in Table 18.910.1. The approval authority shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: 1. The type of road as provided in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter - functional street classification. 2. Anticipated traffic generation. 3. On-street parking needs. 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements. 5. Requirements for placement of utilities. 6. Street lighting. 7. Drainage and slope impacts. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 31 8. Street tree location. 9. Planting and landscape areas. 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 11. Access needs for emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: The submitted narrative and site plans indicate that the proposed development is going to construct street improvements along both SW 95th Ave. the new public street. Full half street improvements will be provided on both streets to accommodate two-way traffic and pedestrian connections. Street trees and streetlights will also be provided. On street parking will be provided on the new public street, as well as on SW 95th Ave. Additionally, the Applicant will also provide storm drainage system associated with all street improvements. This criterion has been met. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other lots within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed, and a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. 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. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 32 c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. RESPONSE: Aside from the right-of-way being dedicated along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage and the new proposed public street, no additional right of way is proposed or deemed necessary. G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.920.030.H. RESPONSE: See Applicant’s responses under Section 18.920.030.H H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15 percent for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. RESPONSE: The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Ave. There are no stubbed streets abutting the site that need to be extended as part of this development proposal. Additionally, there are no local, neighborhood routes and/or collector streets when abut the site. A new 3/4 public street is proposed along the site’s northern property boundary. This street will be stubbed to the site’s eastern property boundary. It’s unclear if this street 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 33 will be extended in the future as the subject site abuts the Reserve at Ashbrook development along the site’s eastern property boundary. Nevertheless, in the event the street is not extended, the Applicant has also stubbed the proposed pedestrian trail to the site’s eastern property boundary so that it can be extended to the Reserve at Ashbrook to help improve pedestrian connectivity and avoid out of direction travel. With the proposed new public street/pedestrian connection, the applicant has provided an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75o unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. RESPONSE: A new intersection is proposed and at a right angle. The new public street, will have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right of way intersection with SW 95th Ave. The new intersection between the new public street and SW 95th Ave. will be at a right angle. The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Ave., which is designated as a Local Street. All criteria have been met. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. RESPONSE: The Applicant proposes to dedicate an additional 10 feet to the existing SW 95th Ave. right-of-way along the site’s frontage. This criterion is met. K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. RESPONSE: No partial improvement is proposed. This criterion does not apply. L. Cul-de-sacs. 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 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 34 strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: RESPONSE: No cul-de-sac is proposed or deem necessary. This criterion does not apply. M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. RESPONSE: The Applicant has not chosen a street name for the new proposed public street. As such, the Applicant respectfully request, as a condition of final approval, that a street name be provided prior to final plat approval. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10 percent on arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. RESPONSE: The proposed development is adjacent to SW 95th Ave. The street grade on the existing street will remain unchanged. The grade on SW 95th Ave. is less than 12 percent. Grade on the new local street will also be less than 12 percent. This criterion is met. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Chapter 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way, and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except: 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city configuration standards. RESPONSE: Curbs, curb cuts, and driveway approaches are shown on the submitted site plans. This criterion is met. P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 35 determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. RESPONSE: The proposed site is not adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. This standard is not applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: RESPONSE: The site does not access to an arterial or collector street, therefore, the above criterion does not apply to the Applicant’s proposal. R. Alleys, public or private. 1. Alleys shall be no less than 20 feet in width. In commercial and industrial zones, alleys shall be provided unless other permanent provisions for access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made. 2. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than 12 feet. RESPONSE: One (1) alley is being proposed as part of the Planned Development proposal to serve Lots 1 – 8. The proposed alley will be 20 feet in width with a sidewalk along the northern side of the alley. The proposed alley will intersect with the new proposed public street at a 90-degree angle with a radius of not less than 12 feet. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criteria. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. RESPONSE: All boundary, internal monuments, and street monuments will be established, reestablished and protected in accordance with the City’s and County’s requirements and standards. T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and 2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 36 3. Private streets serving more than 6 dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, cottage cluster, courtyard units, and apartment developments. RESPONSE: A private alley/street is proposed to provide accesses to Lots 1 to 8 and the stormwater quality and detention facility. U. Railroad crossings. Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the public works director and approved by the commission. RESPONSE: The proposed site is not adjacent to any railroad crossing. This standard is not applicable. V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. RESPONSE: Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicants will submit site plans showing location of street signs, names, and traffic control devices to Engineering for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, all street signs, street names, and traffic control devices will be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied by the developer. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least 2 dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final approval. RESPONSE: Mailboxes are currently not shown on the site plans. Mailbox locations will be submitted for review and approval prior to commencing site improvement. X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. RESPONSE: No traffic signal is required. This standard is not applicable. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 37 Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with regulations adopted by the city’s direction. RESPONSE: Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant will provide Engineering Division a photometric analysis of the proposed development frontages for the review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements per ANSI/IESNA. Should new streetlights be required based on the photometric analysis, then the Applicant will submit plans showing the location of streetlights to Engineering for review and approval. Type and color of pole and light fixture will also be included on the plan for review and approval. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. RESPONSE: Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicants will submit site plans showing location of street signs, names, and traffic control devices to Engineering for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, all street signs, street names, and traffic control devices will be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied by the developer. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within 1 year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed or 3 years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. RESPONSE: Sheet 4, Preliminary Site and Utility Plan, of the Applicant’s submitted plan set provides callouts of the structural cross section of the streets (i.e. SW 95th Ave. and proposed new public street). Street structural cross sections will also be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval prior to commencing site improvements. BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city within 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 38 the 5-year time period will be refunded to the developer. RESPONSE: No traffic calming measures are warranted for the Applicant’s proposal. There are existing traffic calming measures in place on SW 95th Ave. adjacent to the subject property in the form of speed bumps. CC. Traffic study. RESPONSE: The traffic volumes created by proposed 23 Lot Planned Development do not rise to the level to warrant a traffic study pursuant to the circumstances described in this section of the City’s code. Therefore, a traffic study was not prepared. 18.910.040 Blocks A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by Paragraph 18.910.040.B.1. 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. RESPONSE: The existing block length, width and shape of blocks in the area of the subject property has already been established and the Applicant’s proposal will not add new block lengths or change current block design in the area. However, to help minimize out of distance pedestrian travel, the Applicant will be providing a pedestrian trail connection to the Reserve at Ashbrook development along the site’s eastern property boundary. Due to the existing wetland on the subject property no other connectivity options are available to the site to create new block lengths. The 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 39 Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criteria. 18.910.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. RESPONSE: As shown in Sheet 4 of the submitted plan set, an eight-foot PUE will be provided along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage, as well as along the south side of the new proposed public street. The eight-foot PUE will be recorded with the final plat. This criterion is met. 18.910.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All public and private streets adjacent to industrially zoned properties shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other public and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. RESPONSE: No industrial street is proposed or deemed necessary for this proposal. A 5- foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage, as well as along the south side of the new proposed public street. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a sidewalk along the east side of the private street/alley. This criterion has been met. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 0.50 miles of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 40 development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). RESPONSE: The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. There is an existing sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the development. However, there is no existing right-of-way available between the Applicant’s site and the existing sidewalk to the north to extend a sidewalk to match the existing sidewalk. In addition, there is an existing large healthy Ponderosa Pine tree immediately adjacent to the stubbed sidewalk that would need to have the sidewalk meandered around the tree in order to preserve the tree and there is no right-of-way or pedestrian easements available to facilitate the location of the sidewalk. The property between the Applicant’s site and the stubbed sidewalk to the north is for sale and is of a size that would allow for it to be redeveloped. Should this scenario occur, then the City will be able to get a right-of-way dedication to enable the location of the sidewalk. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least 5 feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.910.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. RESPONSE: The site plans indicate that a 5-foot planter will be provided along all streets adjacent to the development meeting the standards. The narrative indicates that it is the adjacent property owner’s obligation to continue maintaining the adjacent sidewalks, curbs and planter strips. 18.910.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements and the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 41 service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the approval authority where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. RESPONSE: The submitted site plans show that all the lots in the proposed development will be connected to public sanitary sewer system via service laterals. The site plans also show a new public sanitary sewer system consisting of manholes and 8-inch main is proposed in the new public street and the private street/alley. The new main is shown connecting to existing main located in SW 95th Avenue. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant will submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the proposed public sanitary sewer system and associated facilities shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. No over-sizing of sanitary sewer is proposed or deemed necessary. 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 42 C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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, and the City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on Clean Water Services requirements. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. RESPONSE: The site plans show that both public storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems are proposed. They are separate and independent from one another. The site plans indicate that a public drainage system including manholes, inlets, and a 12-inch main are proposed in the new public street and the private street/alley. A water quality/detention facility is also proposed and located on its own tracts at the end of the private street/alley. Street run-off is going to be collected and detained in the water quality/detention facility prior to releasing to the existing system located in SW 95th Avenue. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant will submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing how runoff generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated, and detained to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The design of storm drainage improvement will be in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards. A preliminary grading plan was submitted showing contours associated with the proposed street and lots. The Applicant’s site plans also included the proposed storm system and location of the catch basins and the water quality/detention indicating how surface water drainage patterns will be after development. Even though the site contains a wetland, the site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream. There is no upstream basin that flows across the subject site. The site plans show that a tract (Tracts A & B) are proposed for storm water quality and detention and will be dedicated to the City of Tigard for open space and vegetated corridor protection. A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. The report and site plans indicate that public run-off generated from sidewalk and street will be collected, treated, and detained in the proposed storm water quality and detention facility. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 43 Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant will submit a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained to Engineering Division for review and approval. The storm drainage report will be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Design Guidelines. Prior to Final Plat Approval, all public stormwater drainage system, including water quality and detention facilities will be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. 18.910.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the City Engineer unless specified in Table 18.910.1. 2. 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 rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this chapter and on the adopted bicycle plan. RESPONSE: There are no arterial or collector streets abutting the subject site. All surrounding streets in the neighborhood of the subject property are local residential streets. There are no existing or proposed bikeways identified on the City’s adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan for SW 95th Ave. Any required bike lanes for the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage or for the small public street will be incorporated with the improvements for these streets. 18.910.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 44 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. 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 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. RESPONSE: The existing overhead utilities along SW 95th Ave. are located on the west side of the street opposite the subject property. Undergrounding of these existing overhead lines is not required for the proposed development. All future utility lines serving the proposed development will be located underground per the above criteria. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. RESPONSE: Upon gaining approval for the proposed 23 lot Planned Development, the Applicant will be submitting detailed civil plans to the City’s Engineering Division showing the location of all underground facilities for their review and approval. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.920 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.920.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress provided in this chapter are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or lot of real property in the city. B. Access plan requirements. A plan demonstrating compliance with the access, egress, and circulation requirements of this Chapter must be provided prior to any land use approval or development permit issuance. RESPONSE: The property owner acknowledges his/her continuing obligation to provide and maintain access and egress to City standards. The access drives will be maintained by the property owners, as defined in the above standard. Additionally, the submitted plans demonstrate compliance with the access, egress and circulation requirements of 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 45 this chapter. All necessary plans, including a detailed Site Plan for land use approval has been submitted to the City as part of the overall application materials. All submitted plans are to scale and demonstrate compliance with access, egress and circulation requirements for the proposed development. The above criterion have been met. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or lots of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of all uses, structures, or units of land meets the combined requirements of this chapter, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence must be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2. Copies of the deeds, easements, leases, or contracts are placed on permanent file with the city. RESPONSE: This application involves only one parcel with one property owner and one use. No joint access is existing, proposed or necessary. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Subsections 18.920.030.H, I and J must connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and must be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. E. Surfacing. Driveways and drive aisles must be paved with a dust-free, hard- surfaced material, or utilize a turf grid or open joint pavers. F. Curb cuts. Curb cuts must be in compliance with Subsection 18.910.030.O. RESPONSE: The subject site has street frontage along SW 95th Avenue, however, no vehicular access and/or egress will be taken from SW 95th Avenue. Instead, the Applicant is proposing a new public street along the sites northern property boundary and terminating at the site’s eastern property boundary. Lots 9 – 23 will have direct driveway access to the new public street. Lots 1 – 8 will front SW 95th Ave. but will be rear loaded and take ingress/egress from a new private street/alley. All driveway will be paved with a dust-free, hard-surfaced material, or utilize a turf grid or open joint pavers as required by the above criteria. The new public will be owned and maintained by the City and obtains its access from existing SW 95th Avenue, which is existing and currently maintained by the city. This criterion is met. Except for the new proposed public street taking access to SW 95th Ave., not new curb cuts are proposed along the site’s SW 95th Ave. frontage. The subject site has one existing curb cut for the existing approach from SW 121st Avenue. No additional curb cuts are proposed. Curb cuts are in accordance with Section 18.910.030.O, which requires grades on other streets shall not exceed 12 percent. The grade of the curb cuts for the proposed Public Street and Private Street are shown on the submitted plans and are less than 12 percent, therefore, this standard is met. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 46 G. Pedestrian access. Paths for pedestrian access and circulation are required to, through, and sometimes between development sites. Path standards are provided in 18.200 Residential Development Standards, 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards, and Chapter 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading. Additional standards may also apply if the site is located in a plan district. H. Inadequate or hazardous access. RESPONSE: A new public street is proposed along the site’s northern property boundary with a sidewalk along the south side of the street. A new sidewalk will also be added along the site’s SW 95th Avenue frontage. Internally to the site the circulation patter will consist of a looping pedestrian path/trail beginning between lots 20 and 21. The pedestrian trail/path will begin as a concrete walking path between lots 20 and 21 and transition to a soft wood chops trail located in an easement along the rear of lots 13 – 23. By extending the soft path to the site’s eastern property boundary, it will allow for a pedestrian connection with the adjacent apartment complex that would not be available otherwise. The purpose of the soft path is to minimize impacts to the vegetated corridor behind these lots. The soft pat will meander thought Tract C, which will include a bench for residents to relax and enjoy the open space tract and wetland area. The soft trail will transition back into a concrete walking path at the east end of Tract B and extend along the east side of the alley to connect with the sidewalk associated with the new public street to complete the loop. The proposed vehicle and pedestrian circulation access routes were designed considering the site layout and provide the most safe and convenient routes for visitors and emergency vehicles onto the site. The proposed design does not cause any hazardous or unsafe condition. The Applicant’s proposal satisfies the above criteria. I. Access management. 1. An access report must be submitted with all new development that verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by me eting adequate stacking needs, sight distance, and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city, and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). 2. Driveways must not 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 is 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 area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a case where a development has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent lot. If shared access is not possible or practicable, the driveway must be placed as far from the 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 47 intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector is 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial is 600 feet. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet. RESPONSE: The proposed development is a 23-lot Planned Development subdivision adjacent to SW 95th Ave, which is designated as a Local Street. SW 95th Ave is a north/south street adjacent to the site that intersects with SW North Dakota St. approximately 700-feet south of the site, and SW Shady Ln. approximately 325-feet north of the site. A private street is also proposed to provide accesses for Lots 1 to 8 and the stormwater quality/detention facility. All other lots will take access from the new proposed public street that will intersect with SW 95th Ave. at the site’s northern property boundary. The sight lines at the intersection of the new proposed public street and SW Mandamus Ct. are adequately provided at more than 210 feet to the north. As noted above the nearest intersection street to the south direction is SW North Dakota St., which is approximately 700-feet south of the proposed new public street. However, the sight lines created at the intersection of the newly created SW Anna Belle Ct. and the Applicant’s proposed new public street are only 110-feet, which is less than the minimum spacing required of local streets along a local street. However, SW Anna Belle Ct. is a very limited street, as it can’t be extended to serve beyond its current terminus points. SW Anna Belle Ct. was created to serve a small 12-13 lot subdivision being built by Sage Built Homes, so traffic from this street will be minimalized. Similarly, the new proposed public street the Applicant is proposing is equally limited as it can’t be extended to the east as there is existing high-density residential development. As such, sight distances of the intersection between SW Anna Belle Ct. and the new proposed public street should be adequate due to the limitations of these two streets. Since providing a comprehensive neighborhood circulation is critical and the spacing of the proposed two streets is not going to compromise the operating characteristics of SW 95th Ave., it is the Applicant’s believe that the request for an adjustment to the spacing standard on a local residential street is justifiable. Should it be deemed necessary by City Staff to provide a Final Sight Distance Certification indicating that sight distances and spacing are adequately provided between the new proposed public street and SW Anna Belle Ct., then the Applicant is agreeable to providing the letter to the Engineering Division prior to final plat approval. Driveways for Lots 1 – 8 are located along the proposed private street/alley. Driveways of Lots 9 -23 will be located along the new proposed local public street. All proposed driveways are located outside of any possible influence area as there are no collector or arterial street intersection adjacent to or within the site. No driveways are being proposed along a collector or arterial street. J. Minimum access requirements for residential uses. 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 48 1. Vehicular access and egress for residential uses must comply with the standards provided in Table 18.920.1. 2. Vehicular access to apartment structures must be within 50 feet of the first- story entrance or the first-story landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. 3. Private residential access drives must be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code. 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length must be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. 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; c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5 percent. 5. 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 23-lot subdivision SW 95th Avenue, Tigard 49 traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. 6. Where allowed, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets must be at least 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. RESPONSE: As shown on the submitted plans, all proposed single-family lots will have a minimum one (1) driveway 10-feet wide with a 10-foot paved surface as required above. Additionally, all proposed rowhouses will have a minimum one (1) driveway 10- feet wide with a 10-foot paved surface as required by Chapter 18.280. The new proposed public street will be in excess of 150-feet in length, therefore, the applicant has proposed a fire turnaround between lots 20 and 21 to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 18.930 VISION CLEARANCE AREAS 18.930.030 Vision Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the MU-CBD zone, a vision clearance area must be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area must be maintained free of vehicles, hedges, plantings, fences, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding 3 feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade. Trees exceeding 3 feet in height may be located in this area, provided all branches below 8 feet are removed. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions must be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. RESPONSE: All required vision clearance areas will be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. The clear vision areas will be maintained free of vehicles, hedges, plantings, fences, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions in excesses of 3 feet in height. ______________________________________________________________________________ COVERSHEET & CONCEPTPLAN1 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONBENCHMARK INFORMATION PROJECT CONTACTS OWNER/APPLICANT:PLANNER:SURVEYOR: 23-LOT SUBDIVISION TAX LOT 01700 TIGARD, OREGON SW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 35, T 1S, R 1W, W.M. INDEX: EXISTING CONDITIONSMAP2 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND SITE DENSITY AREAS DETAILED PLAN3 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND SITE DATA PRELIMINARY PLAT4 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONLEGEND PRELIMINARY GRADINGAND STREET PROFILE5 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - PROFILE PRELIMINARY SITE ANDUTILITY PLAN6 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED PUBLIC STREET - SECTIONPROPOSED SW 95TH AVENUE -SECTION PRELIMINARY WATERQUALITY POND FENCING7 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONPROPOSED RETAINING WALL/FENCE - PLAN RETAINING WALL - FENCE TYPICAL SECTION A-A A A A A A A AA AA TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL SITE PLAN6445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONTREE PROTECTION NOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT: LEGEND MARCH 3, 2021 TREE CANOPY SITE PLAN6445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONNOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT:LEGEND MARCH 3, 2021 Existing Stand Inventory Stand No. Dominant Tree Species Tree Species Common of 2nd Tree Species Common of 3rd Average DBH1 Total Canopy (sq. ft.) Total Canopy Preserved (sq. ft.)Comments 1 ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)30 59,858 34,485 Stand 1 consists of 180 trees six inches and larger in diameter with contiguous canopy cover of which 94 are planned for removal and 86 are planned for retention. Refer to the supplemental arborist report for a more detailed description of the stand. Contact the project arborist for a listing of individual trees. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)10 Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)18 Existing Tree Inventory Tree No.Location Common Name DBH1 Treatment 101 On-site dogwood 6,6 Remove 103 On-site ash 5 Remove 104 On-site cherry 5,6 Remove 10250 Off-site Oregon white oak 19 Protect 10268 On-site linden 2x18 Remove 10269 On-site English hawthorn 12,22 Remove 10421 On-site pear 11 Remove 10423 On-site Douglas-fir 18 Remove 10424 On-site apple 9 Remove 10425 On-site western redcedar 10 Remove 10426 On-site ash 4,7 Remove 10427 On-site pin oak 2x7 Remove 10428 On-site red maple 10,2x12 Remove 10779 On-site Oregon white oak 45 Remove 10780 On-site red oak 10,13 Remove 10781 On-site Oregon white oak 47 Remove 10799 On-site giant sequoia 45 Remove 10800 On-site Oregon white oak 26 Remove 10801 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 10802 On-site Oregon white oak 50 Remove 10803 On-site mimosa 2x6 Remove 10804 On-site sweet cherry 8 Remove 20742 Off-site Oregon white oak * Remove off-site^ 20770 On-site Oregon white oak 22,36 Retain 20771 On-site Oregon ash 19 Retain 20772 On-site Norway maple 6 Retain 1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5-feet above the ground level in inches; trees with multiple trunks splitting below DBH are measured separately and individual trunk measurements are separated by a comma, except multiple trunks of the same size are indicated as quantity x size. *Asterisk indicates inaccessible off-site tree where diameter could not be measured.TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL TABLE10 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com2667 WILLAKENZIE ROAD, SUITE 1AEUGENE, OREGON 97401TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SW NORTH DAKOTA STSW 93RD AVESW 91ST AVESW 94TH AVESW 92ND AVESW 90TH AVESW 95TH AVE42' WIDE PUBLIC ST SW 95TH AVEH W Y 2 1 7 AERIAL ANDNEIGHBORHOODCIRCULATION MAP11 116445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report October 28, 2020 Revised: March 3, 2021 23-Lot Subdivision 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Lot 1700 971.409.9354 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P 220 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 morgan@mholen.comConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management Table of Contents – Purpose ............................................................................................ 1 Scope of Work and Limitations ............................................................ 1 Site Description....... .......................................................................... 1 Effective Tree Canopy Cover ............................................................... 3 Specifications ................................................................................... 4 A. Tree Protection Specifications ...................................................... 4 B. Soil Characteristics and Specifications for Improvement ................. 5 C. Tree Planting Specifications ......................................................... 5 Signature of Approval ........................................................................ 6 Enclosures – Attachment A: Existing Tree Inventory Attachment B: Existing Stand Inventory Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Attachment D: Planted Tree Inventory Attachment E: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment F: Tree Canopy Site Plan Not Applicable – Stand Protection Specifications Planted Stand Inventory Stand Planting Specifications Tree Canopy Fee Calculation 971.409.9354 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P 220 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 morgan@mholen.comConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23-Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 MHA20027 Purpose This Urban Forestry Plan for the 23‐lot residential subdivision at 10970 SW 95th Avenue, located in an R‐ 12 zoning district in Tigard, Oregon, is provided pursuant to City of Tigard Code Section 18.280.50.G.2, Chapter 18.420, and the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. This report describes the existing trees located on the project site, provides arborist recommendations for tree removal, retention and protection, and describes the proposed street tree planting plan and effective tree canopy cover needed to meet City requirements. Scope of Work and Limitations Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC was contracted by Scott Miller to collect tree inventory data and develop an Urban Forestry Plan for the project in collaboration with Emerio Design. An existing conditions survey illustrating the location of existing trees by survey point number was provided to us prior to conducting the fieldwork. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist (PN‐6145B) and Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, Morgan Holen, visited the site on July 22, 2020 to visually assess existing trees six inches and larger in diameter located on and directly adjacent to the project site and collect tree inventory data. Trees were evaluated in terms of species, diameter, crown radius, general condition and suitability for preservation with site development. Visual assessment was limited at off‐site to observations made from the project site or public rights of way. Following the tree inventory fieldwork, we coordinated with the Emerio Design to review the site plan in terms of existing trees, discuss recommendations for tree protection, and assist with preparation of the Urban Forestry Plan drawings. We revisited the site on October 15, 2020, with the proposed site plan in hand to assess the proposed tree removal and protection and provide comments to finalize the plan as described herein. The client may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations contained herein or seek additional advice. Neither this author nor Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC, have assumed any responsibility for liability associated with the trees on or adjacent to this site. Site Description The project site is located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon and includes tax lot 1700. One existing single‐family residential home and two sheds on the site are planned for demolition. The project proposes to create a 23‐lot subdivision (eight for single‐family residential homes and 15 proposed rowhouses) with a new street, sidewalks, water quality pond, and wood chip path lining an open space tract. The site is heavily treed and includes mapped Goal 5 Habitat areas in the eastern half of the site and a wetland and vegetated corridor in the southern portion of the site. 971.409.9354 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P 220 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 morgan@mholen.comConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23‐Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Twenty‐eight individual trees were inventoried including two off‐site trees adjacent to the project site (#10250 and #20742). A complete description of individual trees is included in the enclosed existing tree inventory (attachment A). The individual on‐site trees are planned for removal for site development, while off‐site tree #10250 will be protected. Off‐site tree #20742 is recommended for removal because it has a one‐sided crown with excessive lean to the neighboring apartment and the tree will be exposed by on‐site tree removal. Removal of this off‐site tree requires prior written consent of the adjacent owner. If the owner desires to retain the tree despite the recommendation to remove it, the existing property line fence will act as tree protection. In addition, attachment B provides a description of the existing stand which encompasses much of the site. The stand is relatively natural and unmanaged and includes 180 trees with contiguous canopy. Ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa), Oregon ashes (Fraxinus latifolia) and Oregon white oaks (Quercus garryana) account for 78% of trees in the stand. Individual trees within the stand are variable in condition and many of the ponderosa pines are infected with western gall rust, a fungal disease caused by Endocronartium harknessii. In general, gall rust seldom kills trees but commonly results in branch death and the infected pines on the project site did exhibit dead, dying and broken branches with galls1. The majority of the pines are located in northern portion of the stand where site development is proposed and a total of 86 stand grown trees are planned for removal. Ninety‐two trees are planned for retention in the southern portion of the stand, which includes a mapped wetland and vegetated corridor. This area will be preserved as open space tract A. However, two trees located within the mapped wetland, close to the southern boundary of the site are recommended for removal because they have advanced decay and are high risk hazards to the adjacent home (trees #10623 and #10625). Removal of these two trees within the protected area should be completed by hand and the large woody debris may remain on‐site if placed in direct contact with the forest floor; small woody debris and branches should be hauled off‐site or chipped and scattered on‐site. During the October 15, 2020 site visit, I carefully assessed the boundary between the area proposed for tree removal and retention to determine which trees are most suitable for retention with exposure from adjacent tree removal that is necessary for site development. The proposed plan creates the best new edge of the stand, where trees in generally good condition are retained in groups and suppressed trees or trees with potentially hazardous defects are planned for removal. No trees are proposed for removal in the protected natural area besides the two hazardous trees previously described. A path is proposed along the northern boundary of the open space tract. It was originally going to be concrete, but I recommended a wood chip path instead, built up from native grade with no excavation. This allows the path to meander between a few trees planned for retention near the rear of lots 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 while providing adequate protection. A shed located within the protected natural area surrounded by large Oregon white oak trees will need to be demolished by hand and with hand tools only. The tree protection zone may be temporarily opened for this work to occur but materials will need to be hauled outside of the tree protection zone as the shed is taken apart. The protection fencing should be closed at the end of each work day and following completion of the shed demolition work. 1 Galls are globose swellings caused by fungal infections of cambial tissues in tree branches. Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23‐Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Tree protection specifications are provided on the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan and should be carried over onto Construction Documents. Effective Tree Canopy Cover A summary of the effective tree canopy cover by lot and across the overall development site is included as attachment C. Attachment D, the planted tree inventory, describes 22 trees proposed for planting. The required number of street trees is based on the lineal street frontage divided by 40. The total street frontage abutting the project site is 716‐feet. Therefore, a minimum of 18 1.5‐inch caliper street trees are required (716 / 40 = 18). The planted tree inventory includes 19 small‐statured street trees consisting of either paperbark maple (Acer griseum) or Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa) or a combination of both. Species options with equivalent canopy cover are provided to give the landscape contractor flexibility depending on nursery stock availability at the time of planting. Tree species and locations were determined to provide the closest and best spacing possible and each street tree has at least 500 cubic feet of soil volume, the minimum required based on a right‐of‐way width over 10‐ and up to 12‐feet. The 19 proposed street trees provide a total of 9,329 square feet of canopy credit (491 x 19 = 9,329). In addition, three native Willamette Valley ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa var. willamettensis) are proposed in the rear of lots 19, 20 and 23. Native species trees provide 1.25 times effective tree canopy credit. The three proposed yard trees provide a total of 2,651 square feet of canopy credit (707 x 3 x 1.25 = 2,651). None of the individual trees located beyond the boundaries of stand 1 are planned for retention. Stand 1 consists of 59,858 square feet of total canopy cover. This number was derived by Emerio Design based on actual dripline measurements we provided for individual trees within the stand. Once the driplines were plotted, the total area was determined by delineating the boundary of the stand; only on‐site canopy cover is accounted for, not including any canopy cover that overhangs adjacent properties. Emerio also delineated and calculated the canopy areas planned for removal and retention, 25,373 and 34,485 square feet, respectively. Double canopy credit is provided for retaining 34,485 square feet of stand canopy, for a total of 68,970 square feet. For subdivisions in the R‐12 zoning district, the minimum requirement for effective tree canopy cover is 33% for the overall development site, with no minimum requirement for each individual lot. However, Section 18.280.050.G.2 requires landscaping standards specific to rowhouse development, which are applicable to proposed lots 1‐8 and 17‐23; a minimum of 15 percent effective tree canopy must be provided for each of these lots. The Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary (attachment C) demonstrates that each of these lots exceeds the minimum 15% per lot effective tree canopy cover requirement for rowhouses. In addition, the overall development site, including 23 lots and four tracts, is 99,223 square feet with a total of 80,950 square feet of effective tree canopy cover, or 81.6%. Therefore, the effective tree canopy cover requirement for the overall development site is also satisfied. The Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan are enclosed as attachments E and F as required by Section 10 of the Urban Forestry Manual, which illustrate how the Urban Forestry Plan requirements are met. Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23‐Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 Page 4 of 6 Specifications A. Tree Protection Specifications 1. Preconstruction Conference. The project arborist shall be on site to discuss methods of tree removal and tree protection with the contractor prior to any ground disturbing activity. 2. Tree Protection Zone. The tree protection zone (TPZ) shall be established at the dripline of protected trees as a minimum, or as otherwise depicted on the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. If protection fencing must be opened or adjusted for any reason, the contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with the project arborist in a timely manner prior to working beneath protected tree driplines. Adjustments to protection measures and work beneath protected tree driplines shall be monitored and documented by the project arborist. 3. Protection Fencing. All trees to be retained shall be protected by 5‐foot‐tall metal fencing unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. Protection fencing shall be secured to steel posts placed no further than 8‐feet apart and shall be installed at the edge of the TPZ. 4. Tree Protection Zone Maintenance. Tree protection fencing shall not be moved, removed, or entered by equipment except under direction of the project arborist. Storage of materials or equipment is not allowed within the TPZ. 5. Erosion Control. Beneath the dripline of protected trees, erosion control fencing shall not be trenched in per manufacturer’s specifications to avoid root impacts. Instead, alternative means of erosion control are required, such as wrapping the base of silt fencing around a straw wattle and staking the wattle into the ground or using compost socks or straw wattles staked into the ground in lieu of silt fencing. 6. Tree Removal within Tree Protection Zones. Trees approved for removal within the TPZ shall be clearly marked with paint or flagging by the project arborist. Protection fencing may be temporarily opened for trees to be removed. Removal shall be conducted with extreme caution to avoid damage to protected trees. 7. Stump Removal within Tree Protection Zones. The stumps of trees planned for removal located within the TPZ of protected trees shall remain in the ground where feasible. Otherwise, stumps may be removed by grinding the stump face approximately 6‐inches below ground level or else extracted from the ground under project arborist supervision. 8. Pruning. The project arborist can help identify where pruning is necessary to provide construction clearance and remove dead and defective branches for safety once trees planned for removal have been removed and the site is staked and prepared for construction. Pruning shall be performed by a Qualified Tree Service and conducted in accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards and ISA Best Management Practices for pruning. 9. Demolition. Protection fencing may be temporarily opened for demolition of the existing shed beneath the dripline of protected trees in open space tract D. This work shall be completed by hand and with hand tools only. Do not stockpile materials beneath protected tree driplines. Close the protection fencing at the end of each work day and upon completion of demolition work. Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23‐Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 Page 5 of 6 10. Excavation. Excavation beneath protected tree driplines shall be avoided if alternatives are available. If excavation is unavoidable, the project arborist shall evaluate the proposed excavation to determine methods to minimize impacts to trees. Root pruning shall be directed and documented by the project arborist. 11. Wood Chip Path. Carefully remove the uppermost organic matter along the path alignment (no excavation) with hand tools adjacent to protected tree trunks and by using a smaller rubber tracked machine with a flat‐blade bucket operating solely from the path alignment. The excess material shall be hauled off‐site or stockpiled beyond protected tree driplines. Once the path is cleared, place a 4‐inch layer of wood chips on the ground surface. 12. Landscaping. Following construction and where landscaping is desired, apply approximately 3‐inches of mulch beneath the dripline of protected trees, but not directly against tree trunks. If irrigation is used, use drip irrigation installed at native grade only (no trenching) beneath the driplines of protected trees. 13. Tree Protection Inspection. The project arborist shall inspect and verify the location of protection measures prior to construction, monitor tree protection measures regularly, and provide semi‐monthly written reports to the City during periods of active construction including demolition, site improvements and home building. 14. Final Report. After the project has been completed, the project arborist shall provide a final report that describes the measures needed to maintain and protect the remaining trees and verify the installation of new trees in accordance with the Tree Canopy Site Plan. B. Soil Characteristics and Specifications for Improvement Based on our review of the online NRCS Web Soil Survey, native soils at the project site consist predominately of deep but somewhat poorly drained Aloha silt loam (~86%) and deep but poorly drained Huberly silt loam (~14%). If soil compaction occurs during construction, the project arborist should provide recommendations as needed to maintain the protected trees. Additionally, prior to planting new trees, topsoil amendments should be determined by the landscape contractor. C. Tree Planting Specifications New street trees that are planted to meet the effective canopy requirements shall conform to the applicable standards in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual, Section 2. They shall be planted in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree planting (A300, Part 6) and additional standards adopted by the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board. Nursery stock shall meet the requirements of the American Association of Nurserymen for nursery stock (ANSI Z60.1) for Grade No. 1 or better. Double stake trees if needed for stability. Root barriers shall be installed according to manufacturer’s specifications when a street tree is planted within 5‐feet of any hard surface paving or utility box. Irrigation to be design/build by the landscape contractor. Urban Forestry Plan – Supplemental Report SW 95th Avenue 23‐Lot Subdivision, Tigard, Oregon October 28, 2020 | Revised: March 3, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Signature of Approval We hereby attest that, to the best of our knowledge:  The attached Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual;  The attached Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and  This Supplemental Report meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Thank you for choosing Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC, to provide consulting arborist services for the SW 95th Avenue 23‐lot Subdivision project in Tigard. Please contact us if you have questions or need any additional information or further assistance. Thank you, Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC: Morgan E. Holen, Member ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, PN‐6145B ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Forest Biologist Enclosures: Attachment A: Existing Tree Inventory Attachment B: Existing Stand Inventory Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover Summary Attachment D: Planted Tree Inventory Attachment E: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan Attachment F: Tree Canopy Site Plan Attachment A: Existing Tree InventoryMHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020.xlsxPage 1 of 2Tree No. Location Common NameSpecies NameDBH1C‐Rad2Canopy3O/S4HT5Cond6Pres7Inv8Comments Treatment101 On‐site dogwoodCornus spp. 6,6 7 N/A O No 1 1 NoRemove103 On‐site ashFraxinus spp. 5 11 N/A O No 2 1 No Poor structure Remove104 On‐site cherryPrunus spp. 5,6 11 N/A O No 2 1 No Poor structure Remove10250 Off‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana19 18 N/A O No 3 2 No Limited VTAProtect10268 On‐site lindenTilia spp. 2x18 21 N/A O No 2 2 NoRemove10269 On‐site English hawthornCrataegus monogyna12,22 15 N/A O No 2 2 YesRemove10421 On‐site pearPyrus spp. 11 11 N/A O No 2 1 NoRemove10423 On‐site Douglas‐firPseudotsuga menziesii18 14 N/A O No 2 2 NoRemove10424 On‐site appleMalus spp. 9 7 N/A O No 1 1 NoRemove10425 On‐site western redcedarThuja plicata10 10 N/A O No 1 1 No Sunscald, reduced vigorRemove10426 On‐site ashFraxinus spp. 4,7 11 N/A O No 2 1 No Poor structure Remove10427 On‐site pin oakQuercus palustris2x7 15 N/A O No 2 1 No Poor structure Remove10428 On‐site red mapleAcer rubrum10,2x12 18 N/A O No 2 1 NoCodominant stems with included bark Remove10779 On‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana45 36 N/A O No 3 2 NoRemove10780 On‐site red oakQuercus rubra10,13 23 N/A O No 2 2 NoRemove10781 On‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana47 44 N/A O No 2 2 NoRemove10799 On‐site giant sequoiaSequoiadendron giganteum45 19 N/A O No 2 2 NoRemove10800 On‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana26 20 N/A S No 2 2 NoRemove10801 On‐site sweet cherryPrunus avium8 15 N/A S No 2 1 YesRemove10802 On‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana50 36 N/A O No 2 2 No Extensive ivy Remove10803 On‐site mimosaAlbizia julibrissin2x6 12 N/A S No 1 1 No Very poor structure, extensive ivy Remove10804 On‐site sweet cherryPrunus avium8 13 N/A O No 2 1 YesRemove20742 Off‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana* ‐ N/A S No 2 1 NoCodominant stems, one‐sided with lean eastRemove off‐site^Morgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment A: Existing Tree InventoryMHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020.xlsxPage 2 of 2Tree No. Location Common NameSpecies NameDBH1C‐Rad2Canopy3O/S4HT5Cond6Pres7Inv8Comments Treatment20770 On‐site Oregon white oakQuercus garryana22,36 36 N/A O No 2 2 NoRetain20771 On‐site Oregon ashFraxinus latifolia19 14 N/A O No 2 2 No Codominant leadersRetain20772 On‐site Norway mapleAcer platanoides6 13 N/A O No 2 2 YesRetain2C‐Rad is the average crown radius measured in feet.4O/S identifies the trees as either Open Grown or Stand Grown.5HT identifies whether or not the tree is a Heritage Tree (either Yfor yes or Nfor no).6Cond is the numerical condition rating (0‐3) for on‐site trees as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING VIGOR CANOPY DENSITY0 dead to severe decline <30%1 declining 30‐60%2 average 60‐90%3 good to excellent 90‐100%7Pres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating (0‐3) for on‐site trees as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING01238Inv identifies invasive species on the City's Nuisance Tree List that are not eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy regardless of condition or preservation ratings.present only at pruning woundsabsent to present only at pruning woundsCONSIDERATIONSThe tree is a "hazard tree" as defined in chapter 18.120 of the Tigard Development Code and "hazard tree abatement" as defined in Chapter 18.120 in the Tigard Development Code cannot be completed in a manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards.3Canopy is the average tree canopy area (ft2) for non‐invasive on‐site and boundary trees to be retained with Condition and Preservation ratings >2, calculated as: Canopy = (Average Tree Canopy Spread / 2)2 1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5‐feet above the ground level in inches; trees with multiple trunks splitting below DBH are measured separately and individual trunk measurements are separated by a comma, except multiple trunks of the same size are indicated as quantity x size. *Asterisk indicates inaccessible off‐site trees where diameter could not be measured.DECAYmajor conks and cavitiesDEADWOODFAILURE HISTORYmajor scaffold branches >1 scaffold^Tree 20742 is located off‐site but recommended for removal because of poor structure and exposure from on‐site tree removal; the adjacent owner's written consent is needed, otherwise the existing fence will act as tree protection.PESTSinfestedinfestedminornoneThe tree is dead, in severe decline, or declining but may still be retained if desirable for wildlife or other benefits because it is not considered a "hazard tree" or "hazard tree abatement" could be performed.The tree has average health and/or structural stability that could be alleviated with treatment; the tree will be less resilient to development impacts and will require more frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated as a "3".The tree has good to excellent health and structural stability; the tree will be more resilient to development impacts, and will require less frequent management and monitoring after development than a trerated as a "2".twig and branch dieback scaffold branchessmall twigs small brancheslittle or none noneone to a few conks; small cavitiesMorgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment B: Existing Stand InventoryMHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020.xlsxPage 1 of 1Stand No.Dominant Tree SpeciesTree Species Common of 2ndTree Species Common of 3rdAvg DBH 1Avg DBH 2Avg DBH 3Avg Cond 1 Avg Cond 2Avg Cond 3Overall Stand Preservation Rating Total Canopy (sq. ft.)Total Canopy Preserved (sq. ft.) Commentsponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)302Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)102Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)18 2DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5‐feet above the ground level, in inches.Cond is the numerical condition rating (0‐3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING VIGORCANOPY DENSITY FAILURE HISTORY PESTS DECAY0 dead to severe decline <30% >1 scaffold Infested major conks and cavities1 declining 30‐60% scaffold branch Infested one to a few conks; small cavities2 average 60‐90% small branches Minor present only at pruning wounds3 good to excellent 90‐100% none None absent to present only at pruning woundsPres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating (0‐3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:RATING0123Total Canopy is the average tree canopy area (in square feet) calculated by Emerio Design.Nuisance trees are the dominant species in the stand and/or continued viability of the stand is unlikely due to pests, competition from nuisance tree or plant species, hydrologic changes or other factors.The stand requires a currently cost prohibitive level of investment and management of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors to become viable.The stand is viable but requires more frequent management and monitoring of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as a "3".The stand is viable but requires less frequent management and monitoring of pests, diseases, nuisance tree or plant species, hydrology or other factors for continued viability than a stand rated as a "2".DEADWOODmajor scaffold branchestwig and branch diebacksmall twigslittle or noneCONSIDERATIONS12 59,858 34,485Stand 1 consists of 180 trees six inches and larger in diameter with contiguous canopy cover of which 94 are planned for removal and 86 are planned for retention. Refer to the supplemental arborist report for a more detailed description of the stand.Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover SummaryMHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020 Rev. 02‐27‐2021.xlsxPage 1 of 2Lot No.Lot Area (sq. ft.)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Trees (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Stands (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)1.25 x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Native Planted TreesMature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Non‐Native Planted Trees1.25x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Planted StandsTree Canopy Area (sq. ft.) per LotEffective % Canopy (Canopy Area / Lot Area)Lot 1 2,451 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49120.0%Lot 2 1,938 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49125.3%Lot 3 1,936 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49125.4%Lot 4 2,223 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49122.1%Lot 5 2,220 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49122.1%Lot 6 1,929 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49125.5%Lot 7 1,926 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49125.5%Lot 8 2,405 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49120.4%Lot 9 2,324 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0.0%Lot 10 2,158 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0.0%Lot 11 2,158 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 491 22.8%Lot 12 2,158 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 491 22.8%Lot 13 2,556 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 491 19.2%Lot 14 2,730 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 491 18.0%Lot 15 2,730 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 491 18.0%Lot 16 2,730 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0.0%Lot 17 2,094 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49123.4%Lot 18 1,851 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49126.5%Lot 19 1,770 ‐ ‐ 884 ‐ ‐ 88449.9%Lot 20 2,738 ‐ ‐ 884 ‐ ‐ 88432.3%Lot 21* 2,750 ‐ 1,413 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,41351.4%Lot 22 1,793 ‐ ‐ ‐ 491 ‐ 49127.4%Lot 23 2,078 ‐ ‐ 884 ‐ ‐ 88442.5%Tract A 3,867 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,473 ‐ 1,473 38.1%Morgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment C: Effective Tree Canopy Cover SummaryMHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020 Rev. 02‐27‐2021.xlsxPage 2 of 2Lot No.Lot Area (sq. ft.)