The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMLP1997-00010 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER a BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Number(s): MINOR LANDMTITION [NIP] 97-0010 Case Name(s): DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION Name of Owner: Miles Downing Name of Applicant: Same as Above Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 230972 City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97281 Address of Property: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 06701 Request: ➢ COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: A request for approval to partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. Zone: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested Er"Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: Owners of Record within the Required Distance 0 Affected Governmental Agencies 9 The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 The Applicant and Owner(s) Final Decision:' THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON C!'l I Lp , 1997 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON ct i'~~1 , 1997. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. COUNCIL REVIEW OF MLP 97.0010 DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL COVER SHEET . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 97-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A) WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL (EXHIBIT B) CONCERNING MINOR LAND PARTITION 97- 0010 FILED BY MR. MILES DOWNING TO PARTITION ONE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS. WHEREAS, on June 25, 1997 the application Mr. Miles Downing did file an application for Minor Land Partition 97-0010 to partition an existing .60 acre parcel into three parcels of approximately 7,750 , 7,771 and 8,040 square feet. WHEREAS, on August 7, 1997 the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 subject to Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1997 the City Council called up the Director's decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 for further review. WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997 the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which Public Testimony was taken and the applicable approval standards were reviewed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard, Oregon hereby determines that Minor Land Partition 97-0010 complies with the applicable approval standards and approves the request subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval issued by the Director (Exhibit A attached) and a Condition of Approval issued by the City Council (Exhibit B). PASSED: This ~(y I&A r day of 61-4 997. or - City of Tigard ATTEST: Q%~~Jt-c 1.,2 Gc.~ City Recorder - City of Tigard is \citywide\res\ccdown. res RESOLUTION NO. 97,3y Page 1 Exhibit A - lution No.97- B1% NOTICE OF DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 cmroft nowRo DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION A"A Bdfgr00=11 SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0010 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of approximately .61 acres into three (3) parcels of 7,570 square feet, 8,040 square feet and 7,771 square feet. APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same P.O. Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97281- 0972 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single-Family Residences. LOCATION: 11000 Block of SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard' Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted; the staff contact shall be Brian Rager in. the Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.-.:.,:::`:..: • 1. A Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary and storm sewer lateral connections and any other work in the public right-of-way (ROW). The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. This permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to approval of the final plat. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right-of-way (ROW) shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to improve SW 92nd Avenue. 6. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 7. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 2 B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised. Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The right-of-way (ROW) dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE, OF BUILDING PERMITS; THE FOLLOWING":.......:... CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED:. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site * the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Department to cover all grading for the lots, all on-site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and all driveway construction. NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right-of-way (ROW). 11. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. 12 Prior to issuance of the building permits for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot. 13. The applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 14. Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement in accordance with the approved flag lot screening plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THI&APPROVAL'SHALL BE VALID FOR:18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF. THIS'DECISION.: SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The subject property is presently undeveloped. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The property presently contains approximately 51 trees of varying sizes. Many of these trees are larger fir trees of over 20 caliper inches each. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 3 On March 27, 1997, the ~ City issued a decision to conditionally approve Minor Land Partition 97-0002 that included the property that is the subject of the current partition proposal. On April 4, 1997, the City issued an amended decision for MLP 97-0002. The amended decision was issued because a street was created through the previous approval. The March 27, ,1997 decision should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant requested that the Minor Land Partition be re-issued with revised Conditions of Approval reflecting the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, neighboring property owners filed an appeal of this decision. At the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to June 16, 1997, to allow the applicant and neighboring property owners to try to resolve issues related to the appeal. The applicant withdrew Minor Land Partition 97-0002 before the continued hearing was held by the Planning Commission. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant now proposes to partition a portion of the original MLP 97-0002 site. This area is a separate legal lot that was created by deed in 1945. The applicant proposes to create three (3) new sites to develop new single-family residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Stud: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right-of-way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right-of-way and completion of a waiver statement An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and has agreed to dedicate an additional five (5) feet of right-of-way (ROW) along the property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The applicant has also agreed to provide a waiver of non-remonstrance against any future formation of a Local Improvement District for any future street improvements that are constructed on SW 92nd Avenue. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II (Resolution 95-61), TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 4 Street system. Presently'. a TIF for each trip that is 9enerateRis $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $1,690. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $5,070.00 ($1,690 x 3 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $15,840.00 ($5,280 x 3 dwelling units). Because additional local street right-of-way (ROW) width does not add to,either area or regional roadway capacity, no traffic impact fee credit has been provided in the past in relationship to required (ROW) dedication. For . this reason, the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $10,770. For this reason, the project's traffic impact and the proposed local street right-of-way (ROW) dedication (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore meet the rough proportionality test. Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52). The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable development standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum after deduction of proposed right-of-way (ROW) and areas shown for access. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50-foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a .61 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. The site has gross square footage of 26,850 square feet, after subtraction of areas to be dedication for public right-of-way (ROW) purposes, a net area of 26,400 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to three (3) dwelling units. The applicant has proposed to develop three dwelling units in compliance with this standard. Because the site has less than 100 feet of frontage on SW 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 does not require the planting of street trees. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 5 street trees into the projetalong the site's SW 92nd Avenuelontage. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. The applicant has not proposed to construct new property improvements within the proposed clear vision areas next to driveways in compliance with Section 18.102. Through the Conditions of Approval the applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling in compliance with Section 18.108. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. The new parcels do not exceed a two and one-half to one, length to depth ratio. The 50-foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. As proposed, none of the three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would be less than 90 feet in length. The Solar Access standards allow an exemption from compliance with the Basic Standard due to loss of project density that would occur through compliance with the lot. size standard. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for this type of adjustment to the solar access standards. Future development of structures on the new parcels requires compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility provisions. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontaae: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot-wide access easement. 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may detennine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 6 Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor re creation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accesswav: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Fooodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have a minimum of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street. The standards for setbacks and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures prior to the issuance of Building Permits, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Lots 2 and 3, as proposed, meet the definition of a flag lot. Shared access has not been proposed as part of this development. Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, direct individual access can occur from each new proposed development site to SW 92nd Avenue. A flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lots 2 and 3. The driveway screening plan that was provided complies with the screening standard as stated in Criteria 6. Flag lot setback standards that address necessary screening requirements will be applied for these sites through the Building Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, is not applicable to this request because the applicant has provided direct frontage from each newly created parcel to SW 92nd Avenue. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10-foot-wide minimum paved driveway to serve each new building site. Criteria 10 has been met because the property is not located within the 100-year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100-year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 . DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 7 PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Grading, Erosion Control and Site Permits are also addressed below: STREETS: This site lies adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. SW Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this' site. No additional right-of-way (ROW) dedications or street improvements are necessary: SW 92nd Avenue SW 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to provide 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.164.030(A)(1)(a) states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030(A)(1)(c) states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. Although this development will incrementally increase the amount of traffic on the roadway, the increase will not substantially degrade the level of service on the street. A street improvement adjacent to this site, therefore, will not significantly improve the safety or capacity of the street. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement with the City, whereby, the owner agrees to participate in any future widening projects for the street carried out through a Local Improvement District. This agreement must be executed prior to approval of the final plat. WATER: This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing eight (8)-inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 8 STORM DRAINAGE: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast comer of the 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to direct the storm drain lines from the three (3) lots across the adjacent property (also owned by the applicant), directly south and tie into the existing storm pipe in Greenburg Road. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. However, the R&O includes a provision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partitions. It would be impractical to require an on-site water quality facility to accommodate treatment of the storm water from Parcel 2. Rather, the R&O provides that applicants should pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate. Staff recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this application. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines adjacent to SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. SITE PERMIT REQUIRED: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 9 V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Private storm sewer improvements shall be constructed in the proposed utility easement to accommodate all roof and underfloor drains for all three (3) proposed lots. A site permit shall be obtained for these improvements prior to recording. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so the homes can be located easily. No other staff comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Sanitary Sewer Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. Storm Sewer Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. Water Qualb Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. The Tualatin Valley Water District reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Water meters shall be located out of traffic areas and or out of any sidewalk areas, if applicable. No other agency comments or objections have been received. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97.8010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 10 n PR A SECTION VII: 0 EDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATIQN Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners _X Owner of record within the required distance _X Affected government agencies Final Decision: DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY. AUGUST. 18,1997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE: FOR. FILING: OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 PM:ON:.:AUGUST.18, 1997 Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. 47~ August 7. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP ( a ~ 1 ,cam APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdo DATE Planning Manager L\CURPLNWIARK RWLP97-10.0EC NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010. DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 11 • iVKwM~ ~•pvM t INw Sv N~ ♦AtiO µDUSE s 89.4 4 p a 106.57 Y DoT z _..-222 ~ ~ LET 1. 218-_... cr, .ci 116 ' $,Aa dta oS 2 14 .J ~ 119,7 S VOE° CAICH a . ii« w .wry ♦V/ F IRE HY DR ANT _ 4 NER TL~P14 OpmIlS 10 CURB 1 JGV J.~ APP1.S DO`jNING LI Std V~►1ER CAtCN-3041" 81UE 0 230972 P.1G~,R0 OR 972$1-0972 ..1N MAp 1S13'50 I A% UD 92ND AVENUE pARTI?tl DoW1'I1NG A MLP 9?" 00jo _ .f ?LO 1 Dpy~~TA ' ~i i T Gam` . • t ~i.OQ10 p AR.T,~-~pN t4G N : ~lp 92Np AVE~'"~VE Dow", fin NI~►p v Exhibit B Resolution No. 97-3s City Council Condition of Approval for Minor Land Partition, Downing, 92nd Avenue - MLP 97-0010: Applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Director for approval, a tree plan that demonstrates how, and assures that, the trees identified for retention on Exhibit 1 shall be protected and retained. After the tree plan is implemented (those identified for removal are removed), should it be determined by an arborist that these specified trees must be removed, due to disease or damage, those trees shall be replaced with fir trees of a minimum of four inches in caliper in a location as close as practical to location of the trees removed. This condition shall apply until occupancy of the individual dwellings. iAadm\cathy\counciRccdown.doc 4 ;4 David B. Smith Kerry & Wes Gavett Attorncy for Applicant 11435 SW 92nd Avenue 6975 SW Sandburg #130 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 David Halstead Tom Strong 4490 SW 160th Avenue 11465 SW 92nd Avenue Beaverton, Oregon 97007 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Miles Downing B. Krauss P.O. Box 230972 11495 SW 92nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97281-0972 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Linda Eaton Jack Frechette 9625 SW Lewis Lane 11300 SW 92nd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Terry Smith Mark Mahon 11480 SW 92nd 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 oop•qjo3Eds\or\wpe\ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) I, 1i ayld f 11 I~ , hereby certify: Please Print That I am a F-M tOsj r F. for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council Fi In a, l 0 rde c 1DoWfNinq AL? 9:3 -001 Q CRI'Sktuti'on q? g) of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the (1 day of Sf'DtiAnn 19 9 by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit 13), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of S lip fn iv- 1991, postage prepaid. Prepared Notice A~~- Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of c-,~ ~ rk b4,,k 19 Notary Public of Oregon S~ 0 ~Q My Commission Expires: h:\login\cathy\afofmail OFFICIAL SEAL CATHERINE WHEATLEY NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 042176 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 10, 1999 0 4P EXHIBIT A F D CE O ECLSION' NOTI. M1N:OR !LAND PARTITION MLP'197 :0010 f::; . CITY OF TIOARD unlf ;DtJilo nt.........:.. i.: ~ i i;;.;:::iii:; iti:.::::. ~ >,a Bctltr Conimunil P TITI:ON: S D:OM I N , VzN A ; _ r!na y........ SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0010 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of approximately .61 acres into three (3) parcels of 7,570 square feet, 8,040 square feet and 7,771 square feet. APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same P.O. Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97281- 0972 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single-Family Residences. LOCATION: 11000 Block of SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION Notice's hereby given that the Clty of Tigard Comrnunlty Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above'request subject to conditions :of approval The findin s and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted, m Section IV NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 1 • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL C ORDINGTHE:FINAL PLAT THE FOL RE LOWING RIOR ;CONDITIONS SHALL:BE:SA ff.< on aII be. B rian Ra er in the (Unless otherwise noted, the sta c tact sh g En9meerm De arfinent. 503 639-4171 . ( 1 1. A Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary and storm sewer lateral connections and any other work in the public right-of-way (ROW). The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. This permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to approval of the final plat. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right-of-way (ROW) shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to improve SW 92nd Avenue. 6. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 7. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 2 0 • B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS. 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The right-of-way (ROW) dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. . PRIOR TO ISSUANCE.0 F BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING , GONDITION:S SHALL BE SATISFIED 10. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site, the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Department to cover all grading for the lots, all on-site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and all driveway construction. NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right-of-way (ROW). 11. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. 12 Prior to issuance of the building permits for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot. 13. The applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 14. Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement in accordance with the approved flag lot screening plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. ALL BE V LID FO A R .T T THIS.A ..P PROVAL SH 8.MON HS: FROM;THE_ EFFECTIVE , . DATE OF THIS DECISION . SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The subject property is presently undeveloped. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The property presently contains approximately 51 trees of varying sizes. Many of these trees are larger fir trees of over 20 caliper inches each. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 3 • On March 27, 1997, the City issued a decision to conditionally approve Minor Land Partition 97-0002 that included the property that is the subject of the current partition proposal. On April 4, 1997, the City issued an amended decision for MLP 97-0002. The amended decision was issued because a street was created through the previous approval. The March 27, 1997 decision should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant requested that the Minor Land Partition be re-issued with revised Conditions of Approval reflecting the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, neighboring property owners filed an appeal of this decision. At the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to June 16, 1997, to allow the applicant and neighboring property owners to try to resolve issues related to the appeal. The applicant withdrew Minor Land Partition 97-0002 before the continued hearing was held by the Planning Commission. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant now proposes to partition a portion of the original MLP 97-0002 site. This area is a separate legal lot that was created by deed in 1945. The applicant proposes to create three (3) new sites to develop new single-family residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Stu-ft: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right-of-way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right-of-way and completion of a waiver statement. An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and has agreed to dedicate an additional five (5) feet of right-of-way (ROW) along the property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The applicant has also agreed to provide a waiver of non-remonstrance against any future formation of a Local Improvement District for any future street improvements that are constructed on SW 92nd Avenue. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II (Resolution 95-61), TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 4 Street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $1,690. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $5,070.00 ($1,690 x 3 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $15,840.00 ($5,280 x 3 dwelling units). Because additional local street right-of-way (ROW) width does not add to either area or regional roadway capacity, no traffic impact fee credit has been provided in the past in relationship to required (ROW) dedication. For this reason, the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $10,770. For this reason, the project's traffic impact and the proposed local street right-of-way (ROW) dedication (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore meet the rough proportionality test. Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52). The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable development standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum after deduction of proposed right-of-way (ROW) and areas shown for access. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50-foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a .61 acre parcel within the R-4.5 Zoning District. The site has gross square footage of 26,850 square feet, after subtraction of areas to be dedication for public right-of-way (ROW) purposes, a net area of 26,400 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to three (3) dwelling units. The applicant has proposed to develop three dwelling units in compliance with this standard. Because the site has less than 100 feet of frontage on SW 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 does not require the planting of street trees. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 5 0 • street trees into the project along the site's SW 92nd Avenue frontage. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. The applicant has not proposed to construct new property improvements within the proposed clear vision areas next to driveways in compliance with Section 18.102. Through the Conditions of Approval the applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling in compliance with Section 18.108. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. The new parcels do not exceed a two and one-half to one, length to depth ratio. The 50-foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. As proposed, none of the three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would be less than 90 feet in length. The Solar Access standards allow an exemption from compliance with the Basic Standard due to loss of project density that would occur through compliance with the lot size standard. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for this type of adjustment to the solar access standards. Future development of structures on the new parcels requires compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility provisions. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lo e : The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot-wide access easement. 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 6 Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have a minimum of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street. The standards for setbacks and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures prior to the issuance of Building Permits, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Lots 2 and 3, as proposed, meet the definition of a flag lot. Shared access has not been proposed as part of this development. Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, direct individual access can occur from each new proposed development site to SW 92nd Avenue. A flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lots 2 and 3. The driveway screening plan that was provided complies with the screening standard as stated in Criteria 6. Flag lot setback standards that address necessary screening requirements will be applied for these sites through the Building Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, is not applicable to this request because the applicant has provided direct frontage from each newly created parcel to SW 92nd Avenue. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10-foot-wide minimum paved driveway to serve each new building site. Criteria 10 has been met because the property is not located within the 100-year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100-year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 7 • • PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Grading, Erosion Control and Site Permits are also addressed below: STREETS: This site lies adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. SW Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent to this site. No additional right-of-way (ROW) dedications or street improvements are necessary. SW 92nd Avenue SW 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to provide 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.164.030(A)(1)(a) states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030(A)(1)(c) states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. Although this development will incrementally increase the amount of traffic on the roadway, the increase will not substantially degrade the level of service on the street. A street improvement adjacent to this site, therefore, will not significantly improve the safety or capacity of the street. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement with the City, whereby, the owner agrees to participate in any future widening projects for the street carried out through a Local Improvement District. This agreement must be executed prior to approval of the final plat. WATER: This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing eight (8)-inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 8 0 STORM DRAINAGE: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast corner of the 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to direct the storm drain lines from the three (3) lots across the adjacent property (also owned by the applicant), directly south and tie into the existing storm pipe in Greenburg Road. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. However, the R&O includes a provision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partitions. It would be impractical to require an on-site water quality facility to accommodate treatment of -the storm water from Parcel 2. Rather, the R&O provides that applicants should pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate. Staff recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this application. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines adjacent to SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. SITE PERMIT REQUIRED: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 9 0 SECTION V: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Private storm sewer improvements shall be constructed in the proposed utility easement to accommodate all roof and underfloor drains for all three (3) proposed lots. A site permit shall be obtained for these improvements prior to recording. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so the homes can be located easily. No other staff comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Sanitary Sewer: Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. Storm Sewer: Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. The Tualatin Valley Water District reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Water meters shall be located out of traffic areas and or out of any sidewalk areas, if applicable. No other agency comments or objections have been received. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 10 • • SECTION VII: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X_ Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL.BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 11997 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED Appeal Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specified below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE F:;OR FILING.; OF AN APPEAL IS 3430 P M ON;AUGUST 18, 1'9.9 Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. A~~ August 7. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP 3140z"'Og August 7. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdo DATE Planning Manager 1:%CURPLNUNARK RWLP97-10.DEC NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 11 • W + Z OVK~ a."0~ ~1.4vlat ~ HOUSE 11 at lIV 94wpw 11115 iv tltl W 1 J p r N fY rARD ►W- avMMG Y 3 106.57 88.44 0 ~ fU T La 1 0% LOT 2 co 222 Lu Y Q A 22 W 9~ °vK• i V ♦ tan tv LEWIS L. z LOT 3 Y 216 z .................................r'A.:~. CIS►+E D os OS;9 214 C. y SW 91%1 -e . S RM vatCP CATCH C. FIRE HYDRANT :;:;WtC""""'° 21c" Q r s OvK• to n+ rrat +16..e V+ ~4'~'a .v~r 210 TOPM DPAIII; TO CURB O SICOM VAiER CAIC"-BASIN APPLICANT /OWNER \ MILES DOWNING P.O. BOX 230972 TIGARD OR 97281-0972 LOCATION MAP IS135DC V TAX LOT 6701 • PLOT PLAN c~A,s~ No. DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION EXHIBIT MAP I MLP97-0010 ~I T pp,KOTA 1 I ...o su awe ER C~ ' ~ p(VIIT ~ ' ~Y s I It ~ CQ CY) mwwm w , I ` N MLP 91.0010 ~ a NING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION o0W 1fic~n~~ M a w.ny„ynun 1S135DC-07300 1S135DC-07200 ALLEN, ALMA M BELL, CARROLL M& FLORENCE P vv EXHIBIT 11640 SW 91ST 11600 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARb,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-02700 1S135DC-07400 BURKS, MARK J & CANTRELL, PATRICIA A & CARROLL SHERI QUAINTANCE 11700 SW GREENBURG 5968 VISTA DE LA LUZ TIGARD,OR 97223 WOODLAND HILLS,CA 91367 1S135DC-07000 1S135DB-04900 CEARLEY, MICHAEL D AND CORTESE, ANGELO & ROSINA ANGEL WAGGONER, NADINE 15175 SW SUNRISE LN 11675 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-03800 1S135DC-06000 CRAIG, DAVID WAND VICKI R DALTON, LEN F & MARY M 11420 SW 92ND 6906 SW TAYLORS FERRY RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-03000 1S135DC-06900 DEGROOD, AL MNIRGINIA E DRENNA, JOHN W & 22730 SW CHAPMAN RD BURNETT, JOHN F & STEPHANIE A SHERWOOD,OR 97140 PO BOX 23603 TIGARD,OR 97281 1S135DB-03000 1S135DB-04700 EATON, LINDA L & RICHARD B GAVETT, WESTON C & KERRY L 9625 SW LEWIS LN 11435 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-04600 1S135DB-00400 GLAUBKE, JOHN A & MARY MARTHA HOFFMAN, MICHAEL J CO TRUSTEES 11475 SW 90TH AVE 11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S135DB-00600 1S135DB-02900 JACKSON, LINDA J JUNGWIRTH, RANDY PAUL 11545 SW 90TH AVE 1450 SE POWELL BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97202 1 S135DB-05000 1 S135DB-04901 KARBSTEIN, BRUNO TRUSTEE KNAUSS, BARBARA J 11580 SW GREENBURG RD 11495 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-03700 1S135DC-07100 KOLMODIN, NORMAN B LOWRY, MARYLEE A MARY LOU 11595 SW 91 ST 11450 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 DOWNIY4 gi6,5A 4k6 /AeR77OA/ 114L-P ql-eo/o 0 1S135DC-02600 1S135DC-06100 LURVEY, DANIEL C MACKEY, DANIEL MORRIS & PATRIC 11665 SW GREENBURG RD 11690 SW 92ND AVE r'~` ~7 TIGARb,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 EXHIBIT ]a 1S135DB-01900 1S135DC-08200 MCHORSE, MICHAEL COME AND MOLITOR, LAWRENCE R/NANCY L MICHELE LYNN 11587 SW 90TH AVE 11440 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-01800 1S135DB-01600 O'CALLAGHAN, COLLEEN C RAMIREZ, JOSE C/MARIA 17780 OVERLOOK CIRCLE 11560 SW 91ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-06500 1S135DB-02800 SABRE, REMI HECTOR SANDBO, JOHN R AND DONNA M 11665 SW 92ND AVE TRAUBA, DONNA M TIGARD,OR 97223 11475 SW 91ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S1350C-06700 1S135OB-02700 SHAW, LLOYD P DOROTHY J SIMONSEN, RORY L & 11600 SW GREENBURG RD ADAMS, CINDY L TIGARD,OR 97223 11435 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-03600 1S135DB-05100 SMITH, TERRENCE WAND SNEIDEMAN, HARRY E LISA R 11570 SW GREENBURG RD 11480 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-02602 1S135DB-04800 SPARTAN HOMES, INC STRONG, THOMAS LAND ROXANN S 2900 BRISTOL ST #13205 11465 SW 92ND AVE COSTA MESA,CA 92626 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-05200 1S135DB-04902 TAYLOR, ROLLAND S :131 IGARD, ITY SHIRLEY L 25 ALL 25133 MCCLUN RD RD,OR 97223 SWEET HOME,OR 97386 1S135DC-03002 1S135DC-06300 TIGARD, CITY VANWORMER, IDA M 13125 ALL 4224 NE 102ND RD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97220 1S135DB-01700 1S135DC-06400 WEINSTEIN, KATHLEEN R WEYRAUCH, LORRAINE D AND GLENN 11520 SW 91 ST AVE 11585 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 0 1 S135DB-00500 1 S135DC-06200 WHITE, PAUL UBARBARA A WHITE, STEVE J 11495 SW 90TH AVE 11670 SW 92ND AVE TIGARU,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-06800 WILKINSON, VARIA J MILES DOWNING 11630 SW GREENBURG RD PO BOX 230972 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97281-0972 0 9 )6..Jlkmi AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CRY OFTIOARD Community (Developmtnt Shaping,4 c1letter Community ST, 4 E OAF O(EGOX ) County of Washington ) ss. City of TWatd ) I, Patrlda L Lunsford, being first duly swom/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (owMINKIII aw) own NYOt~tMrlbl (Chu* I I ~IW ba bow) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission 0 Tigard City Council That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED DE ISION FOR: cta.e•w+•.