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Trees (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)of Preserved Stands (w/ condition and preservation rating > 2)1.25 x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Native Planted TreesMature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Non‐Native Planted Trees1.25x Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) of Planted StandsTree Canopy Area (sq. ft.) per LotEffective % Canopy (Canopy Area / Lot Area)Tract B 3,365 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0.0%Tract C 3,440 ‐ 2,267 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,267 65.9%Tract D 36,905 ‐ 65,290 ‐ ‐ ‐ 65,290 176.9%OverallDevelopment Site99,223 0 68,970 2,651 9,329 0 80,950 81.6%Notes: Subdivisions and land partitions in the R‐12 zoning district require a minimum 33 percent effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site. In addition, Tigard Code Section 18.280.050.G.2 requires landscaping standards specific to rowhouse development, which are applicable to proposed lots 1‐8 and 17‐23; a minimum of 15 percent tree canopy must be provided for each of these lots.*Existing tree 10709 provides canopy credit for lot 21. This is a 36" diameter ponderosa pine with a 15' crown radius located on the edge of Stand 1; it received condition and preservation ratings of 3 and 2, respectively. Effective tree canopy credit is equivalent to two times the canopy area for the preservation of existing trees.Morgan Holen & Associates, LLCConsulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment D: Planted Tree Inventory MHA20027 SW 95th Ave Subdivision ‐ Tree Data 07‐22‐2020 Rev. 10‐15‐2020 Rev. 02‐27‐2021.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Tree No. Common Name (Species Name ) Size Mature Canopy Spread (ft.) Mature Canopy Area (sq. ft.) Available Soil Volume (cu. ft.) Structured Soil Volume (cu. ft.) Location Lot No. 1 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 1 2 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 2 3 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 3 4 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 5 5 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 6 6 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 7 7 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 8 8 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street TR. A 9 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street TR. A 10 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street TR. A 11 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 11 12 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 12 13 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 13 14 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 14 15 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 15 16 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 17 17 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 18 18 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 22 19 Paperbark maple (Acer griseum ) OR Kousa dogwood (Cornus kousa ) 1.5" 25 491 500+ N/A Street 4 20 Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine (Pinus Ponderosa var. willamettensis) 6' 30 707 500+ N/A Yard 19 21 Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine (Pinus Ponderosa var. willamettensis) 6' 30 707 500+ N/A Yard 20 22 Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine (Pinus Ponderosa var. willamettensis) 6' 30 707 500+ N/A Yard 23 Notes: The total lineal street frontage abutting the site is 716‐feet; therefore, 18 street trees are required. In total, 19 street trees are proposed plus one tree each in the rear of lots 19, 20 and 23 in order to satisfy the minimum 15% per lot canopy cover required for rowhomes. Morgan Holen & Associates, LLC Consulting Arborists and Urban Forest Management 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P220, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 morgan@mholen.com | 971.409.9354 Attachment E: Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan TREE PRESERVATION ANDREMOVAL SITE PLAN7106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONTREE PROTECTION NOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT:LEGENDMARCH 3, 2021 Attachment F: Tree Canopy Site Plan TREE CANOPY SITE PLAN8106445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE, SUITE 100BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008TEL: (503) 746-8812FAX: (503) 639-9592www.emeriodesign.com23 LOT SUBDIVISION10970 SW 95TH AVESW 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC. 35 T1S R1WTAX LOT 1700CITY OF TIGARD, OREGONNOTES:ARBORIST STATEMENT:LEGENDMARCH 3, 2021 Preliminary Drainage Report for SW 95th Avenue Subdivision at 10970 SW 95th Avenue, City of Tigard, Oregon 97223 TL 1700, Tax Map 1S1W 35AC Emerio Project Number: 0550-003 City of Tigard Permit Number: TBD Date: 10/30/2020 Prepared For: Prepared By: Samm-Miller LLC Eric Evans, PE Scott Miller Emerio Design, LLC 1327 Jay Ct 6445 SW Fallbrook Pl, Suite 100 West Linn, OR 97068 Beaverton, Oregon 97008 (503) 819-3610 (503) 853-1910 eric@emeriodesign.com 12-31-2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Table of Contents: APPENDIX A (1) Vicinity Map APPENDIX B (1) Soil Classification Map–“Soils Survey for Washington County” (2) Curve Number Table (3) Hydromodification Planning Tool APPENDIX C (1) Basin Tabulated Area Spreadsheet (2) Swale Sizing Spreadsheet (3) Detention Pond HydroCAD Plots APPENDIX D (1) Pre-Developed Basin Map (2) Post-Developed Basin Map DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Project Overview and Description: The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the compliance of the proposed development with the stormwater requirements outlined by Clean Water Services (CWS) R&O 19-22 and City of Tigard. The project site is currently a 1.93-acre single residential lot occupied by a single-family home and associated accessory buildings accompanied by gravel driveway areas. All these existing structures are to be demolished as a part of development. The proposed development will consist of 23 residential lots, sidewalk areas, a public street, driveway areas, and frontage improvements along SW 95th Avenue. See Appendix A(1) for a vicinity map. Soil Classification: The NRCS soil survey of Washington County, Oregon classifies the project site soils as Aloha Silt Loam and Huberly silt loam. The associated hydrologic group of these soils are C/D and C/D. HSG C was used in the design of stormwater facilities. The associated curve numbers utilized in this design is 74 and 86 for pre-developed and post-developed pervious surfaces, respectively. A curve number of 98 was set for all impervious surfaces, reference appendices B(1) and B(2). Basin Delineation: Onsite basins were created after the determination of how the stormwater runoff was to flow after development. These basins encompass the proposed onsite development and will be considered in detention and water quality calculations. As all proposed lots are below 3,000 SF, the actual lot impervious areas (roof and driveway areas) were used in tabulating impervious areas per CWS 4.08.1.c.3. Offsite basins along the frontage of the site that flow into the onsite system are also considered in the detention and water quality calculations. See Appendix C(1) for tabulated basin areas and Appendix D(2) for a basin map. Hydromodification: Using the CWS hydromodification method, it was determined this project falls under Category 2 based on the following information obtained using the Hydromodification Map Web Tool (Appendix B(3)): (1) the risk level is moderate based on the point of discharge into Ash Creek, (2) this site is considered to be in a developed area, and (3) the project size category is medium based on the new and modified impervious area of approximately 54,704 SF. Hydromodification requirements will be met by onsite detention ponds. Water Quality: A proposed water quality swale is designed per section 4.09.4 of Clean Water Services manual to meet water quality standards and is located within Tract B shown in Appendix D(2). The geometry of the proposed swale is shown below. Bottom Width 2 Feet Side Slopes 4:1 Length 100 Feet Slope 0.5% The total impervious area draining to the proposed swale is 1.21 acres (52,878 SF). As 666 SF of this tributary area is redeveloped impervious area (multiply by 3 for water quality calculations, see CWS 4.08.1.d), the total impervious area used to design the swale is 1.24 acres (54,210 SF). This total impervious area and the swale geometry were entered into a swale geometry spreadsheet Appendix C(2). The calculations shown on the spreadsheet DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 show that the water quality standards are met with a total residence time of 11.54 minutes and water depth of 0.26 feet. 1,826 SF of new or modified impervious area along the SW 95th Avenue frontage improvements will not route directly to the swale within Tract B. Instead, these areas flow directly into the low elevation detention pond on Tract A. Due to this routing method, it is assumed that these areas will go untreated. As 963 SF of this area is redeveloped, 3,752 SF of impervious area will be covered by a fee in lieu regarding water quality standards. Quantity Control/Detention: Peak-flow matching detention will be provided to match the onsite peak runoff from the post-developed 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year design storms to the peak runoff from the pre- developed ½ of the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year 24-hour design storms per hydromodification requirements found in CWS 4.08.6.c. Flows are detained via two hydraulically connected detention ponds located on Tract A and Tract B (see Appendix D(2)). Flow is controlled for the ½ of the 2, 5, and 10-year flows via two orifices with information shown below: Orifice #1: 1.2” diameter, elevation 164.20’ Orifice #2: 14.0” width, 3.0” height, elevation 169.92’ Both orifices are set in double ditch inlet outflow control structure per CWS drawings 710 and 711. Storm Event Pre to Post-Development Peak Flows Pre-Dev. and Offsite (cfs) Post-Dev. and Offsite with Pond (cfs) 2-Year 0.21 ÷ 2 = 0.10 0.10 5-Year 0.40 0.22 10-Year 0.53 0.31 As shown in the table above, the detention requirement is met by limiting the peak discharge from each of the return periods from the pre to post-developed conditions. Due to the proposed topography of the site, upstream proposed catch basin rims are set at a lower elevation than the top of the pond. These elevations were considered when designing for freeboard requirements per CWS 4.09.2.c.5 as the pond will overflow the catch basins before reaching the pond overtopping elevation. With the 25-year design water elevation at 170.12’ and the lowest catch basin rim elevation at 171.13, greater than one foot of freeboard is maintained to each catch basin rim and the top of pond. Reference Appendix C(3) for the HydroCAD modeling plots. Conclusion: The design of the proposed site satisfies the hydromodification and water quality standards set by Clean Water Services R&O 19-22 and City of Tigard. DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix A: DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix A(1) Vicinity Map SITE DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix B: DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix B(1) Soil Classification Map SITE DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix B(2) Curve Number Table Table 2-2a: Runoff curve numbers for urban areas 1 Cover description Cover type and hydrologic condition Average percent impervious area 2 A B C D Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established) Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.) 3: Poor condition (grass cover <50%)68 79 86 89 Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 75%)49 69 79 84 Good condition (grass cover >75%)39 61 74 80 Impervious areas: Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding right-of-way)98 98 98 98 Streets and roads: Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding right-of-way)98 98 98 98 Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way) 83 89 92 93 Gravel (including right-of-way)76 85 89 91 Dirt (including right-of-way)72 82 87 89 Western desert urban areas: Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) 4 63 77 85 88 Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders)96 96 96 96 Urban districts: Commercial and business 85 89 92 94 95 Industrial 72 81 88 91 93 Residential districts by average lot size: 1/8 acre or less (town houses)65 77 85 90 92 1/4 acre 38 61 75 83 87 1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86 1/2 acre 25 54 70 80 85 1 acre 20 51 68 79 84 2 acres 12 46 65 77 82 RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (TR55) CN for hydrologic soil group Use CN = 74 for Pre- Developed Pervious Areas Use CN = 98 for Impervious Areas Use CN = 86 for Pre- Developed Pervious Areas DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix B(3) Hydromodification Planning Tool Point of Discharge ¼ Mile Downstream Site Moderate Risk Level DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix C: DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Basin Area Tabulated Data Appendix C(1) SW 95th Avenue 23-Lot Subdivision Notes: Approximately 1,629 SF of frontage impervious area will be redeveloped. Basin # Name Total Area Total Area Qty of Lots Lot Impervious ROW/Tract Imp Total Impervious Total Pervious (Calc'd) SF Acres SF SF SF SF 100 Onsite Pre-Developed 82,497 1.89 0 2,271 0 2,271 80,226 101 Onsite Post-Developed 82,497 1.89 23 28,386 23,826 52,212 30,285 200 95th Avenue Frontage Pre-Developed 7,132 0.16 0 0 4,786 4,786 2,346 201 95th Avenue Frontage Post-Developed 7,132 0.16 0 0 5,947 5,947 1,185 DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 SW 95th Avenue, 23-Lot Subdivision Appendix C(2) Water Quality Swale Water Quality Total Impervious = Area Water Quality Flow Biofilter Swale Water Quality Event Q = 0.11 cfs w = 2.0' s = 0.50% w1 = 2.0' n = 0.240 m1 = 4:1 L = 100.0 LF m2 = 2.5:1 v = 0.14 fps d = 0.26'P t = 11.54 min P 12 (in/ft) = WQ Volume (cf) (4 hr)(60 min/hr)(60 sec/min)= = = Transverse Properties X-Sectional Properties WQ Flow (cfs) ac x 43,560 sf/ac WQ Volume (cf) = 0.11 cfs 480,000 sec/ft 1.244 ac Impervious Area (sf) 480,000 sec/ft 0.36 in x Impervious Area (sf) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 100 Onsite Pre-Dev. 101 Onsite Post-Dev. 200 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. 201 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. P1 2-Pond System L1 Pre-Developed Flow Routing Diagram for 0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Prepared by Emerio Design LLC, Printed 10/30/2020 HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Appendix C(3) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (sq-ft) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 3,157 98 Existing Impervious (200) 58,159 98 Impervious (101, 201) 82,572 74 Pervious (100, 200) 31,470 86 Pervious (101, 201) 2,271 75 Pre-Developed Impervious (100) 1,629 75 Redeveloped Impervious (200) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 8.05 hrs, Volume= 4,182 cf, Depth= 0.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 80,226 74 Pervious * 2,271 75 Pre-Developed Impervious 82,497 74 Weighted Average 82,497 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 50 0.0181 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.50" 2.0 223 0.0136 1.88 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.6 273 Total Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=4,182 cf Runoff Depth=0.61" Flow Length=273' Tc=8.6 min CN=74 0.17 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 7.89 hrs, Volume= 12,851 cf, Depth= 1.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 52,212 98 Impervious * 30,285 86 Pervious 82,497 94 Weighted Average 30,285 86 36.71% Pervious Area 52,212 98 63.29% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=12,851 cf Runoff Depth=1.87" Tc=5.0 min CN=94 0.93 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 7.97 hrs, Volume= 700 cf, Depth= 1.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,346 74 Pervious * 1,629 75 Redeveloped Impervious * 3,157 98 Existing Impervious 7,132 85 Weighted Average 3,975 74 55.73% Pervious Area 3,157 98 44.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.05 0.048 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.04 0.038 0.036 0.034 0.032 0.03 0.028 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=700 cf Runoff Depth=1.18" Tc=5.0 min CN=85 0.04 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff = 0.09 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 1,225 cf, Depth= 2.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,947 98 Impervious * 1,185 86 Pervious 7,132 96 Weighted Average 1,185 86 16.62% Pervious Area 5,947 98 83.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=1,225 cf Runoff Depth=2.06" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.09 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 64.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.88" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 7.89 hrs, Volume= 14,077 cf Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 23.80 hrs, Volume= 14,077 cf, Atten= 91%, Lag= 954.4 min Primary = 0.10 cfs @ 23.80 hrs, Volume= 14,077 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 169.92' @ 23.80 hrs Surf.Area= 3,697 sf Storage= 7,762 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 875.9 min calculated for 14,069 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 876.3 min ( 1,599.5 - 723.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 168.00' 8,807 cf High Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 166.00' 7,965 cf Low Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 16,771 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 168.00 1,543 0 0 169.00 1,842 1,693 1,693 170.00 2,195 2,019 3,711 171.00 2,548 2,372 6,083 172.00 2,900 2,724 8,807 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 166.00 665 0 0 167.00 859 762 762 168.00 1,071 965 1,727 169.00 1,301 1,186 2,913 170.00 1,548 1,425 4,338 171.00 1,810 1,679 6,017 172.00 2,086 1,948 7,965 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 164.22'12.0" Round Culvert L= 67.3' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 164.22' / 163.92' S= 0.0045 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 164.20'1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 #3 Device 1 169.92'14.0" W x 3.0" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 23.80 hrs HW=169.92' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.09 cfs of 7.42 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 11.85 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.18 fps) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf Peak Elev=169.92' Storage=7,762 cf 1.02 cfs 0.10 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.50"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 3.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.21 cfs @ 8.03 hrs, Volume= 4,882 cf Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 8.03 hrs, Volume= 4,882 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf 0.21 cfs0.21 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 8.03 hrs, Volume= 6,684 cf, Depth= 0.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 80,226 74 Pervious * 2,271 75 Pre-Developed Impervious 82,497 74 Weighted Average 82,497 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 50 0.0181 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.50" 2.0 223 0.0136 1.88 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.6 273 Total Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=6,684 cf Runoff Depth=0.97" Flow Length=273' Tc=8.6 min CN=74 0.34 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff = 1.22 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 16,822 cf, Depth= 2.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 52,212 98 Impervious * 30,285 86 Pervious 82,497 94 Weighted Average 30,285 86 36.71% Pervious Area 52,212 98 63.29% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=16,822 cf Runoff Depth=2.45" Tc=5.0 min CN=94 1.22 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.07 cfs @ 7.95 hrs, Volume= 994 cf, Depth= 1.67" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,346 74 Pervious * 1,629 75 Redeveloped Impervious * 3,157 98 Existing Impervious 7,132 85 Weighted Average 3,975 74 55.73% Pervious Area 3,157 98 44.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=994 cf Runoff Depth=1.67" Tc=5.0 min CN=85 0.07 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 1,575 cf, Depth= 2.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,947 98 Impervious * 1,185 86 Pervious 7,132 96 Weighted Average 1,185 86 16.62% Pervious Area 5,947 98 83.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.125 0.12 0.115 0.11 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=1,575 cf Runoff Depth=2.65" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.11 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 64.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 5-Year event Inflow = 1.33 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 18,397 cf Outflow = 0.22 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 18,397 cf, Atten= 83%, Lag= 324.4 min Primary = 0.22 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 18,397 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 170.02' @ 13.29 hrs Surf.Area= 3,756 sf Storage= 8,131 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 749.5 min calculated for 18,397 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 749.4 min ( 1,460.0 - 710.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 168.00' 8,807 cf High Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 166.00' 7,965 cf Low Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 16,771 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 168.00 1,543 0 0 169.00 1,842 1,693 1,693 170.00 2,195 2,019 3,711 171.00 2,548 2,372 6,083 172.00 2,900 2,724 8,807 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 166.00 665 0 0 167.00 859 762 762 168.00 1,071 965 1,727 169.00 1,301 1,186 2,913 170.00 1,548 1,425 4,338 171.00 1,810 1,679 6,017 172.00 2,086 1,948 7,965 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 164.22'12.0" Round Culvert L= 67.3' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 164.22' / 163.92' S= 0.0045 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 164.20'1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 #3 Device 1 169.92'14.0" W x 3.0" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.22 cfs @ 13.29 hrs HW=170.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.22 cfs of 7.49 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 11.95 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.13 cfs @ 1.06 fps) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf Peak Elev=170.02' Storage=8,131 cf 1.33 cfs 0.22 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=3.10"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 3.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.03" for 5-Year event Inflow = 0.40 cfs @ 8.02 hrs, Volume= 7,678 cf Primary = 0.40 cfs @ 8.02 hrs, Volume= 7,678 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf 0.40 cfs0.40 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.45 cfs @ 8.03 hrs, Volume= 8,288 cf, Depth= 1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description * 80,226 74 Pervious * 2,271 75 Pre-Developed Impervious 82,497 74 Weighted Average 82,497 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 50 0.0181 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.50" 2.0 223 0.0136 1.88 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.6 273 Total Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.5 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=8,288 cf Runoff Depth=1.21" Flow Length=273' Tc=8.6 min CN=74 0.45 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff = 1.39 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 19,159 cf, Depth= 2.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description * 52,212 98 Impervious * 30,285 86 Pervious 82,497 94 Weighted Average 30,285 86 36.71% Pervious Area 52,212 98 63.29% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=19,159 cf Runoff Depth=2.79" Tc=5.0 min CN=94 1.39 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 7.94 hrs, Volume= 1,173 cf, Depth= 1.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,346 74 Pervious * 1,629 75 Redeveloped Impervious * 3,157 98 Existing Impervious 7,132 85 Weighted Average 3,975 74 55.73% Pervious Area 3,157 98 44.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=1,173 cf Runoff Depth=1.97" Tc=5.0 min CN=85 0.08 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 1,781 cf, Depth= 3.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,947 98 Impervious * 1,185 86 Pervious 7,132 96 Weighted Average 1,185 86 16.62% Pervious Area 5,947 98 83.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=1,781 cf Runoff Depth=3.00" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.13 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 64.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.80" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.52 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 20,940 cf Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 10.91 hrs, Volume= 20,940 cf, Atten= 80%, Lag= 181.9 min Primary = 0.31 cfs @ 10.91 hrs, Volume= 20,940 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 170.06' @ 10.91 hrs Surf.Area= 3,782 sf Storage= 8,285 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 675.2 min calculated for 20,928 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 675.7 min ( 1,380.6 - 704.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 168.00' 8,807 cf High Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 166.00' 7,965 cf Low Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 16,771 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 168.00 1,543 0 0 169.00 1,842 1,693 1,693 170.00 2,195 2,019 3,711 171.00 2,548 2,372 6,083 172.00 2,900 2,724 8,807 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 166.00 665 0 0 167.00 859 762 762 168.00 1,071 965 1,727 169.00 1,301 1,186 2,913 170.00 1,548 1,425 4,338 171.00 1,810 1,679 6,017 172.00 2,086 1,948 7,965 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 164.22'12.0" Round Culvert L= 67.3' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 164.22' / 163.92' S= 0.0045 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 164.20'1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 #3 Device 1 169.92'14.0" W x 3.0" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.30 cfs @ 10.91 hrs HW=170.06' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.30 cfs of 7.52 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 12.00 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.21 cfs @ 1.25 fps) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf Peak Elev=170.06' Storage=8,285 cf 1.52 cfs 0.31 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=3.45"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 3.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.27" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 9,460 cf Primary = 0.53 cfs @ 8.01 hrs, Volume= 9,460 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf 0.53 cfs0.53 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.61 cfs @ 8.02 hrs, Volume= 10,472 cf, Depth= 1.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Area (sf) CN Description * 80,226 74 Pervious * 2,271 75 Pre-Developed Impervious 82,497 74 Weighted Average 82,497 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 50 0.0181 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.50" 2.0 223 0.0136 1.88 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.6 273 Total Subcatchment 100: Onsite Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=10,472 cf Runoff Depth=1.52" Flow Length=273' Tc=8.6 min CN=74 0.61 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff = 1.60 cfs @ 7.88 hrs, Volume= 22,181 cf, Depth= 3.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Area (sf) CN Description * 52,212 98 Impervious * 30,285 86 Pervious 82,497 94 Weighted Average 30,285 86 36.71% Pervious Area 52,212 98 63.29% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 101: Onsite Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Runoff Area=82,497 sf Runoff Volume=22,181 cf Runoff Depth=3.23" Tc=5.0 min CN=94 1.60 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff = 0.10 cfs @ 7.93 hrs, Volume= 1,408 cf, Depth= 2.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,346 74 Pervious * 1,629 75 Redeveloped Impervious * 3,157 98 Existing Impervious 7,132 85 Weighted Average 3,975 74 55.73% Pervious Area 3,157 98 44.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 200: 95th Ave. Frontage Pre-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=1,408 cf Runoff Depth=2.37" Tc=5.0 min CN=85 0.10 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 7.86 hrs, Volume= 2,045 cf, Depth= 3.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,947 98 Impervious * 1,185 86 Pervious 7,132 96 Weighted Average 1,185 86 16.62% Pervious Area 5,947 98 83.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 201: 95th Ave. Frontage Post-Dev. Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90" Runoff Area=7,132 sf Runoff Volume=2,045 cf Runoff Depth=3.44" Tc=5.0 min CN=96 0.15 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 28HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 64.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.24" for 25-Year event Inflow = 1.75 cfs @ 7.87 hrs, Volume= 24,226 cf Outflow = 0.45 cfs @ 9.33 hrs, Volume= 24,226 cf, Atten= 74%, Lag= 87.1 min Primary = 0.45 cfs @ 9.33 hrs, Volume= 24,226 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 170.12' @ 9.33 hrs Surf.Area= 3,819 sf Storage= 8,518 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 597.6 min calculated for 24,212 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 598.2 min ( 1,296.9 - 698.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 168.00' 8,807 cf High Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) #2 166.00' 7,965 cf Low Pond (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 16,771 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 168.00 1,543 0 0 169.00 1,842 1,693 1,693 170.00 2,195 2,019 3,711 171.00 2,548 2,372 6,083 172.00 2,900 2,724 8,807 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 166.00 665 0 0 167.00 859 762 762 168.00 1,071 965 1,727 169.00 1,301 1,186 2,913 170.00 1,548 1,425 4,338 171.00 1,810 1,679 6,017 172.00 2,086 1,948 7,965 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 164.22'12.0" Round Culvert L= 67.3' CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 164.22' / 163.92' S= 0.0045 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 164.20'1.2" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 #3 Device 1 169.92'14.0" W x 3.0" H Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.620 Primary OutFlow Max=0.45 cfs @ 9.33 hrs HW=170.12' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.45 cfs of 7.56 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 12.06 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.36 cfs @ 1.50 fps) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 29HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P1: 2-Pond System Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908886848280787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf Peak Elev=170.12' Storage=8,518 cf 1.75 cfs 0.45 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Type IA 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=3.90"0550-003 Pond Iterations 10-28-2020 Printed 10/30/2020Prepared by Emerio Design LLC Page 30HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 04804 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Area = 89,629 sf, 3.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.59" for 25-Year event Inflow = 0.70 cfs @ 8.00 hrs, Volume= 11,880 cf Primary = 0.70 cfs @ 8.00 hrs, Volume= 11,880 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-90.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link L1: Pre-Developed Flow Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 908580757065605550454035302520151050Flow (cfs)0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=89,629 sf 0.70 cfs0.70 cfs DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix D: DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix D(1) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 Appendix D(2) DocuSign Envelope ID: 91C1AE0B-6841-4771-8D62-476C852C8092 7. Will the project involve any off-site work? Yes No Unknown (check appropriate box) If yes, location and description of off-site work: 8. Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project: 9. An on-site, water quality sensitive area reconnaissance was completed on: Date By Title Company 5. Check any of the following that apply to this project Adds less than 500 square feet of impervious surface. Does not encroach closer to the Sensitive Area than existing development on the property. Is not located on a slope greater than 25%. Clean Water Services File Number SENSITIVE AREA CERTIFICATION FORM Revised 1/2020 0DLQ2I¿FH6:+LOOVERUR+LJKZD\+LOOVERUR2UHJRQSIFOHDQZDWHUVHUYLFHVRUJ 1. Property Information (example 1S234AB01400) Tax lot ID(s): Site Address: City, State, Zip: Nearest cross street: 2. Owner Information Name: Company: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone/Fax: E-Mail: 4. Applicant Information Name: Company: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone/Fax: E-Mail: 3. Development Activity (check all that apply) Addition to single family residence (rooms, deck, garage) Lot line adjustment Minor land partition Residential condominium Commercial condominium Residential subdivision Commercial subdivision Single lot commercial Multi lot commercial Other 6. Applicant Information Name: Company: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone/Fax: E-Mail: 1S136DB02100 10970 SW 95th Avenue Tigard, OR, 97223 Highway 217 Scott Miller Samm-Miller, LLC 1327 Jay Court West Linn, OR 97068 503-819-3610 samm-miller@comcast.net Eric Evans Emerio Design Group 6445 SW Fallbrook Place, Suite 100 Beaverton, OR 97008 503-746-8812 eric@emeriodesign.com Kim Sanderford Environmental Science and Assessment 4831 NE Fremont Street, #2B Portland, OR 97213 503-478-0424 kims@esapdx.com ■ 3/10/2020 E. Dalton, J. Dalton, K. Sanderford wetland scientist / tech Environmental Science and Assessment 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR - CWS Site Assessment Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Page TOC-I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 2 VEGETATED CORRIDORS ................................................................................. 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ...................................................................................... 3 VEGETATED CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT / MITIGATION ............................... 3 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: FIGURES APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX C: WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS APPENDIX D: VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA FORMS TABLES Table 1: Table 1. Plant List for Planting Areas A through H….……............…4 Table 2: VC Enhancement Area Seed Mix……...………………………………...5 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Washington Co., OR - CWS Site Assessment Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Page 1 INTRODUCTION Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC (ES&A) conducted a Site Assessment on a 2.8-acre site located at 10970 SW 95th Avenue within the City of Tigard in Washington County, Oregon (Tax Lot 1S135AC01700) (Figure 1). The study area is located within the northcentral part of Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Section 35 APPENDIX A: FIGURES APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX C: WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS APPENDIX D: VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA FORMS METHODOLOGY The primary guidance document for this report is the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (Resolution and Order 19-22; Clean Water Services, 2019), which provides the methodology for assessing the presence and extent of Sensitive Areas within the development site and within 200 feet of the site, and the required Vegetated Corridors (VCs) adjacent to them. Two levels of investigation were used to evaluate the presence or absence of Sensitive Areas. The first level included a review of existing and available background data. The second level consisted of a data collection effort conducted during an onsite evaluation. Reviewed background data included the following information:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map (USFWS, 2019);  Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon (NRCS, 2019);  Aerial Photographs (Google Earth, 2019);  Metro Data Resource Center’s MetroMap (Metro, 2019). ES&A staff conducted the site evaluation on March 10, 2020. Potential wetland areas on the parcel were evaluated using the methodology provided in the Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). ES&A collected nine (9) wetland determination data plots and three (3) Vegetated Corridor (VC) data plots to document the existing conditions onsite. The data sheets are included in Appendix C and D of this report. The wetland boundary and the data plot locations were surveyed by Emerio Design Group, a professional surveying and land use design company. 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR - CWS Site Assessment Page 2 Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is bordered on the west by SW 95th Avenue, and on the north by SW Longstaff Street, with state highway 217 passing just north of the site (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The tax lot includes one residential structure within the northwest corner of the site, with the immediate surroundings having landscaping and lawn (Figure 2, Photo 1). There are mature trees located throughout the site (Figure 2), both native and non- native, and the understory beyond the house includes areas that have been cleared for paths through the forested area as well as areas with dense vegetation. The western half of the site consists of sparse mature trees and mainly lawn grasses. The topography stays consistently even among the whole site but drops slightly at the low point in the southeast corner where a Sensitive Area has been mapped on site (Figure 3) (Photo 5). Soil survey mapping indicates 3 soil types mapped onsite. The southeast portion of the site that includes the Sensitive Area has soils mapped as the hydric Cove clay silty clay loam (Map Unit 13, Rating 100). The north portion of the site has the mapped soil type as the non-hydric Aloha silt loam (Map Unit 1, Rating 1). The south end extending west is mapped as Huberly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Map Unit 2225A, Rating 93) (NRCS, Web Soil Survey, 2020). The Tigard LWI and MetroMap has a significant wetland area mapped bordering the east property boundary. Sensitive Areas The Sensitive Area totals 15,336-SF within the study area that includes wetland areas along the southern border. The Sensitive Area continues offsite. Wetland area was identified along the southern end of the site, mainly in the eastern end. The wetland vegetation found in the southeast corner included Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FACW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC) slough sedge (Carex obnupta, FACW), along with other vegetation including Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana, FACU) and common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus, FACU) (Photo 4). In the southern central part of the site within the Sensitive area boundary there was Oregon white oak, Oregon ash, Himalayan blackberry, as well as oneseed Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna, FAC) and grape hyacinth (Muscari sp., NL). The hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6) was met with prominent redox features within the soils starting at 6 inches of depth. Nine (9) determination data plots were established to characterize the conditions along the wetland boundary (Appendix C, DP-1-9). VEGETATED CORRIDORS The total area of Vegetated Corridor is 21,339-SF on site. The VC width was determined by a 50-foot offset from the Sensitive Area boundary (Figure 3 and 4). Three Vegetated Corridor plots were taken to identify the condition of the vegetated corridor which had areas of both marginal and degraded condition (Appendix D, VC-1 through VC-3). 