~...e+ut• City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED FINAL ORDER FOR: (Cudtsm.~ImbabN~w} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council ❑ That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISIONMOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICEM of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A" as mailed to each name person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhih .,p the day of 1991, and deposited in the United States Mail on the 1~ day of 1991, postage prepaid. tPe at Prep otl Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of - , 19 OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY 1214'~ COMMISSION PUBLICNO 046 O42 NOT Y PUBLIC OF DREGO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, iggg MV fiQ01n111swon EKPI INFP- 2t7 uwft-'Nvn~~Q Zen ~'ZWIWIAZ44 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Slut ingABetterCommuni ::::;L'>~M!>'•''>r<>r z <'````E>EEEEEEE>E>E><<E>><zz> FILE NO(S): MINOR LAND PARTITION [MLPI 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing a OWNER: Same PO Box 230972 ri Tigard, OR 97281-097 (503) 684-1334 ~1 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 Zoning District is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY DATE COMMENTS DUE: Monday - July 21,1991 X STAFF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: Thursday - AagaSt7,1997 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7.30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PROJECT RELATED COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION 'SC PING PLAN NARRATIVE M X VICINITY MAP LAND _ ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER: R89L01 Screening Plan STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division 503-6394171 x317 MLP 97-0010 DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4 LAND. PARTITION APPLICATION - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX. (503) 6847297 CITY OF TIOARD GENERAL INFQRMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: DATE OF PRE-APP.: Property Address/Location(s): //-S-/O FOR STAFF USE Qldf X Tax Map & Tax lot #(s): 407- 670 / _ r. Case No.(s).:'- 7 -C 0 l Site Size: ~2 S SO Other Case No. s Property Owner/Deed Holder(s) . MILES [)Ol,.) /V /yG, Reicaliot ' <<,: ; i~ . Q- 30)4 cQ 3O97~ Phone: cS~ y / Application Accepted "4 Address: Ci T/4AR OR Zip: 7a2 Date: -95 37 ;SUpM b QQW A)/ /U6 Date Determined To Be Complete ; . Aft"M P-0, 00A 30 7-2 Phone: 6 8 y -/3J Y F ; r=<<:<:.:. h. 50~: OR, 1 Zi ~7e261-d272 City: T/ P~ Comp Plan/Zone Designation. When the. orviner and the applicant are different people, the aPPlicantti CITArea must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written , authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written Recording Date and Number authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. - Pm• ar2m tw wn t PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request permission to allow a Land Partition to: 9-M QUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS divide ~ into '(total area) of parcels) containing AMA 7.5-70 and AWx80 Lio -1 Application Elements Submitted. -~sq. Tor acres) (sq. 11 r acres) ❑ Application Form ~ L4 ❑ Owner's SignaturelWritten Authoriaati ~ 7 7 -7/ y ❑ Title Transfer Instrument o mm e (provide any additional information here) ❑ Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'h-x 11°) ❑ Applicant's Statement of copies based on pre-app check list) f2 ❑ Filing Fee $780.00 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBM17TA1 F EMEbM iii described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Intbrmation sheets can be obtained, upon request, fbr all types of Land Use Applications.) iME APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found M any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of gagh owner of the subject property. DATED this day of 19-!1~7 Owners Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owners Signature 2 i • t i 1 i SO . L.OM1T CAS T, 1 solo RTiT1ON N MLp o p AVENUE PA ` pOWNiN~ 92N ini~ Maa W owc• Z nm ce s•I+r MIS ~tv "m HOUSE 8 tw H ti VA cc TARD ; W_ •vnU6 o0 106.57 88.44 oc ~u Q 2 t m LOT LET 2 m 222 V >r 220 W 1. C Ttlt..w. ►bdA t.+t•. . %ft tv ttvit ♦M ` ~ 3 116 06 LOT 3 r lD.~ Z. SHED 140 214 t ~ tip •+r.~ . z ~ 4t y~ yr o~• b' i s . MIS t`till S 1 VAT(D CATCH 9 Hasa t„ tict«s~c of FIRE H'Y D P, A il T a`: vn.tta F--L C 1 C icoft awma 210 LIL TOP.M DRAIIIS Tg CURB O STQRH VATCP CATCH BASIN APPLICANT/OWNER MILS > P P.D. E BOXO230972 TIGARD OR 97281-0972 LOCATION 14AP 1S1350C V TAX LOT 6701 c PLO T PLAN CASE NO. n ~ 1 B 1 T M A I' ~t MDOWNING LP 97- 010 D AVENUE PARTITION Mrt ,pow r • o ~ V, p'~ A s 9 po rn 07, i7L 1m ~ ~ - Olt ~+g it ir. . - •'M1{Sq. 1. . tt, L >i ~'i'~l ~ . t t / ~ ` •'t:;' f1~1 ,Ca fp+t{aAN w~, 1 / .S,t ~~4ryryt ~ ,~tiL ~ yip '1~ • L:~~ i t ~ i tl CITY OF TIGARD OREGON July 8, 1997 Miles Downing P.O. Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97281-0972 Re: Notice of Complete Submittal For MLP 97-0010 Dear Miles: This letter is in response to your recent submittal for Minor Land Partition (MLP 97-0010). The Planning Division has determined that this application is complete. A tentative date of August 7, 1997 has been scheduled for issuance of the decision. If no appeals are filed, the decision is tentatively scheduled to be final on August 18, 1997. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 Sincerely, Mark Roberts Associate Planner, AICP iAcurplnUna rk_ft1p97-10.1et c: MLP 97-0010 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 49AM FRO Beaverton Foursquare CM TO ,6_30-199 11 ~P CA- VU 6je ~ -V 40 ,gyp ~ atk5C <a+ LA Y - , s uk 1- 4 6J 0 07/01/97 09:10 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 0 001 - ~ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaa ACTIVITY REPORT aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa TRANSMISSION OR TX/RX NO. 0684 CONNECTION TEL 1 503 526 0244 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/01 09:09 USAGE TIME 00'43 PAGES 1 RESULT OR 06-30-1997 l l t 49AM FROM Beaverton Foursque Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Owe 1pa9es► l To From COJDept ~r CO. C~ G► o~ Phone t Phone # - 1W Y+V-- 3► Fez A Fax fn~k 1A -7 ~D ~ 1 1 17 49 Gle4 --7-2,1 -7 0 A Q, V N J MA, l ' If I I Q 41 JUL- 2-97 WED 23:08 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.01 IVULES DOWNING 684-1334 P.O BOX 230972 968-5798 fax TIGARD OR 97281-0972 6/24/97 TO: CITY OF TIGARD ATTN. JIM HENDRIX MAAA A06 RE: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.12 IN'T'ERPRETATION Mr Hendrix Please provide me and the record with an interpretation of coxnercial forestry and it application in regards to land use decisions. THANK YOU NIILES DOWNING Spe [(ed 4ecj cXI-tA `f ( n 15 sfe_c-,0f e- ~v'GviS~ovts~pK Ccv VGqu~GTl eCq,+.)S ~-Sqo. ^I'Gis u o~- wttAev- au Rle- LV Vt. i IRS t Gr e"'M -t O~'~e. W ~ veGl O v` -t-n'f~v1~✓¢Y ~~C~ ~O1''~ `ttLQ IPIe u wi k Go.tM SS1b+1 ce~ }'L( :-::Q L41 e we e Lu 44, a wav. (A9 o c,,- ti ~p s 4a y©ct~'. ^u cca 07/03/97 14:47 e503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 9001 aaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaasasasasaa saa ERROR TX REPORT aaa sssaaasasasaaaasaaaaaaaaaaa TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO. 0814 CONNECTION TEL 9685798 CONNECTION ID START TIME 07/03 14:47 USAGE TIME 00'00 PAGES 0 RESULT NG 0 #018 JUL- 2-97 WED 23108 MILES DOWNING 9685796 p.01 40~,h, MILES DOWNING 684-1334 P.O BOX 230972 968-5798 fax TIGARD OR 97281-0972 Postir Fax Note 7671 owe ►7 3 11 pagw To ¢f K From e / CoJDepL O W 2"7 Phone # (Q6 4- ! 33 Phone # Fax # 6064- b 4 . ,-5'`T Fan k id TO: CITY OF TICIARD E KF3 Q ATTN. JIM HENDWX M A:A A AA RE: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.12 INTERPRETATION Mr Hendrix Please provide me and the record with an interpretation of wMercial forestry and it application in regards to land use decisions. THANK YOU MILES DOWNING « 06-30-1997 11:50AM FROM Beaverton Foursquare CM TOO 6847297 P.02 • y*V, + P -7 -Zrl -7 0) tv 0--f f AAJ V%-A-~ 3 June 24,1997 To: The Tigard City Council and Mr. Tim Henrdyx C/O Mr. Dick &vmrWarf The purpose of our appearance before the Council tonight is to formally regaest that the City conduct a hearing to consider the following findings which have been presented to the city in a previous petition to the city as contained within the file MLP 97 0002. 