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Washington Co., OR - CWS Site Assessment Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Page 3 The marginal VC areas (15,968-SF) have greater than 50 percent native tree cover, however the understory had been cleared of vegetation or has a high percentage of non- native English holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACU) and English ivy (Hedera helix, FACU) mixed in with native shrubs including cluster rose (Rosa pisocarpa, FAC) and some Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU) (VC-1 and VC-3) (Photo 2-3). The tree cover is completely native and comprised of Oregon white oak, Oregon ash, and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa, FACU). The VC area in degraded condition (5,959 SF) represented by plot VC-3 had minimal aerial cover of only 10 percent. The plant community is grasses and weedy forbs (Photo 2). PROPOSED SITE PLAN The proposed project is a high-density 23-lot residential subdivision with access to the western lots 1-8 from SW 95th Avenue and to the northern lots 9-23 from Longstaff Street, a new public road adjacent to the northern property edge. At the northwestern edge of the VC, behind the proposed lots, a 4,987-SF storm water quality facility (Tract B) which slopes downwards towards a culvert at about 10% will collect storm runoff. The culvert outfalls to a second storm facility (Tract A) in the northwestern most corner of the site which will detain storm runoff, from both Tract B and the roadways, until eventual flow into a closed conveyance within the SW 95th Avenue ROW. A 1,669-SF open space tract (Tract C) will be located behind lots 13-18 adjacent to the VC. Vegetated Corridor Impacts / Mitigation No permanent of temporary VC encroachment is proposed at this time. VEGETATED CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT / MITIGATION Most of the VC is in marginal condition primarily because of the native mature tree canopy cover. Due to the varying vegetated conditions within the VC area, ES&A has modified the recommended native planting densities to reflect the planting needs to bring the corridor up to good condition as per district standards (Section 3.14.2, Table 3-3 of R&O 19-5) using CWS landscape requirements (CWS Design and Construction Standards Chapter 3, Appendix A). The Vegetated Corridor enhancement will include removal of invasive species and installation of native species. The total planting area is 22,169 square feet. Marginal VC area makes up the eastern portion of the VC (16,210 SF), and Degraded VC (5,959 SF) makes up a smaller area at the western end of the VC. It is recommended that the VC enhancement planting density should be 40 percent of CWS planting density for trees and 100 percent for shrubs within the marginal VC, and 100 percent for trees and shrubs within the degraded condition VC. Marginal VC Enhancement (16,210 SF): 65 trees and 811 shrubs. Degraded VC Enhancement (5,959 SF): 60 trees and 298 shrubs. Table 1 provides a list of suggested native tree and shrub plantings for the enhancement areas. Final locations of enhancement plantings will be determined in the field based on site conditions following the removal of the invasive non-native species. All areas of 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR - CWS Site Assessment Page 4 Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC bare ground after invasive plant removal within the enhancement planting area that exceed 25 square feet shall be planted to CWS density standards (shrubs 5 foot on center spacing and trees 10-foot on-center spacing). Table 2 provides a seed mix for the enhancement area for use as erosion and sediment control. Additionally, it is recommended that the plantings in Table 1 each be mulched with 0.5 cubic feet of approved mulch material following planting installation. This will retard weed growth around the plantings and promote soil moisture retention for the plantings during the growing season. The plant list and planting densities are subject to final approval from CWS environmental review staff. A condition of the Service Provider Letter will be to coordinate with CWS on the final quantity and placement of the enhancement plantings. Table 1. Plant List for Planting Areas Common Name Scientific Name Plant Form/Size 1 Plant Spacing (ft on center) Total Number of plants VC Enhancement Area (21,339 SF) Trees Western red cedar Thuja plicata 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Red alder Alnus rubra 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 2 gal/24” 10 ft O.C. 202 Vine maple Acer circinatum 2 gal/24” 10 ft O.C 252 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Subtotal 125 Shrubs Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1182 Tall Oregon-grape Mahonia aquifolium 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea Bare root/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1 gal/1.5’ cluster 1102 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 1102 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal/1.5’ cluster 1102 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal/2’ single 1182 Swordfern Polystichum munitum 2 gallon cluster 1182 Subtotal 1,109 TOTAL 1,234 NOTES: 1 Substitutes for plant form (e.g. bare root) and species may be used based on availability.2 Individual species quantities to be determined in landscape 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Washington Co., OR - CWS Site Assessment Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Page 5 Table 2. VC Enhancement Area Seed Mix Common Name Scientific Name Percentage of Seed Mix ** Native Wildflower/Grass Mix Native California brome Bromus carinatus 15 Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus 30 Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum 15 Spike bentgrass Agrostis exarata 20 California Oat Grass Danthonia californica 20 TOTAL 100 *Seeding rate of pure live seed (PLS), 35 pounds per acre for hydroseed application. **Seed mix application quantity is to be calculated for VC planting area and is subject to availability and measure PLS. 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR - CWS Site Assessment Page 6 Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC REFERENCES Clean Water Services, 2019. Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management. R&O 19-5 as amended by R&O 19-22. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United Stated Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey.Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed October 2019. Metro. 2019. Metro Data Resource Center’s MetroMap GIS Application. http://gis.oregonmetro.gov/metromap/. Accessed October 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR- 10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. APPENDIX A: FIGURES Figure 1 Approx. Scale: 1in. = 1000 ft. Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC 0 60 120 240 Source: Metro Data Resource Center. http://gis.oregonmetro.gov/metromap/ Vicinity Map SW 95th Ave Tigard, Oregon N STUDY AREA HW Y 2 1 7 NHWY 99 Figure 2No to Scale Source: Google Earth 0 30 60 PROJECT SITE STUDY AREA SITE BOUNDARY N N Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Aerial Map SW 95th Ave Tigard, Oregon Imagery Date: 7/20/2018 SW 95TH AVE MARG IN A LDEGRADED 123562%50'4Figure 3EnvironmentalScience &Assessment, LLCRev:Job:Date:Modified By:KS/KR09/202002700/00Base Map Source:Emerio Design GroupExisting Conditions SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 4831 NE Fremont St.,Suite 2BPortland, OR 97213Phone: 503.478.0424www.esapdx.com020401' = 40' MARG IN A LDEGRADED50'Figure 4EnvironmentalScience &Assessment, LLCRev:Job:Date:Modified By:KS/KR09/202002700/00Base Map Source:Emerio Design GroupSite Plan SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 4831 NE Fremont St.,Suite 2BPortland, OR 97213Phone: 503.478.0424www.esapdx.com020401' = 40' APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1: View west of grass lawn and residence on the right side of photo. Photo 2: View east of southern property boundary and edge of lawn. Within Sensitive Area bounds. Photo 3: View east of data plots collected in the central east end of site. Photo 4: View SW of tree canopy and understory. Photo 5: View SE of standing water resource at the southeast corner of site. Photo 6: View NE of wetland vegetation and blackberry. Photo taken from access road (SW 93rd Ave) located at the south property boundary on the east end of the site. APPENDIX C: WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm- Miller LLC OR DP-1 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440336811°N 122.772557549°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Pinus ponderosa 75 Y FACU 0 Quercus garryana 15 FACU 2 90 030' diameter Ilex aquifolium 75 Y FACU Prunus avium 10 FACU FACRubus armeniacus 5 90 5' diameter 0 0 100 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 10-16"10 YR 3/2 99 10 YR 3/6 1 C M silt clay loam 16-20"10 YR 4/2 95 10 YR 3/6 5 C M silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ 0-10" DP-1 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm- Miller LLC OR DP-2 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440262073°N 122.772503151°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Quercus garryana 30 Y FACU 3 Fraxinus latifolia 10 Y FACW 5 40 6030' diameter Rubus armeniacus 45 Y FAC Symphoricarpos albus 30 Y FACU FACU Alnus rubra trace Prunus avium 10 FAC 85 5' diameter Carex obnupta 5 Y FACW Rumex sp.trace FAC Polystichum munitum trace FACU ✔ 5 0 95 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 6-15"10 YR 3/2 95 10 YR 3/6 5 C M silt clay loam 15-20"10 YR 3/1 90 10 YR 3/6 10 C M silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔11" ✔9" 0-6" DP-2 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-3 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440220833°N 122.772963437°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Fraxinus latifolia 35 Y FACW 4 Quercus garryana 30 Y FACU 7 65 5730' diameter Rubus armeniacus 40 Y FAC Crataegus monogyna 15 YFAC FACU Prunus lusitanica 5 Ilex aquifolium 10 NL 65 5' diameter Juncus tenuis 10 Y FAC Polystichum munitum 5 Y FACU Muscari sp.5 YNL ✔ 20 0 80 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 8-10"10 YR 3/2 95 10 YR 3/6 5 C M silt clay loam 10-15"10 YR 3/2 90 10 YR 4/6 10 C M silt clay loam 15-20"10 YR 4/2 80 7.5 YR 4/6 C M20 silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔10" 0-8" DP-3 Oxidized rhizospheres beginning at 10" 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-4 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440271972°N 122.772973301°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Quercus garryana 40 Y FACU 2 Pinus ponderosa 20 Y FACU Fraxinus latifolia 10 FACW 8 70 2530' diameter Ilex aquifolium 20 Y FACU Prunus lusitanica 15 YNL Y FAC Rubus armeniacus 15 Y Prunus spinosa 10 Ribes divaricatum 15 FAC NL 75 5' diameter Polystichum munitum 20 Y FACU 20 Hedera helix 30 Y FACU 30 80 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 8-9"10 YR 3/2 98 7.5 YR 3/4 2 C M silt clay loam 9-16"10 YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 4/6 10 C M silt clay loam 16-20"10 YR 4/2 80 7.5 YR 4/6 C M20 silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ 0-8" DP-4 Oxidized rhizospheres begin at 13" 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-5 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440183821°N 122.773182731°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Quercus garryana 80 Y FACU 1 Fraxinus latifolia 5 FACW 5 85 2030' diameter Crataegus monogyna 30 Y FAC Ilex aquifolium 10 Y FACU FACRubus armeniacus 5 45 5' diameter Muscari sp.25 Y NL 25 Hedera helix 25 Y FACU Rubus ursinus trace FACU 25 50 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and 4B 6DWXUDWLRQ$ 6DOW&UXVW% 'UDLQDJH3DWWHUQV% :DWHU0DUNV% $TXDWLF,QYHUWHEUDWHV% 'U\6HDVRQ:DWHU7DEOH& 6HGLPHQW'HSRVLWV% +\GURJHQ6XOILGH2GRU& 6DWXUDWLRQ9LVLEOHRQ$HULDO,PDJHU\& 'ULIW'HSRVLWV% 2[LGL]HG5KL]RVSKHUHVDORQJ/LYLQJ5RRWV& *HRPRUSKLF3RVLWLRQ' $OJDO0DWRU&UXVW% 3UHVHQFHRI5HGXFHG,URQ& 6KDOORZ$TXLWDUG' ,URQ'HSRVLWV% 5HFHQW,URQ5HGXFWLRQLQ7LOOHG6RLOV& )$&1HXWUDO7HVW' 6XUIDFH6RLO&UDFNV% 6WXQWHGRU6WUHVVHG3ODQWV'LRR A 5DLVHG$QW0RXQGV'LRR A ,QXQGDWLRQ9LVLEOHRQ$HULDO,PDJHU\% 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV )URVW+HDYH+XPPRFNV' 6SDUVHO\9HJHWDWHG&RQFDYH6XUIDFH% Field Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 8-12"10 YR 3/2 99 7.5 YR 3/4 1 C M silt clay loam 12-17"10 YR 3/2 95 7.5 YR 3/4 5 C M silt clay loam 17-20"10 YR 4/2 85 7.5 YR 3/4 C M15 silt clay loam ✔ ✔16" ✔13" 0-8" DP-5 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-6 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440134239°N 122.773187011°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Fraxinus latifolia 75 Y FACW 5 Quercus garryana 10 FACU 7 85 7130' diameter Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FAC Crataegus monogyna 10 YFAC Y FACWFraxinus latifolia 10 40 5' diameter Muscari sp.25 Y NL Carex obnupta 10 Y OBL ✔ 35 Hedera helix 45 Y FACU 45 20 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 4-8"10 YR 3/2 98 7.5 YR 3/4 2 C M silt clay loam 8-15"10 YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 3/4 10 C M silt clay loam 15-20"10 YR 4/2 85 10 YR 3/4 C M15 silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔17" ✔10" 0-4" DP-6 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-7 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440264458°N 122.773601271°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a 30' diameter Quercus garryana 75 Y FACU 1 Fraxinus latifolia 5 FACW 4 80 2530' diameter Rubus armenicaus 10 Y FAC 10 5' diameter Taraxacum officianale 60 Y FACU Dactylis glomerata 40 Y FACU Agrostis stolonifera 10 FAC Ranunculus repens 5 FAC Juncus tenuis trace FAC 115 0 0 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and 4B 6DWXUDWLRQ$ 6DOW&UXVW% 'UDLQDJH3DWWHUQV% :DWHU0DUNV% $TXDWLF,QYHUWHEUDWHV% 'U\6HDVRQ:DWHU7DEOH& 6HGLPHQW'HSRVLWV% +\GURJHQ6XOILGH2GRU& 6DWXUDWLRQ9LVLEOHRQ$HULDO,PDJHU\& 'ULIW'HSRVLWV% 2[LGL]HG5KL]RVSKHUHVDORQJ/LYLQJ5RRWV& *HRPRUSKLF3RVLWLRQ' $OJDO0DWRU&UXVW% 3UHVHQFHRI5HGXFHG,URQ& 6KDOORZ$TXLWDUG' ,URQ'HSRVLWV% 5HFHQW,URQ5HGXFWLRQLQ7LOOHG6RLOV& )$&1HXWUDO7HVW' 6XUIDFH6RLO&UDFNV% 6WXQWHGRU6WUHVVHG3ODQWV'LRR A 5DLVHG$QW0RXQGV'LRR A ,QXQGDWLRQ9LVLEOHRQ$HULDO,PDJHU\% 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV )URVW+HDYH+XPPRFNV' 6SDUVHO\9HJHWDWHG&RQFDYH6XUIDFH% Field Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 8-13"10 YR 3/2 99 10 YR 4/4 1 C M silt clay loam 13-16"10 YR 3/2 95 10 YR 3/6 5 C M silt clay loam 16-20"10 YR 4/2 90 10 YR 3/6 C M10 silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ 0-8" DP-7 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-8 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440142412°N 122.773734609°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a in lawn area 30' diameter Quercus garryana 10 Y FACU 1 3 10 3330' diameter 0 5' diameter Agrostis stolonifera 60 Y FAC Taraxacum officianale 40 Y FACU Alopecurus pratensis 5 FAC Tanacetum vulgare trace FACU 105 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 100 silt clay loam 9-12"10 YR 3/2 98 7.5 YR 3/4 2 C M silt clay loam 12-20"10 YR 4/2 90 10 YR 3/6 10 C M silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔ 0-9" DP-8 Oxidized rhizospheres at 14" 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 3URMHFW6LWH&LW\&RXQW\6DPSOLQJ'DWH $SSOLFDQW2ZQHU6WDWH6DPSOLQJ3RLQW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV6HFWLRQ7RZQVKLS5DQJH /DQGIRUPKLOOVORSHWHUUDFHHWF/RFDOUHOLHIFRQFDYHFRQYH[QRQH6ORSH 6XEUHJLRQ/55/DW/RQJ'DWXP 6RLO0DS8QLW1DPH1:,FODVVLILFDWLRQ $UHFOLPDWLFK\GURORJLFFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHVLWHW\SLFDOIRUWKLVWLPHRI\HDU"<HV1R,IQRH[SODLQLQ5HPDUNV $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\VLJQLILFDQWO\GLVWXUEHG"$UH³1RUPDO&LUFXPVWDQFHV´SUHVHQW"<HV1R $UH9HJHWDWLRQ6RLORU+\GURORJ\QDWXUDOO\SUREOHPDWLF",IQHHGHGH[SODLQDQ\DQVZHUVLQ5HPDUNV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R +\GULF6RLO3UHVHQW" <HV1R :HWODQG+\GURORJ\3UHVHQW" <HV1R Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 5HPDUNV VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. $EVROXWH'RPLQDQW,QGLFDWRU 7UHH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H&RYHU6SHFLHV"6WDWXV 7RWDO&RYHU 6DSOLQJ6KUXE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU +HUE6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU :RRG\9LQH6WUDWXP3ORWVL]H 7RWDO&RYHU %DUH*URXQGLQ+HUE6WUDWXP Dominance Test worksheet: 1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$ 7RWDO1XPEHURI'RPLQDQW 6SHFLHV$FURVV$OO6WUDWD% 3HUFHQWRI'RPLQDQW6SHFLHV 7KDW$UH2%/)$&:RU)$&$% Prevalence Index worksheet: 7RWDO&RYHURI0XOWLSO\E\ 2%/VSHFLHV [ )$&:VSHFLHV [ )$&VSHFLHV [ )$&8VSHFLHV [ 83/VSHFLHV [ &ROXPQ7RWDOV$ % 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[ %$ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5DSLG7HVWIRU+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ 'RPLQDQFH7HVWLV! 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV 0RUSKRORJLFDO$GDSWDWLRQV3URYLGHVXSSRUWLQJ GDWDLQ5HPDUNVRURQDVHSDUDWHVKHHW :HWODQG1RQ9DVFXODU3ODQWV 3UREOHPDWLF+\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ([SODLQ ,QGLFDWRUVRIK\GULFVRLODQGZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVW EHSUHVHQWXQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV SW 95th Ave Development/10970 SW 95th Tigard/Washington 3/10/2020 Scott Miller/Samm-Miller LLC OR DP-9 Jack Dalton, Elli Dalton, Kim Sanderford T1 S R1W S35 basin none <5% A-Northwest Forests and Coasts 45.440132457°N 122.773681601°W NAD 1983 Aloha SIlt Loam, Map unit 1, hydric rating 1 n/a This data plot is in the western portion of the site where the maintained lawn area encroaches into the forested wetland, so plant community is degraded and does not meet wetland criteria. Best professional judgement was used to determine this plot is within the wetland. 30' diameter Prunus spinosa 10 Y NL 0 Quercus garryana 5 Y FACU 3 15 030' diameter 00 00 30 90 85 3400 5' diameter 0 0 Taraxacum officianale 60 Y FACU 115 430 Dactylis glomerata 20 FACU 3.7 Holcus lanatus 15 FAC Agrostis stolonifera 15 FAC X 110 0 This data plot is in a maintained lawn area in a depression associated with the wetland 0 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW±9HUVLRQ SOIL 6DPSOLQJ3RLQW Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 'HSWK 0DWUL[ 5HGR[)HDWXUHV LQFKHV &RORUPRLVW &RORUPRLVW7\SH/RF7H[WXUH5HPDUNV 7\SH& &RQFHQWUDWLRQ' 'HSOHWLRQ50 5HGXFHG0DWUL[&6 &RYHUHGRU&RDWHG6DQG*UDLQV/RFDWLRQ3/ 3RUH/LQLQJ0 0DWUL[ Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: +LVWRVRO$ 6DQG\5HGR[6 FP0XFN$ +LVWLF(SLSHGRQ$ 6WULSSHG0DWUL[6 5HG3DUHQW0DWHULDO7) %ODFN+LVWLF$ /RDP\0XFN\0LQHUDO)except MLRA 1 9HU\6KDOORZ'DUN6XUIDFH7) +\GURJHQ6XOILGH$ /RDP\*OH\HG0DWUL[) 2WKHU([SODLQLQ5HPDUNV 'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFH$ 'HSOHWHG0DWUL[) 7KLFN'DUN6XUIDFH$ 5HGR['DUN6XUIDFH),QGLFDWRUVRIK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQDQG 6DQG\0XFN\0LQHUDO6 'HSOHWHG'DUN6XUIDFH) ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\PXVWEHSUHVHQW 6DQG\*OH\HG0DWUL[6 5HGR['HSUHVVLRQV) XQOHVVGLVWXUEHGRUSUREOHPDWLF Restrictive Layer (if present): 7\SH 'HSWKLQFKHV Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5HPDUNV HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 3ULPDU\,QGLFDWRUVPLQLPXPRIRQHUHTXLUHGFKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\6HFRQGDU\,QGLFDWRUVRUPRUHUHTXLUHG 6XUIDFH:DWHU$ :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%except :DWHU6WDLQHG/HDYHV%MLRA 1, 2, +LJK:DWHU7DEOH$ MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B 4A, and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ield Observations: 6XUIDFH:DWHU3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV :DWHU7DEOH3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV 6DWXUDWLRQ3UHVHQW" <HV1R'HSWKLQFKHV LQFOXGHVFDSLOODU\IULQJH Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 'HVFULEH5HFRUGHG'DWDVWUHDPJDXJHPRQLWRULQJZHOODHULDOSKRWRVSUHYLRXVLQVSHFWLRQVLIDYDLODEOH 5HPDUNV 10 YR 3/2 99 7.5 YR 4/6 1 C M silt clay loam 8-17"10 YR 3/2 85 10 YR 4/6 15 C PL silt clay loam 17-20"10 YR 4/2 80 10 YR 4/6 20 C M silt clay loam ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔18" Oxidized rhizospheres begin at 8-9". Plot in a depression within the mainintained lawn area. 0-8" DP-9 APPENDIX D: VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA FORMS Yes No Yes No Yes No 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 50 28 xxx 2 20 11 xxx 3 10 6 xxx 4 11xxx 5 11xxx 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 75 42 xxx 2 15 8 xxx 3 53xxx 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 177 100 Degraded Condition (native species <50% of the community and tree canopy <25% aerial coverage) Comments: Aerial cover is high, but this area is adjacent to residential areas with high percent of non-native ornamentals Total percent relative cover of non-native, noxious, and invasive species 45% Good Condition (native species >80% of the community and tree canopy >50% aerial cover) x Marginal Condition (native species 50-80% of the community and tree canopy 26-50% aerial cover) Total Total percent relative native species cover 55% Total percent aerial cover of tree canopy 95% Fraxinus latifolia Tree Stratum Pinus ponderosa Quercus garryana Ligustrum vulgare Prunus avium Alnus rubra Oemleria cerasiformis Shrub Stratum Ilex aquifolium bare ground/leaf litter 100% Herbaceous Stratum Percent Aerial Cover Percent Relative Cover Native? (1) Noxious?( 2) Invasive? (3) Tax Map: 1S136DB Lot(s): 2100 Brief Description of Plot Location: within eastern end of VC Site Investigator Name: J. Dalton, E. Dalton, K. Sanderford Date of Investigation: 3/10/2020 Plant Community Type: forested/riparian VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA SHEET Client/Project Name: MK Development Site Address: 10970 SW 95th Ave. Tigard, OR Plot ID: VC-1 Township/Range/Section: T1S R1W S36 (1) Portland Plant List, 2011. (2) Noxious Weed List, ODA. (3) R 07-20, Clean Water Services, June, 2007.Environmental Science and Assessment, LLC Yes No Yes No Yes No 1 70 32 xx x 2 10 5 xxx 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 40 18 xxx 2 10 5 xxx 3 10 5 xxx 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 60 27 xxx 2 20 9 xxx 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 220 100 Degraded Condition (native species <50% of the community and tree canopy <25% aerial coverage) Comments: Plant community in this area is marginal despite high aerial cover due to low relative percent native species Total percent relative cover of non-native, noxious, and invasive species 41% Good Condition (native species >80% of the community and tree canopy >50% aerial cover) x Marginal Condition (native species 50-80% of the community and tree canopy 26-50% aerial cover) Total Total percent relative native species cover 59% Total percent aerial cover of tree canopy 80% Tree Stratum Quercus garryana Fraxinus latifolia Crataegus monogyna Oemleria cerasiformis Shrub Stratum Rosa pisocarpa Hedera helix Hyacinthus Herbaceous Stratum Percent Aerial Cover Percent Relative Cover Native? (1) Noxious?( 2) Invasive? (3) Tax Map: 1S136DB Lot(s): 2100 Brief Description of Plot Location: withni central portion of VC Site Investigator Name: J. Dalton, E. Dalton, K. Sanderford Date of Investigation: 3/10/2020 Plant Community Type: forested/riparian VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA SHEET Client/Project Name: MK Development Site Address: 10970 SW 95th Ave. Tigard, OR Plot ID: VC-2 Township/Range/Section: T1S R1W S36 (1) Portland Plant List, 2011. (2) Noxious Weed List, ODA. (3) R 07-20, Clean Water Services, June, 2007.Environmental Science and Assessment, LLC Yes No Yes No Yes No 1 40 34 xxx 2 60 52 xxx 3 54 xxx 4 11 xxx 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 10 0 0 1 10 9 xxx 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 116 100 Site Investigator Name: J. Dalton, E. Dalton, K. Sanderford Date of Investigation: 3/10/2020 Comments: This maintained lawn area is in degraded condition due to low percent native and aerial cover Total percent relative cover of non-native, noxious, and invasive species 9% 10% 91% Total Total percent relative native species cover Total percent aerial cover of tree canopy Invasive? (3)Percent Relative Cover Taraxacum officinale Alopecurus pratensis Agrostis stolonifera Tanecetum vulgare Native? (1) Noxious?