1. The possibility that there is mistake in the zoning as the city has applied it to those properties which adjoin SW 92nd Ave Most of the basis for our finding is the fact that we believe that development as allowed by the zoning the city has applied will cause a diminution in the c3dst g quality of life. 2. We find that our grove of trees are large and unique to this pant of the city and are an integral part of the value our properties hold. We find that the viability of the grave as it exists on multiple properties as well as the existing property values will be threatened by any development which does not ensure that the grove remain substantially unaltered. We would also like to discuss possible inconsistencies or needed adjustments with the municipal code Although current zoning offsrs the potential for development for properties which are already developed, none of the existing owners see that as beneficial to our values, rather because of this we would like to restrict it to that which was the original pattern and intent. The property which has the most potential for development in the immediate future is the one which has raised all these issues by reason of the recent development application which has since been withdrawn. This property will access SW 92nd which was ercatcd for our neighborhood and serves only those properties which are consistent with each other. By this consistency we reinforce the values from one property to the next. We are aware that another application is eminent and so we want to resolve these issues which we have already raised with the director before that application is submitted or during the comment period time. We can demonstrate that reasonable development which is consistent with the c;dsting development can occur and would be weloomc. We know that what Mr. Downing is proposing will only benefit him at the expense of those who were there long before. These infill sites can have a major impact good or detrimental on existing development The City has stated that it will prohibit detrimental development to protect the residents of our area, we are looking forward to the City's assistance in these matters. Thank you for your time. The Property Owners on SW 92nd Ave, Tigard. • Post-it® Fax NotGmk 7871 Date -F -es 6 1 p 2 r To - r (711 Ilpklll~ From Co./Dept. / Co. ' d (r 2 G O (2 1 I Phone # 2-7-Z _ / 7tqo Phone # $85 Fax # ~ `Zn Fax # ~ - / 586 _ J '7 --7 247 7 587 co 'W `9 ~✓odQ- o~(-~'~i l~ 15 1 eta c y tva f woo S m s~4Q.-7 O31 Iw V- .4L--- 59o Five feet along the properties SW 92ND street frontage will be given to the city of 591 Tigard for the street right-of-way, the applicant specifically concurs with the 592 dedication being roughly proportional to impacts generated by future construction 593 on the subject parcel as a result of the newly created lots. A non-remonstrance 594 agreement will be given to the City of Tigard in lieu of street improvements, 595 because it is unlikely that SW 92nd(a dead end street) will be improved and the 596 minor partition under review does not by itself provide a significant improvement 597 to street safety or capacity. 598 Properties surrounding the subject parcel have existing residential 599 structures that would prevent the extension of a new street through to SW 91st 60o Avenue, and the proximity to Greenburg Road would make a new road between 601 91st and 92nd impractical. Public transportation moves in both directions along 602 SW Greenburg Road. Turnouts and bus stops exist on the northwest and southeast 03 corners of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. Bike lanes exist on both sides of 04 Greenburg Road for travel in either direction. Sidewalks exist on both sides of 05 Greenburg Road for pedestrian use. See the Vicinity map included with this 06 application. 07 08 18.164.040 Blocks 609 COMMENT 610 SW 92nd Avenue is a dead end street that does not, and would not if completed, 611 exceed 1800 feet. Because of existing development surrounding the property a 612 pedestrian/bikeway would not be possible or practical. A sidewalk and a bike lane 613 exist along Greenburg Road less than 135 from the property. 614 615 OTHER 616 There are no noise sources on the property. Noise sources off site are regular ra c noise from SW Greenburg Road. 619 DEED OF RECORD 62o Two separate purchases of two separate parcels of land were made at two separate 621 times and were recorded separately on separate pages in separate books in the 622 records of Washington County. On September 27,1945 the subject parcel was 623 deeded separately to B. W. Robison and lucinda Robison from Mollie B. Dykes. 624 Then in On June 12, 1946 approximately nine months later the Robison 625 purchased another parcel of land from Mrs. Dykes. See Washington County 626 Deeds of Records number 4407 book 249 page 391, and number 3018 book 260 627 page 601 included with this application. The book and page numbers of the 628 recordings are listed on the deeds and on the Dogwood Ridge subdivision map 629 included with this. application. Robison then sold both parcels to P. Val Hoge and 630 , Enid M. Hoge in 1947(recording number 7068) who sold the two parcels to Lloyd 631 P and Dorothy J. Shaw(recording number 230476 book 426 page 800) who sold 632 the property to Miles Downing in 1997 (doc: 97047536 rect: 186933) who 633 deeded the parcel to himself in 1997 providing the Deed of Record for the subject 634 parcel of this application. The two separate parcels of land remained under 635 single ownership up to now, and were listed under the same deed from 1946 until 636 June 20 of 1997, seethe current deed of record included with this application. 637 Copies of the other deeds mentioned are included with this application. Deeds 638 previous to 1945 are not necessary to prove the parcels were separate. The above 639 information proves the subject parcel to be a legal parcel of land separate from 64o any other parcel. 641 642 SW 92ND A VENUE 643 It may be interesting to some people to note that SW 92 Avenue was previously 644 named Robison Avenue. This name appears to come from the owner of the subject 645 parcel, in other words the street in front of the property was named after the owner 646 way back when. .4 4 ~ ST I i DA~(OTA } n i Il ` ~ a ~ O LONt1TA Q ,.erns LN , I I- • ~SQ~-t4d~ TAN C ~ ~ F„ ~ I III Jill q,~: S N Vicinitv Map • NCATES FLAG LOT DI S v DVICR Z QVNIR REND. as(vlat o t([P[IL[ [M11N II]1] Sv 91St _J HOUSE o 1160 S'~ Y2N0 N CLI ra-D o APPLICANT/OWNER Li Lr! raRD = MILES DOwrrUdG PVNING SHED P.O. BOX 230972 1 3 106.57 88.44 o TIGARD ❑R 97281-0972 - -4' 00- o (U R s (u 2 LOCATION MAP L❑T 1 LOT TAX LOT 6701 222 V co > s CIZ b ' n O W A 220 197 Dvrca v - DICK Ar.D LINDA CA10N 9L:'] SW LEWIS Ltf - //6 °6 ' 's Q, 218 9 L❑T 3 r 216 9 f 0 t SHE D l r h 214 c fv E ` le`a ~RG SF J `y~ •.r 4c= U~ILR O / t9y M"a LCC LDWat Z 11]9] SW 9111 S WATER CATCH Se j VVARIA WILra1SDN V. EIRE HYDRANT 6 92 7W 6RCCNRtRG RD 212 0 C O b*4 Mf" O [dx 2)6 E36 ^ 0) IICPRD ,1 V 63 679-]792 l G 210 JUNE 26 1957 TORM DRAINS TO CURB S70RM WATER CATCH BASIN NORTH SCALE 1 50' FORM Na 961 - BARGAIN AND SALE DEED - ST RY FORM OndlyMusl STEVENS-kESS ►ww PUBUSaNO CO. PORTIJWD OR oram Ns E OF OREGON County of Washington SS MILES L. DOWNING I, Jerry R_ 'Hanson; Director of Assess- ment and Taxation '.and.'Ex=Officio County QE Clerk for said county,.do-.hereby certify that -L------- CL~ 2. -1 the within Instrument of writing was received G antwi Nama and Addraaa and recorded In book of records of said M-11T1 S - S ----DC}LV 1-P3C----------------------- county.: z; •4 _ 6.7 77 2 c- 116 Gmram's Name and Ad&@" SPACE RESERVED ^•:✓:•~".~.~J / Aftwmo1°'"a'ratumto(Mmm'Addnne.ZI ' FOR -~--i;.'Jerry R: Hanson, Director of ---MILES L. DOWNING RECORDERS USE `OAssessmentandTaxation, Ex- 5 l,J G /Y - ~ Officio County Clerk Q Z 2 l---------------- Doc 9 7 0 5 6 4 4 4 untll requaatad *&mvfaa, awW aII tax solamaena t0 (tanw Adam., Zip): Re c t : 188611 3 8 . 0 0 __NO CHANGE 06/20/1997 08:38:19am BY Deputy. BARGAIN AND SALE DEED - STATUTORY FORM ONIWDUAL GRANTOR) MILES L. DOWNING - Grantor, conveys to MILES L. DOWNING Grantee, the following real property situated in --_-WASHINGTON--_ County, Oregon, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'A' OF SPACE INSUFFICIENT, CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE) ii The true consideration for this conveyance is S0 _00 (Here, with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) j Ij II Dated this _19THday of JUNE 19_-- 9 //GJ'~O I THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU- MILES L. DOWNING LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. SPATE OF OREGON, County of ___WA______SH_INGTON ) ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on JUNE 19 , 199 by MILES L. DOWNING OFFiCIAL SEAL - r! DEANNA McK1ERNAN~C~if~~.------------------------------- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 0Public for li COMMISSION NO. A025989 Notary Oregon 7 lr, n.1v rnMMICCInN EXPIRES JULY 11. 1997 My commission expires EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 890 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 00 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 650 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 00 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 880 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 890 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 00 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. W-4. MA i71 CCRiidtrati0f1 OJ....-» • 7t a...n.rs... Dollars, ~IS~~IL.XAZlig.~Q t!ensid~r~Zlsse• t~.. ber~...» .pasd Dy....r ~.n~iStO.~ gf? [tA ..kN,Q1AQg.. Flow Dr-. Wband.-Alld..itilso.......... do.... hereby grant, *bargain, sell and cr%rejr rnto said r. •.....RC~liDD..tiD4 Lucinda Ttob..?.QA....pbaad........................................... E;q L.... • •j irs and assigns, oil the following real propertd, with the few. ments. herreiiiamenis and appurtenenew rihtated is the . County of....... R:ashington .._...bad State of Orego+i, bounded and described as foAows, to-wit. TRACT 2-- Beginning at a point ILLhe north line of th' John Fiicklin vLC which bears 5.890341 W. 968_88 feet from the RF corner of said clainj thence S.0°Olt W. 1003:0 feet to a pipe at thr true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence, -N.65°38130 " W..219.53 feet to a pipej thence N.00011E. 87.50 fe^t; thence S.890599E. 200.00feet; thence S.00019W. 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. FFSTRI M ON IT IS AGREED th-t for h perloa of 20 vpars from -nuary 20th. 1945 the property herein conveyed shall ba use: t'or residence purposes only ana only by cambers of the Caucasian r:.cr, thrt no residence shall be constructed costinf less than 13,500.U0 an,i•no Duildine shall b- constructe_ less than 40 fret from 'he street line or 10 feet from the property line. oil To'arr n t Hotel, the abnre described and granted prenai-trs unto the said 3.►~.~;obf son ..n-i Luc.i.nd.a. Robi•son,•._hus.bbnd.•.una .,A . . .their ..hrirs o!-d •~r.~;t,,.• . . ........n............ i.e...g...e5.,. ..xisco~►'of..John...1;ew1*g..Dyk.es.~...dpc'esSol, the arnn,or above ••nmrd ~0.0.1.R covenant to and with the above named prantee5....... h)!f r... t sirx and she ........................«:i(;;U:~ :C.:ZQ M fc...rr.ic :.f c.. ; .s:..:!.. granted premises are free from all eneumbrances..........!............ . . : . . . . . ,ind that ...............wilt and..... .her..... heirs. cucutors and administrators. shall warrant and (.envier- h.: defend the above granted premises, and every part and parcel : •tereuf, against the lawful elite.,o of all persons whoa-soerer Ivitnoss....... ~............aand.... and seal _ _ ° ~ .»»..desp of. 9 Q Executed in the Plasma of / ..S..00O. A.4-0. ..(ScAL) (8lAL) (Beni.) . ,a. _,-web i .JC,,•i:: :.t 7 M: .~:p~ ._f+ ~.:?.fin •yw t nt'.t.~t4~ ,ice Ba 1T• ~.irillF ' . _ A. D.1 4 s 'I ty taw .y,.l. ~ ._r !t . _ _ _ JMtt~l 1 i _ •R T rai: % _ tO~t i0.~f 00j, MAO AISlrvUest and aekno+vl- 11111112111111"Id ths -some -1-?* V. ; :.`s • , 1M TE.gl7YOvN ~ lYB~P ovato od.my *'-otd and i offidoi -gut abore written. / 0.L terry Public for Ortgovi. • ~_....._.:`i.t,'1. alt.- _ . . -i:_ ii r,.ra 0,: c:a.:,., ..~bts@~~'eWrot s;stlCui ad .110 1l .C . i. it 1)1- j 1~ic; X3 S.t. Be 1) ykea otdow of C>cj 5/28/45 P. Jo1~n .:ewie Dykee, doctd lII~:) ~,,.T I WD t f .1f fJ yC'i to 01000. and ovc B,Wj Robison and Lucinda ;:.icsUfi •~lJ,f Robison, h&w Dl-•]3k 'yr49~~1,: ~I .q ...hby gbse all the fol. r ppty Bit in the Co of Wash and at of Ore bd as f ols t/w ! Tract 2; Baap in the iq line of the John Hicklin DLC which beers N 890 34' W 988.8p f t .from the NE cor of ad elm; III $ 00.Olt W 1003:0 ft to al pipe at the true pt of beg of the tr herein d#sc; thence N 850. 381 30" W 219.53 ft to a pip; th -IS 00 01' E 87.•50 f t;j, th S -89c, 591• E 200.00 ft; th S 00 01' W 180.00 ft to -the true' pt of beg. --ftstriction + it is agreed that for a period of 20 yrs from;s;Jan '40th 1945 tha ppty heretin conveyed -shall beused for resiidence.. purposes only and only ~by members of the Caucasian race, tfiO -no residence shall be constructed cosying loss than ~~a0,QO;rd;:nb~,buildi'ng- shalls! constructed less tha 40 ft from the st line or 16 ft frbm the ppty line. ' $ .55 IRS CAN ~ > ~ ) ` Sgd and Ack: ROW , Robison ~ ~ ; j;j ` Tigapd Oregon :Ij r ..l ,l. ••~~'•:1.~..• t t 1 rt'~1 r1.{: ```~:tt 110 00 i'•; 1•( `3 ••!i~'!-:? ''te'a` ~-If ~ •1 t1 l ii!0'-! n'.i.t.~~/. :~•t. S.. 1." t j ' i :i I i ' i e ;art Fti'r '.r f ''~f' J ? J j ter! a. i •.r ; t I . • • ter. L''.. L; W6 - Ai OW-Ad to bBL_..gsid by-,4- . _.r . ' berebt► !*a~r Mr~aM. ati! atti «t~i~r;Al,IM- A.J. l~isnn ~►acL~ :•Lieia~m f1nb1 jW", hpnbanri k nn _ 81P-l. M.48W awiewe. aK as /ouo+oiwp real property, wltA the tewe- ;I n#W herediO ownU and appwtewosa" attested is as COeoth of t nt•tnn wW SMts of Oregm bowndsd and deser4ed ps follows, to-wit: l I~ Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hieklir. Lont.tion Land Claim, situated in Section :5, Tap. 1S., Range 1 ipst of tt:r I »illamette Yeridlun and running thence S. SUO I .:est 990.AO rr•& thence South 00011 ::eat. u alstance of 10p2K.o feet; -thencr North O°* ~i I Wiest a aistance of $7.10 feet to the true point of he£innin, of th,? trect herein oescribedi thence continuing on sbls be4r1ne o: fb°:•5^r Zest b distance of M':-.v? fr-t; thence. £outli 00011 t.-sr I. d1st4ncc o1'10.0 feet; thence South :70430 :.cst i. sistbncr of feet to the Northerly line of Greenburf Road; thence follcrini• sbi•: Northerly line of Greenburg Road Sou ti, :.F°L•1/ £ast.a ;isti,r:-zr 117.05 feet; thence North L'@6101 East alst:.rcr of f -f-.t :o i. li the point of beginning. f~ ' i I To Have and to Hold. Ow abort di;aen7►cd and granted premi:•..r .•„tee rn• :::ill i~,.... nA...,a"1.sr lx_tUtu .Luci.nd& ho.LSson., LusLLca ura.; «1.I E I! . » Llicir. .:...k.4 told I:ssipn.• forerer abore earned do.r.; covenant to and with the above roamed grantees ...........Lhel2.. • ....A• i rt an..' a.+sign• i+ that........ seised in fee simlde of the aborr. grantee! +•rr»Iis". that the ob w granted premises are free fivw all enenw+braneee • _ . . . _ . _ _ _ » . . i I~ . and that she ...at Ow bar- ' laty04 ,Od idwsb4stratom, &MU warrant rtwd.jopow difead the sa600e pw&W tm obse, and a!'ery` •1Q "God 'pw+nl therwf. agaiW the lawtW claims and domende of dt persou whswooswr, ' . . • ..r~.~~~+.ilr •Miw iO P Y • , ...r._ _ wiften MX ^t~ , ; a'tt+//Ytsd 1» fi~ft'tsA~ ~~:K + MAL) I 7 -WW j~ STATa OF ORrOON, BE IT !:E'MEMBERED, TAW On tl►ia_.----_ _._,tr o!~__ .»1S 6Y D. I$ G_ belrr-r~ *►E, the .~diri+g+ud, .a .........._..:~~B~V P31~C._._... 1 M a+td tl.r ,a,d ementy and State .uMn~..llY w.....w~i.i IhI .n Yll~ '1 1. ..:iio111E..b~..itylses, .s. k1 daR ji _ ..».w__.r » who...... s............ kwow" i; to the to be the identical indiridwal...... described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowl.- odyed to. sae that She......................... ......executed the sane freely and oolwntargy. r' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hawd end j official seal the day and yens above written. ....~...a--...»....... Notary PabLt or Oregon. MY Con%twiesian eXpirVs......... i ' w 'r u ~ t o it o .i tj I: 'Ali :s O O e i # n . , 3018 June 12, 1946 Mollie B. Dykes, Wid of John 5J46 Lewis Dykes, dee 'd ju6 t to D O.D: and ov e s B. W. Bobison an d Lucin Robiaon, h8cw _ D !6t ...hby gbso all. the fol rp sitd in the Co of flesh and St of Ora, bdf , t/w: Beg at the NE cor of the John Hicklin DLC, sitd"in Sec 35,"_Tla,..,RIVI if the WM and rng th S 890341 TAT 96~M ft; Th S 0 01' W a distance of 1003.0 ft; th N 65 438*' W a distance of 97,10 ft to the true pt of beg of the tr herein dosed; th. continuing on Sd bearing of N- 65-q38i' W a distance of 122:43 ft; th S 0001' W a distance of 10.0 ft; th S 27P49' Wa distance of 126.12 ft to the Nly 11 of Greenburg Rd; t h folg eL g ad Nly li of Greenburg Rd r$ 56°51' E a distance of 117.08 ft; th N 2810' E a distance of 153.27 ft to the pt of beg. IB.;.i Robs qon Rt 2, Boa 241•...... Tigard;;` Oregon ~I .i r.,~ r i 1 I I ( vl - 'S :1 it ~ i ~ ~ 1 7068 r' ~B. W*!-.Robison and Nov 29, .1948", Lucinda RobisoM&w, ~ • - ~l - . • to • VJD 291 P. Val Hoge and/or ~ ~ Enid M. Hope, h&wp as 4 10.9.00 tenants by the entirety and not in community ppty, ....hby gbsc tll the fol rp, sit in the Co of.Waq and, Sty of Ore, bdf, t/w: Parcel l: Beg at the NE cor of the John Hicklin DLC sit in Sec 35, T1S R1W,.,,of the WM, and rng th S 890 341 W 968.88 ft; tha digs t of 1005.0 ft, th N 650 3821 W a dis t of 97.10 ft to the true pob of the tr hin desc; th cont on sd bearing of N 65 ° 382 W a diet of 122.43 ft; th S 00 01 W a dist of 10.0 ft; th S 27° 491 W a dist of 126.12 ft ft the Nly li of Greenburg Rd; th fol alg sd Nly li of Greenburg Rd ' S 560 511 E a diet of 117.08ft•. I.h N_ 280 1nI V. n Ala ^f* 153.27 f t to the pob. Parc.ej..11: Tr 2: Beap in the N li of the John Hicklin DLC which _~bears • S j 890 34!: W .968.88 f t frm the NE cor of s d elm;.. th S.00 Olt 1003. ft to "a' pipe at the true pob of the tr hin. de so; th .N '65 ° " 38 t f 3011 W 219.53 f t to a pipe; th N '00 011 E 87.50 f t; th S 890 '59 t'••-.E '20O.O0 ft; th S 0° Olt W 180.00 ft to the true pob. tr' conv to P. VallHoge and Enid M. Hoge, h&w, as tenants by the entirety. FTtI except rest of r edd • as to Parcel 11: $15*75 IRS CAN ` Sgd & Ack T.';-and, T Por'tland . •t1a ..t. (1 . - - OTIC Page 2/3 Job ` ~ rs Nov-19 Tue 1,5:25 1996 KMWARRANTY UttU t ,1 KNOW ALL JWEN VY THESE I'RESF.n+TS. Th.. Enid.M..tioZo. a widoW and...unmarr.lad. ...granfot . .t. Consideration ol..... T.e.n...anA...o0/10G....an.d...nt.rer .valuable... cor.31deratloru.......Dolls?' o M1.......... paid by loyd. P...,Shax.... and..Uorutty.J....ZWkw. husband.imul..wlra., g►ertrer 3. hereby (rent, bargain, sell and convey unto the said grantee A. the 13beirs and i«irns. all of the /at +nwing described real property, with the tenen»nrs• heredifarnentr end appurtenances thereunto belonging .busted in the County of M4eAhr$tOA.... . Stele of Oregon• bounded anti described as /ollo- Parcel I: BeginnirW at tit* Northeast corner of the Join ;iicklin Iona on Land claim situate in Section 3S, Townslily 1 youth, Range 1 'wrest of the Willamette Y,eWdian, in the County of wastilneton and :;'.at* or Oregcn, and running thence South b9° 34' West 96b.e8 feet; thence Soutt, 0° Ol' west a distance of 1003.0 feet; tttet,ee North 6$° 364' West a distance of 97.10 feet u the true polrat or begin- ning of trio tract herein desorlbed; thence continuing on said boarl•tf- + t~or North 65° 381' west a distance or 122.43 feet, thanoe(South 0" 01' most a dletance of 10.0 featthone ojjouth127° 49' Nest a die- re of ~12 r it to the Northerly 11tae or reett urg oad; thence following along said N 1herly line of Orsenbur§ Road, South 56° 51' ::ast a distance of 117 . feet) tner.ceKNorth 28 10' E 13t a .:::tar►c,_ -r 153.21 feat to tua point of beginning. }'arcs II: Beginning at a point in ttte Ni,rth line or %na Jotfn H1,;k::1 .one on Land Claim which bears South 89° 34' 'feat 968.68 foot from, the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 0° 01' west 1003.0 root to a pipe at the true point or bep,lnning of the tract herein -,JoSeri ?)