( 2) Shrub Stratum VEGETATED CORRIDOR DATA SHEET Plant Community Type: maintained lawn Client/Project Name: MK Development Site Address: 10970 SW 95th Ave. Tigard, OR Plot ID: VC-3 Township/Range/Section: T1S R1W S36 Tax Map: 1S136DB Brief Description of Plot Location: at western end of VC within maintained lawn area Good Condition (native species >80% of the community and tree canopy >50% aerial cover) Lot(s): 2100 Herbaceous Stratum Percent Aerial Cover x Marginal Condition (native species 50-80% of the community and tree canopy 26-50% aerial cover) Degraded Condition (native species <50% of the community and tree canopy <25% aerial coverage) Quercus garryana Tree Stratum (1) Portland Plant List, 2011. (2) Noxious Weed List, ODA. (3) R 07-20, Clean Water Services, June, 2007.Environmental Science and Assessment, LLC CWS File Number Page 1 of 7 Service Provider Letter This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 19-5, as amended by R&O 19-22). Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Review Type:No Impact Site Address 10970 SW 95th AVE SPL Issue Date: October 27, 2020 / Location:Tigard, OR 97223 SPL Expiration Date: October 27, 2022 Applicant Information:Owner Information: Name ERIC EVANS Name SCOTT MILLER Company EMERIO DESIGN GROUP Company SAMM-MILLER LLC Address 6445 SW FALLBROOK PLACE SUITE 100 Address 1327 JAY COURT BEAVERTON OR 97008 WEST LINN OR 97068 Phone/Fax (503) 746-8812 Phone/Fax (503) 819-3610 E-mail:eric@emeriodesign.com E-mail:samm-miller@comcast.net Tax lot ID Development Activity 1S135AC01700 Residential Subdivision Pre-Development Site Conditions:Post Development Site Conditions: Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Vegetated Corridor Width:50 Vegetated Corridor Width:50 Vegetated Corridor Condition:Marginal/Degraded Enhancement of Remaining Vegetated Corridor Required:Square Footage to be enhanced:21,339 Encroachments into Pre-Development Vegetated Corridor: Type and location of Encroachment: Square Footage: No Encroachment 0 Mitigation Requirements: Type/Location Sq. Ft./Ratio/Cost No Mitigation 0 Conditions Attached Development Figures Attached (2) Planting Plan Attached Geotech Report Required This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. 20-002561 X X X X X X X X X CWS File Number Page 2 of 7 In order to comply with Clean Water Services water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1.No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area or Vegetated Corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed in R&O 19-5, Chapter 3, as amended by R&O 19-22. 2.Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the Vegetated Corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the Vegetated Corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by R&O 19-5, Section 3.06.1, as amended by R&O 19-22 and per approved plans. 3.If there is any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. No wetland impacts proposed for this project. 4.An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. 5.Prior to any ground disturbing activities, an erosion control permit is required. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, in accordance with Clean Water Services' Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. 6.Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. 7.Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 5.10, as amended by R&O 19-22. 8.Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the greatest extent practicable. 9.The water quality swale and detention pond shall be planted with Clean Water Services approved native species, and designed to blend into the natural surroundings. 10.Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by Clean Water Services, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. 11.The Vegetated Corridor width for sensitive areas within the project site shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide, as measured horizontally from the delineated boundary of the sensitive area. 12.For Vegetated Corridors up to 50 feet wide, the applicant shall enhance the entire Vegetated Corridor to meet or exceed good corridor condition as defined in R&O 19-5, Section 3.14.2, Table 3-3, as amended by R&O 19-22. 13.Removal of invasive non-native species by hand is required in all Vegetated Corridors rated ""good."" Replanting is required in any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet using low impact methods. The applicant shall calculate all cleared areas larger than 25 square feet prior to the preparation of the required Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. 14.Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the applicant shall provide Clean Water Services with a Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. Enhancement/restoration of the Vegetated Corridor shall be provided in accordance with R&O 19-5, Appendix A, as amended by R&O 19-22, and shall include planting specifications for all Vegetated Corridor, including any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet in Vegetated Corridor rated ""good."" 15.Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the Vegetated Corridor shall be removed per methods described in Clean Water Services' Integrated Pest Management Plan, 2019. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native tree and shrub species. 20-002561 CWS File Number Page 3 of 7 16. Clean Water Services and/or City shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in Planting Requirements (R&0 19-5, Appendix A, as amended by R&O 19- 22). 17. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 2.12.2, as amended by R&O 19-22. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping falls below the 80% survival level, the owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity and the two year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 18. Performance assurances for the Vegetated Corridor shall comply with R&O 19-5, Section 2.07.2, Table 2-1 and Section 2.11, Table 2-2, as amended by R&O 19-22. 19. For any developments which create multiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership, Clean Water Services may require that the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor be contained in a separate tract and subject to a ""STORM SEWER, SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE AND DETENTION EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY"" to be granted to the City or Clean Water Services. 20.Final construction plans shall include landscape plans. In the details section of the plans, a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials is required. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season identification and shall remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 21.A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates (minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30). 22.Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the Vegetated Corridor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked in the field. 23.Protection of the Vegetated Corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the Vegetated Corridors. Fencing and signage details to be included on final construction plans. This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS-approved site plan is attached. Please call (503) 681-3667 with any questions. Stacy Benjamin Environmental Plan Review Attachments (4) 20-002561 SW 95TH AVE MARG IN A LDEGRADED 123562%50'4Figure 3EnvironmentalScience &Assessment, LLCRev:Job:Date:Modified By:KS/KR09/202002700/00Base Map Source:Emerio Design GroupExisting Conditions SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 4831 NE Fremont St.,Suite 2BPortland, OR 97213Phone: 503.478.0424www.esapdx.com020401' = 40'20-0025611410/27/2020 MARG IN A LDEGRADED50'Figure 4EnvironmentalScience &Assessment, LLCRev:Job:Date:Modified By:KS/KR09/202002700/00Base Map Source:Emerio Design GroupSite Plan SW 95th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 4831 NE Fremont St.,Suite 2BPortland, OR 97213Phone: 503.478.0424www.esapdx.com020401' = 40'20-0025612410/27/2020 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Tigard, OR - CWS Site Assessment Page 4 Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC bare ground after invasive plant removal within the enhancement planting area that exceed 25 square feet shall be planted to CWS density standards (shrubs 5 foot on center spacing and trees 10-foot on-center spacing). Table 2 provides a seed mix for the enhancement area for use as erosion and sediment control. Additionally, it is recommended that the plantings in Table 1 each be mulched with 0.5 cubic feet of approved mulch material following planting installation. This will retard weed growth around the plantings and promote soil moisture retention for the plantings during the growing season. The plant list and planting densities are subject to final approval from CWS environmental review staff. A condition of the Service Provider Letter will be to coordinate with CWS on the final quantity and placement of the enhancement plantings. Table 1. Plant List for Planting Areas Common Name Scientific Name Plant Form/Size 1 Plant Spacing (ft on center) Total Number of plants VC Enhancement Area (21,339 SF) Trees Western red cedar Thuja plicata 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Red alder Alnus rubra 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 2 gal/24” 10 ft O.C. 202 Vine maple Acer circinatum 2 gal/24” 10 ft O.C 252 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 gal/36” 10 ft O.C. 202 Subtotal 125 Shrubs Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 118 2 Tall Oregon-grape Mahonia aquifolium 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea Bare root/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1 gal/1.5’ cluster 1102 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gal/18” 4-5 ft O.C. 110 2 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gal/1.5’ cluster 1102 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal/2’ single 1182 Swordfern Polystichum munitum 2 gallon cluster 1182 Subtotal 1,109 TOTAL 1,234 NOTES: 1 Substitutes for plant form (e.g. bare root) and species may be used based on availability.2 Individual species quantities to be determined in landscape 3 4 20-002561 10/27/2020 10970 SW 95th Avenue, Washington Co., OR - CWS Site Assessment Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC Page 5 Table 2. VC Enhancement Area Seed Mix Common Name Scientific Name Percentage of Seed Mix ** Native Wildflower/Grass Mix Native California brome Bromus carinatus 15 Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus 30 Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum 15 Spike bentgrass Agrostis exarata 20 California Oat Grass Danthonia californica 20 TOTAL 100 *Seeding rate of pure live seed (PLS), 35 pounds per acre for hydroseed application. **Seed mix application quantity is to be calculated for VC planting area and is subject to availability and measure PLS. 4 4 20-002561 10/27/2020 City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Notes Residential Developments Meeting Date: 5/12/2020 PRE2020-00020 Applicant: Kehoe Northwest Properties Contact: 503-970-1111 / mkehoe@gmail.com Agent: Eric Evan; Emerio Design, LLC Contact: 503-853-1910 / eric@emeriodesign.com Property Location: 10970 SW 95th Ave / 1S135AC01700 Proposal: 20-25 lot subdivision Base Zone: R-12 Sensitive Lands: Wetlands, vegetated corridor, significant tree groves Overlay Zone: None Plan District: ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, which plan district: N/A Required Applications: Planned Development (III), Subdivision (II) Planner: Agnes Lindor Contact: 503-718-2429 / AgnesL@tigard-or.gov Engineer: Joe Wisniewski Contact: 503-718-2433 / JoeW@tigard-or.gov Land Use Application Review Process 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures The application is subject to a Type III procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.070. The approval authority is Planning Commission and the appeal authority is City Council. Review the complete procedures in Chapter 18.710. A neighborhood meeting is required, refer to Subsection 18.710.030.B and Pre-application packet for requirements. For submittal requirements, refer to Subsection 18.710.030.C and Pre-application packet for requirements. Prior to submittal of the application, you will need to schedule an appointment with the Permit Counter, 503-718-2421. 2 Applicable Chapters ☒ 18.110 Residential Zones ☐ 18.650 Tigard Downtown Plan District ☐ 18.210 Residential General Provisions ☐ 18.660 Tigard Triangle Plan District ☐ 18.220 Accessory Dwelling Units ☐ 18.670 Washington Square Regional Center ☐ 18.230 Apartments ☐ 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures ☐ 18.240 Cottage Clusters ☐ 18.715 Adjustments ☐ 18.250 Courtyard Units ☐ 18.720 Annexation ☐ 18.260 Mobile Home Parks ☐ 18.740 Conditional Uses ☐ 18.270 Quads ☐ 18.750 Historic Resources ☐ 18.280 Rowhouses ☐ 18.760 Home Occupations ☒ 18.290 Single Detached Houses ☒ 18.770 Planned Developments ☒ 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading ☐ 18.780 Site Development Review ☒ 18.420 Landscaping and Screening ☐ 18.790 Text and Map Amendments ☐ 18.440 Temporary Uses ☐ 18.810 Lot Line Adjustments & Consolidations ☐ 18.450 Wireless Communication Facilities ☐ 18.820 Land Partitions ☒ 18.510 Sensitive Lands ☒ 18.830 Subdivisions ☒ 18.520 Significant Tree Groves ☒ 18.910 Improvement Standards ☐ 18.620 Bridgeport Village Plan District ☒ 18.920 Access, Egress & Circulation ☐ 18.640 River Terrace Plan District ☒ 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas Applicable Standards 18.110 RESIDENTIAL ZONES Applicable Zone: R-12 18.290 SINGLE DETACHED HOUSES Minimum Lot Size: 3,050 Minimum Unit Count: 16 units Maximum Unit Count: 20 units Please review the development standards for the applicable housing type in the chapter noted above. 3 Setbacks: - Front and Read: 15 feet - Side: 5 feet - Street side: 10 feet - Garage: 20 feet / 0 is taken from an alley - Max. Height: 35 feet - Lot coverage / landscaping standard: 80% / 20% *Density Estimate: Total Site 122,784 square feet Sensitive Land Areas - 38,967 square feet Land Dedicated to the Public for Park Purposes - 22,080 square feet Land Dedicated for Public Rights-of-Way - 0 square feet Land Proposed for Private Streets - 0 square feet Net Development Area 61,737 square feet Net Development Area 61,737 square feet Minimum Lot Size ÷ 3,050 square feet Maximum Number of Residential Units 20.2 Maximum Number of Residential Units 20.2 × 80% Minimum Number of Residential Units 16.1 * Density calculation based on square footage provided in pre-application materials. Through the planned development process, maximum density can be increased by up to 30%. Please refer to Section 18.40.020 for calculating density. 18.410 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING o Non-apartments: 1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and See Section 18.410.040.I for parking dimensional standards. 18.420 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Required Landscaping (Section 18.420.040) Minimum Landscape Area: 20% The minimum landscape area standard must be provided on the site and may be met by any combination of the following: 1. Landscaping, including parking lot landscaping, that meets the L-1 landscaping standard (see below); 2. Landscaping that meets the S-2, S-3, or S-4 screening standard where required by the applicable development standards chapter; 3. Any required above-ground vegetated stormwater facility; or 4. Other areas as specified by the applicable development standards chapter. 4 Standard Requirements L-1 Any combination of trees, plants, or lawn with or without other natural or artificial landscaping elements such as ponds, fountains, lighting, benches, bridges, rocks, paths, sculptures, trellises, or screens. Required Tree Canopy (Section 18.420.060) Minimum Site Tree Canopy: 33% Minimum Number of Street Trees: 1 tree for every 40 feet of lineal street frontage An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with tree canopy standards. An urban forestry plan must be prepared by a landscape architect or both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, as provided in the Urban Forestry Manual Section 10 (except for MLPs). The plan must include: o Tree preservation and removal site plan- Section 10, Part 1 of Urban Forestry Manual o Tree canopy site plan- Section 10, Part 2 of Urban Forestry Manual o Supplemental report- Section 10, Part 3 of Urban Forestry Manual o Parking lot tree canopy standards- Provide the minimum effective tree canopy percentage for all parking areas, including parking spaces and drive aisles. Only the percentage of tree canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard. o Street trees- Include where right-of-way improvements are required at a rate of 1 tree for 40 lineal feet of frontage. 18.510 SENSITIVE LANDS The on-site wetland is significant and development is not allowed within a significant wetland or it’s associated buffer. A delineation is required. A sensitive lands require is only required when development is proposed within the sensitive land. 18.520 SIGNIFICANT TREE GROVES 18.520.020 Applicability This chapter applies to all sites that contain more than 10,000 square feet of tree canopy within a mapped significant tree grove, as shown on the City of Tigard Significant Tree Grove Map, but not within any sensitive lands identified in Paragraphs 18.510.010.G.1 through 3. 18.910 IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.910.030 Streets F. Future Streets Plan and Extension of Streets A Future Street Plan is required with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall: 5 o Shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division o Shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and o Shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. o Shall identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. 18.910.040 Blocks The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceeds 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted. ALL OTHER ITEMS IN 18.910 ARE ADDRESSED IN ENGINEERING’S CHECKLIST. 18.920 ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (Delete if items in table don’t apply) Table 18.920.1 Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements Housing Type Minimum Driveways Required Minimum Access Required Minimum Pavement Width Single Detached Houses 1 10 ft 10 ft 18.930 VISION CLEARANCE AREAS Vision Clearance Areas must be: o Maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at intersections of roads with driveways, railroads, and other roads. o The size of the vision clearance area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the vision clearance area. o Vision clearance areas must be shown on the site plan and identify any obstructions in these areas. Service Provider Letters and Additional Contacts The following service provider letters are required: ☒ Clean Water Services ☒ Tualatin Valley Water District ☒ Pride Disposal 6 ☐ Waste Management Building: Mark VanDomelen, Building Official; 503-718- 2448 / markv@tigard-or.gov Fire: John Wolff, Wolff, Deputy Fire Marshall II; 503-259-1504 / John.Wolff@tvfr.com ODOT: Region1_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us Additional Comments or Issues Fees: - Consolidated Plan Review (in lieu of Subdivision fee): $10,557 plus $93 per lot 18.830.040 Approval Criteria—Preliminary Plat A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions an application for a preliminary plat when all of the following are met: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable regulations; 2. The proposed lots must comply with the following: a. All development standards are met. The development standards, including density standards for residential and nonresidential development, are provided in the applicable development standards chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards or 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards. b. Each lot for quad, rowhouse, or single detached house development is rectilinear in shape with straight side lot lines at right angles to front lot lines, and straight rear lot lines parallel to front lot lines, except where not practicable due to location along a street radius or because of an existing natural features or lot lines. Side and rear lot lines that are segmented may not contain cumulative lateral changes in direction that exceed 10 percent of the distance between opposing lot corners. c. Each lot has a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way, except for the following types of lots: i. Rowhouse lots have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way; ii. Lots with curved frontages along cul-de-sacs or eyebrows have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a public or private right-of-way as measured along the arc of the front lot line; and iii. Lots at the terminus of a private street have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a private right-of-way. d. Lots created using the density and dimensional standards for cottage cluster, courtyard unit, quad, and rowhouse development must record a deed restriction that prohibits any type of 7 development other than the type proposed with the subdivision application. This deed restriction cannot be removed except through another land division process. 3. The proposed plat name is not duplicative and satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 4. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjacent 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 5. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Additional Information ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (Chapter 18.910 and 18.920) All requirements relating to street and utility improvements are provided in the Engineering Checklist. SUBDIVISION/PLAT NAME RESERVATION Applicant must complete and file a subdivision/plat name requires with the Washington County Surveyors Office. The approved Subdivision Name Reservation must be submitted to the City at time of application submittal. SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT Your property may be in a sewer reimbursement district and may require additional fees upon development. Please contact the Planning Department at 503-718-2421 in order to find out if your property is within a sewer reimbursement district and the associated fee. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Development permits will not be accepted until a land use approval has been granted. Comments from the Building Department are not included in these notes. For specific questions, please contact a Plans Examiner for any building code related questions or issues. Final inspections will not be granted until all land use conditions of approval are satisfied. REGULATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SDC EXEMPTION If the proposal includes regulated affordable housing, the development may be eligible to receive an exemption of the City’s Transportation and Park System Development Charges (SDC). Please contact the SDC Administrator at 503-718-2460 or sdc@tigard-or.gov for more information. DISCLAIMER The pre-application conference and notes cannot cover all applicable requirements related to the proposed development. Failure of the staff to provide information required by Title 18 does not constitute a waiver of the applicable criteria, regulations or standards. It is recommended that the applicant read Title 18 or contact city staff with any questions prior to submittal. CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Division, 2020 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION  City of Tigard, Oregon Community Development Shaping A Better Community DATE: Friday, May 1, 2020 PROJECT NAME: Longstaff-95th CASE NUMBER: PRE2020-00020 PROJECT ADDRESS: 10970 SW 95th Ave, Tigard, Or PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a 20 – 25 lot subdivision. Applicable Code: 18.910, 18.920, 18.930 TRANSPORTATION • SW 95th Avenue o Existing Conditions ▪ Classified as a Neighborhood Road. o Required Section ▪ Dedicate 30’ of right-of-way from centerline ▪ Half width improvements required. ▪ See figure 18.910.3 of TDC 18.910 • 18’ paved surface with curb (12’ lane, 6’ bike lane) • 5.5’ planter strip • 5’ sidewalk • Street Lighting o Provide photometric analysis for proposed and existing street lights. ▪ Analysis must separate private lighting from public right-of-way lighting. ▪ Provide 8’ Public Utility Easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way. • Proposed Road (Name TBD) o Required Section ▪ See figure 18.910.5 of TDC 18.910 (Skinny Street) • 24’ paved surface with curb • 5.5’ planter strip • 5’ sidewalk • Street Lighting o Provide photometric analysis. Analysis must separate private lighting from public right-of- way lighting. ▪ Provide 8’ Public Utility Easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way. STORMWATER CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Division, 2020 • Improvements: o Stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards including water quality, detention, hydromodification and LIDA. o Submit Preliminary Stormwater Report with Land Use Application. WASTERWATER (SANITARY SEWER) • Existing 8” Sanitary Sewer located in 95th Ave right-of-way, and easement along north property line. WATER • Public water supply is under the jurisdiction of Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). Contact TVWD for information regarding the water system. • Work with TVWD for improvement requirements and City of Tigard for the location of the proposed improvements inside the right-of-way. OVERHEAD UTILITIES • Existing overhead utilities and proposed utilities must be placed underground. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL • A grading and erosion control permit will be required for the construction of the development. o 1200 C with DEQ for disturbed area of over 5 acres. o 1200CN with CWS for disturbed area between 1 and 5 acres. o EC Permit with Tigard for disturbed area less than 1 acre. PREPARED BY: Joe Wisniewski DATE: 5/1/2020 ENGINEERING DIVISION STAFF CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Division, 2020 Planned Developments 18.770-1 Code Update: 10/19 Chapter 18.770 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Sections: 18.770.010 Purpose 18.770.020 Applicability 18.770.030 General Provisions 18.770.040 Required Analysis 18.770.050 Approval Process 18.770.060 Approval Criteria 18.770.070 Conditions of Approval 18.770.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to provide an appropriate review process for evaluating and establishing planned developments. Planned developments are typically large-scale developments or smaller developments on constrained sites that desire or need more flexibility than available through the adjustment process. The benefits of flexibility to a planned development may take many forms, including but not limited to the transfer of density across internal zone boundaries, greater diversity of housing types and uses, increased building height, or increased density. The planned development review process provides an opportunity for innovative, creative, and well- designed developments that may be more intense than otherwise allowed by this title in exchange for developments that are thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding community and include features that benefit the public above and beyond what is generally required by this title. The benefits to the public from a planned development may take many forms, including but not limited to enhanced walkability or accessibility, increased housing options, increased open space, protection of significant tree groves, enhanced sensitive lands protection or restoration, enhanced outdoor recreational opportunities, enhanced public spaces or furnishings, pedestrian-scale architectural features, affordable housing, or sustainable features. A planned development approval does not constitute a zone change and is subject to any modifications, conditions, or restrictions deemed appropriate by the approval authority. (Ord. 18-28 §1) 18.770.020 Applicability This chapter applies to all proposed or existing planned developments. (Ord. 18-28 §1) 18.770.030 General Provisions A. Planned development review is a voluntary process. B. Planned development approval is required to establish a new planned development or to substantially redevelop an existing planned development. Substantial redevelopment is defined as a proposal that involves substantial changes to uses, structures, site improvements, operating characteristics, or original findings of fact. C. An applicant may choose to submit a single consolidated planned development application or two consecutive planned development applications consisting of a concept plan application and a detailed plan application. Planned Developments 18.770-2 Code Update: 10/19 D. The proposed development must comply with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as specifically adjusted through the planned development approval process. Planned development review satisfies the requirements for site development or conditional use review and a separate site development, conditional use, or adjustment application is not required. E. If sensitive lands review is required, a sensitive lands application must be submitted concurrently with a consolidated or detailed plan application. A sensitive lands application may not be submitted concurrently with a concept plan application. F. If land division is proposed, a subdivision or land partition application must be submitted concurrently with a consolidated or detailed plan application. A subdivision or land partition application may not be submitted concurrently with a concept plan application. G. If the proposed development has more than one base zone designation, density and floor area standards are calculated for each base zone as provided by this title. H. Density and floor area allocations and increases allowed with planned development approval are as follows: 1. Minimum density and floor area may be allocated anywhere on the site regardless of the underlying base zone designation. 2. Maximum density and floor area may be increased subject to the limitation of Subparagraph 18.770.060.B.10.b. I. Uses and housing types allowed with planned development approval are based on the underlying zoning as follows: 1. Residential zones. All housing types and civic uses are allowed. Commercial uses not allowed by the underlying base zone may be allowed where appropriately located, designed, and scaled. 2. Commercial zones. Apartments and civic uses not allowed by the underlying base zone may be allowed where appropriately located, designed, and scaled. 3. Industrial zones. No additional uses are allowed beyond what is allowed in the applicable base zone. J. The following development standards may not be adjusted with planned development approval: 1. Minimum density or minimum floor area ratio. 2. Maximum parking ratio. 3. Any development standard that contains an express prohibition. K. Planned development approvals may not adjust the items listed in Paragraph 18.715.020.B.2 through 6. L. Planned development approvals may be modified as allowed by Chapter 18.765, Modifications. (Ord. 18-28 §1) Planned Developments 18.770-3 Code Update: 10/19 18.770.040 Required Analysis In addition to the submittal requirements in Paragraph 18.710.030.C.3, a consolidated or concept plan application must include the information listed below. The graphic illustrations must adequately demonstrate the required information. Examples of graphic illustrations include, but are not limited to, the following: maps, site plans, massing studies, elevation drawings, photo simulations, and digitally created 3-dimensional drawings. Manually created artistic renderings are usually not adequate on their own to illustrate the required information. A. Proposal summary. A written description and graphic illustration of the planned development proposal with enough specificity to convey the overall land use pattern, development scale, circulation network, and housing types and densities. The description must include a statement about the planning objectives to be achieved by the proposal and why the applicant believes the public benefits from the proposal are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of flexibility requested. B. Flexibility request. A detailed written description of all proposed adjustments to development standards and the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must be accompanied by professional studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the reason for each proposed adjustment. The description must also include a table that lists each applicable development standard and the associated proposed standard in a side-by-side column format. C. Public benefits proposal. A detailed written description of all proposed public benefits. The description must be accompanied by drawings, plans, or details as needed to convey the location, size, and overall nature of each public benefit. Public benefits include features, amenities, or protections that in some way exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users. D. Environmental analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and any existing natural features on the site. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal addresses any existing sensitive lands, significant tree groves, land forms, or other natural features on the site. E. Compatibility analysis. A written description and graphic illustration of the relationship between the planned development proposal and the surrounding community. The description and illustration must explain how the proposal integrates with and responds to existing development patterns through a discussion about the arrangement, location, and massing of all proposed buildings, uses, and site improvements, including streets and paths. F. Land use analysis. A detailed written description that demonstrates the need for or benefit of any civic or commercial uses proposed in a residential zone or civic or residential uses proposed in a commercial zone where not allowed in the underlying base zone. The description must be accompanied by professional Planned Developments 18.770-4 Code Update: 10/19 studies or analyses as needed to adequately support the proposed land uses. The description must also include a table that lists each proposed land use category by location. G. Impact identification. A detailed written description of the impacts of the planned development proposal on adjacent properties or the surrounding community that would not occur if the site developed without a planned development approval. If impacts exist, the description must include a detailed mitigation proposal where practicable. (Ord. 18-28 §1) 18.770.050 Approval Process A. A consolidated planned development application is processed through a Type III -PC procedure as provided in Section 18.710.070. B. A consecutive planned development submittal involves two separate applications. 1. A concept plan application is processed through a Type III-PC procedure as provided in Section 18.710.070. A concept plan approval must be effective prior to the submittal of a detailed plan application. 2. A detailed plan application is processed through a Type II procedure as provided in Section 18.710.060, unless the concept plan approval authority specifies a different review procedure as a condition of concept plan approval. (Ord. 19-09 §1; Ord. 18-28 §1) 18.770.060 Approval Criteria A. Consolidated planned development. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a consolidated planned development application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. All concept plan approval criteria listed in Subsection 18.770.060.B are met; and 2. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. B. Concept plan. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a concept plan application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The information and analysis required by Section 18.770.040 is sufficiently detailed and of high enough quality to effectively evaluate the proposed development; 2. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; 3. The proposed development is reasonably compatible with and thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding community; 4. The proposed development includes features, amenities, or protections that exceed the minimum standards of this title to the benefit of the general public or planned development users, and the proposed benefits are sufficient to warrant the type and amount of development flexibility requested; Planned Developments 18.770-5 Code Update: 10/19 5. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve existing, healthy, and noninvasive trees and tree groves to the greatest extent possible; 6. The streets, buildings, and site improvements of the proposed development are designed and located to preserve all natural drainages to the greatest extent possible, except where the applicant has demonstrated that modifying a natural drainage results in the same or better environmental function as the existing drainage; 7. Any impacts from the proposed development are mitigated to the extent practicable; 8. The city engineer has determined that any adjustments to street or access standards do not result in unsafe conditions; 9. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted through this approval process; and 10. The proposed development is within the following limits: a. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 50 percent, b. Maximum density or floor area may be increased by up to 30 percent, and c. Minimum landscape area may be reduced down to 10 percent. C. Detailed plan. The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a detailed plan application when all of the following criteria are met: 1. The proposed detailed plan is substantially consistent with the approved concept plan; 2. The proposed detailed plan complies with all applicable development standards and requirements of this title, except as adjusted or conditioned through the concept plan approval process; and 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy. (Ord. 18-28 §1) 18.770.070 Conditions of Approval The approval authority may impose conditions of approval that are suitable and necessary to ensure that the consolidated or concept plan proposal is consistent with the purpose of this chapter as embodied by the approval criteria listed in Subsections 18.770.060.A and B. Conditions may include but are not limited to the following: A. Requiring design features that minimize environmental impacts; B. Limiting building height, size, or location; C. Requiring higher quality materials or building design; D. Requiring open space, public spaces, or community amenities; Planned Developments 18.770-6 Code Update: 10/19 E. Requiring separation or screening of uses, buildings, off-street parking areas, or service areas from public spaces or adjacent uses; F. Requiring separation or screening of private residential spaces from public spaces or adjacent uses; G. Requiring pedestrian access within the development and between the development and the surrounding community; H. Requiring pedestrian-oriented design features such as building awnings, first-story windows and entries, or street-facing facades; I. Limiting or otherwise designating the size, number, or location of vehicle access points; or J. Limiting or otherwise designating the location, intensity, and shielding of outdoor lighting. (Ord. 18- 28 §1) ■ TDT/TSDC Estimate Longstaff REV 5/5/2020 1S135AC01700 AMS TDT & RESIDENTIAL TSDC RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/19 NON-RES: TSDC CITYWIDE EFFECTIVE 10/1/19 Project is in River Terrace ? * For TDT and residential formula has been replaced with published rate per unit. Former Use ITE Rate per Rate per TDT/TSDC Rate Type Use #Code PHVT PHVT Unit*# Units Amount Description TDT 1 $8,968 1 $8,968 1 SFR TSDC-Imp 1 $6,335 1 $6,335 TSDC-Reim 1 $365 1 $365 ` TSDC-RT 1 $0 0.00 $0 TDT 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-Imp 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-Reim 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-RT 2 $0 $0 Did total TSDC need to be reduced to 80% of TDT?Use 1 No Use 2 No Total TDT and TSDCs Former Uses $15,668 Proposed Use ITE Rate per Rate per TDT/TSDC Use #Code PHVT PHVT Unit*# Units Amount Description TDT 1 $8,968 20.00 $179,360 20 SFRs TSDC-Imp 1 $6,335 20.00 $126,700 TSDC-Reim 1 $365 20.00 $7,300 TSDC-RT 1 $0 0.00 $0 TDT 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-Imp 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-Reim 2 $0 0.00 $0 TSDC-RT 2 $0 0.00 $0 Did total TSDC need to be reduced to 80% of TDT?Use 1 No Use 2 No Total All TDTs & TSDCs Proposed Uses $313,360 Less: Total All TDTs & TSDCs Former Uses $15,668 Total All TDTs & TSDCs Net Increase $297,692 Total Net County TDT $170,392 Total Net TSDC-Imp $120,365 Total Net TSDC-Reim $6,935 Total Net TSDC RT Overlay $0 No TSDT-RT TDT TSDC Imp + Reim Target Recovery Rate 28.0%30% Estimated Total Impact $608,543 $424,333 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $438,151 $297,033 All TDT & TDSC TSDC RT Overlay Target Recovery Rate 29%30% Estimated Total Impact $1,032,876 $0 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $735,184 $0 TDT = County Transportation Development Tax TSDC Citywide = City of Tigard Transportation System Development Tax (TSDC-Imp & TSDC-Reim) TSDC RT = River Terrace Transportation System Development Tax Overlay Extended Combination SDC Calculator - 091018 - I:\Community Development\Permit Coordinator\SDC Calculators Yes No Parks Estimate Longstaff REV 5/5/2020 1S135AC01700 AMS ALL PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/19 Project is in River Terrace ? Note: All Neigh-Imp # Units entries = 0 if project is in River Terrace; All Neigh-RT # Units entries = 0 if project is elsewhere in the city. Former Use Rate Type Use #ITE Code # Units Rate Parks Amount Description Parks-Imp 1 0 1 $5,523 $5,523 1 SFR Parks-Reim 1 0 1 $1,530 $1,530 0 Neigh-Imp 1 0 1 $2,048 $2,048 ` Neigh-RT 1 $0 0 2 $0 Total Parks Former Uses $9,101 Proposed Use Use #ITE Code # Units Rate Parks Amount Description Parks-Imp 1 0 20 $5,523 $110,460 20 SFRs Parks-Reim 1 0 20 $1,530 $30,600 0 Neigh-Imp 1 0 20 $2,048 $40,960 Neigh-RT 1 $0 Parks-Imp 2 $0 Parks-Reim 2 $0 0 Neigh-Imp 2 $0 0 Neigh-RT 2 $0 0 Total Parks Outside RT Proposed Uses $0 Less: Total Parks Outside RT Former Uses $0 Total All Parks Outside RT Net Increase $0 Total Parks RT Proposed Uses $0 Less: Total Parks RT Former Uses $0 Total All Parks RT Net Increase $0 Total Parks-Imp $104,937 Total Parks-Reim $29,070 Total Neigh-Imp $0 No Neigh-Imp Total Neigh-RT $0 No Neigh-RT For Non-Residential Calculations: Prior Use: xxxx=xxxsf/EE; xxxx/xxx=xxEEs. Proposed Use: xxxx=xxxsf/EE; xxxx/xxx=xxEEs. Parks-Imp = Parks Improvement, Citywide including River Terrace Parks-Reim = Parks Reimbursement, Citywide including River Terrace Neigh-Imp = Neighborhood Parks Improvement Outside River Terrace Neigh-RT = Neighborhood Parks Improvement Inside River Terrace Yes No