*A; thence 4orth 65° 381 30" West 219.53 feet Lo a p1 titera~• (Worth 0° 01' Last 9.0 fetty,~to an Iron pipe that ie uutn bb 6' ust 1c feejfrom an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, 7ogwood r.;de,o, a v:st or record In Wastington County, Oregon; thenco Louth 6V° i:aat reLtjto an iron pipe, said point heirtg trio :nutnea.t corner •?r 9611 .:)t 9; th4nc.e 5o.atnl1 0° O1' 'w'eat IfI0.00 rt+ :?C.r • STATE OF OREGON • County of Washington SS OREGON TIME 11 /f` I, Jerry R' Hanson, Director of Assess- Insurance COIDp8II} ment and Taxation' and Ex-Officio County Clerk for said county, do hereby certify that the within instrument of writing was received and recorded.•in book' of records :of said After Recording, Return to: county. Miles L. Downing 11600 Southwest Greensburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Jerry'R-Hanson,'Director of Assessment'and Taxation, Ex- Until a change is requested, tax statements Officio County Clerk shall be sent to the following address: SAME AS ABOVE Doc 97047536 Rect: 186933 268.00 05/23/1997 10:42:00am STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual) . . (Above Space Reserved for Recorder's Use) Dorothy J. Shaw, conveys and warrants to Miles L. Downing, a single person the following described real property in the State of Oregon and County of Washington free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: 3 (Continued) n WASHINGTON COUNTY REAL ERrr TRANSFER TAX C6 s22 .oo •Z FEE PAID DAW Z Tax Account Number(s): This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: LLJ Cr. 1. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is 0 subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 2. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. (Continued) The true consideration for this conveyance is $225,000.00 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLA- TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRU- NENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAW- SUITS AGAINST PARKING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. DATED this ZZ- day of May, 1997. r.: f~►.4 Q~U r..~ Dorothy J. S STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF Clackamas)ss. ~7 The foregoing i rument was acknowledged before me this -R day of May, 1997, by Dorothy Shaw,. N,ekZ5yQb.ibli6 r-bregon My Commission Expires: cT OFFICIAL SEAL D REY NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Order No.: 865926w COMMISSION NO. 02=9 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11. 1997 l ir STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (CONTINUED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued) Order No.: 865926w PARCEL I: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 890 34' West 968.88 feet; thence South 00 01' West a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 97.10 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence continuing on said bearing of North 650 36 1/2' West a distance of 122.43 feet; thence South 00 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 270 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet to the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 560 51' East a distance of 117.08 feet; thence North 280 10' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 890 34' West 968.86 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 00 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30• West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 00 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 880 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 890 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 00 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. 2 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Continued) ENCUMBRANCES (Continued) Order No.: 865926w 3. The rights of the public, governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and to that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of SW 92nd Avenue and Greenburg Road. 3 Go- 0 SITUATED IN SECTIO WASHINGTON Cc I SURVEYED JUNE 1951 P .5.1.'. Co.-- Lol ?S A.SNDROOK rARM.3 • _ _ _ I 1rn., P~joe YEW A189034'E 431'1 STREET N 89. 3_4'a c ` 389.34'w r 869.9 - - so ~ie3 9 ' - I li I /N/T/AL PO/NT • I e I ( J~ 0 a o n ' , I C vd9•sd'w V ,v ee•avc r: 4 2 o I i /ee i pr. Denales /ro.+ recd 9~S A A I ';.i 1 M 1 C 1 r ~ L i.~. U~ W a w ; .C r e W ~ /B7I I N 4 jf4 l ti IA o 3W-Corner- Lo { ` Q 1- - ~ V T Orp/v/ //O Pork . ~ i •ees n 9 a A _ a C /e9 S w 5 a W Al 89 •SB'av I I q A ; . } Cl. Z .10 N w / 1 w of"Chorben " .1ohn 4,e 3.5yiil3 4rv;4 p Z ` Vo%i]o p /m ° m .AS r. V , c v West L,re -•z !r I r 9ord✓i//v Pork . • = p c eA 9 • i. 7, • . ° iL I Yi / ~ r I ~ o a .5 a l' !o 01 N @9 •Se' w i s / 2 a . ♦I I n • 1 C. A 1. E icb, "7 f0 i A i1 A U! "Chorbrn" 2 I John L--..3. ,its •w;f^ o ,as Vol. 120 P il6 ° m ti A ° Q • Was a --2 ~ . 1G a ~ t p 7 •1 I n( :49'Si+w so M . 1 icG.9 , . - I r .ss.s d. Dxw"r3 I Lb/. 244 P. s2 q SI n a 1 V o ~ 2 /s.w Rao.so„ 1 2 ✓0/?49 P 39i AFi'ROVE U st /b, •'7'~% I 1 Clo.rL.T~~xr u WAStJ1146rON (~t/IJr~I AN/J G,q~ Ko/.]It P.Srf Iv n - f:0 MMJ:.5 1011 q 1 Ci 1 •5b ~ yb f-~IO~//!%Ur/ I y ~ry v6I 260 P. 60i w fierehy 117,71 1ru e c oo o/' co.~17ly ✓~.d c OOGIrDOp ~P/U6 E." /77isJ~onCr ! Com : ss. o n ei, I# A~op✓ rJ ~ao1%~ -L4t/~ To r ~ .r Po.'o/ /r-o r» - - - - - ~ q-~ ` 06/27/97 15:32 0503 4 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Q001 c s:$ ACTIVITY REPORT sus TRANSMISSION OR TX/RX NO. 0594 CONNECTION TEL 2473 CONNECTION ID START TIME 06/27 15:22 USAGE TIME 09'36 PAGES 22 RESULT OR Post-k° Pax Note 7671 DWO 6 2~ vgle To L,14 0 1 q From 114 t✓' ColDept if, e Co. G v P- In. Q # 2-2-1- ytda 2,1 Phone 0 _ 585 Fax # c~ _~9 Fax 7'1.~'~ 596 s -44~ g bs le LI~, 587 ~ WD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wHl~Ob• ,rte - s9o Five feet along the properties SW 92ND street frontage will be given to the city of s9i Tigard for the street right-of-way, the applicant specifically concurs with the s92 dedication being roughly proportional to impacts generated by future construction 593 on the subject parcel as a result of the newly created lots. A non-remonstrance s94 agreement will be given to the City of Tigard in lieu of street improvements, s9s because it is unlikely that SW 92nd(a dead end street) will be improved and the s% minor partition under review does not by itself provide a significant improvement 597 to street safety or capacity. 598 Properties surrounding the subject parcel have existing residential s99 structures that would prevent the extension of a new street through to SW 91st 60o Avenue, and the proximity to Greenburg Road would make a new road between 6o1 91st and 92nd impractical. Public transportation moves in both directions along 602 SW Greenburg Road. Turnouts and bus stops exist on the northwest and southeast 3 corners of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. Bike lanes exist on both sides of Greenburg Road for travel in either direction. Sidewalks exist on both sides of s Greenburg Road for pedestrian use- See the Vicinity map included with this application 7 ns 18.164.040 Blocks 609 COMMENT 610 SW 92nd Avenue is a dead end street that does not, and would not ii completed, 611 exceed 1800 feet. Because of existing development surrounding the property a 612 pedestrian/bikeway would not be possible or practical. A sidewalk and a bike lane ~C~1~~~C]['1['1U['7C][c0~1~T HILL ND PARTITION A 3 LOT MINOR LA i i 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 APPLICANTS STATEMENT s 6 VICINITY MAP 7 s SITE PLAT MAP 9 to VISUAL CLEARANCE AREA MAP 11 12 TREE MAP 13 14 FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT is 16 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT 17 ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLIES 1s 19 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 97056444 IN 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOOK OF RECORDS). 21 22 SOLAR ACCESS MAP 23 24 SCREENING MAP 2s 26 FIVE PREVIOUS DEEDS OF RECORD 27 28 DOGWOOD RIDGE SUBDIVISION MAP 29 JUNE 26,1997 30 31 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 32 33 APPLICANT / OWNER Miles Downing 34 P.O. Box 230972 35 Tigard, Or. 97281-0972 36 37 REQUEST 3 Lot Minor Land Partition 38 39 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point in North line of the John Hicklin 40 Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 41 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of 42 Washington and State of Oregon, Which bears South 89° 34' West 968.88 43 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim: thence south 0° 01' West 44 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein 45 described: thence North 65° 38' 30" west 219.53 feet to a pipe: thence 46 North 0° 0V East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 88° 36' West 10 feet - 47 from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9 DOGWOOD RIDGE, a 48 plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East 200 49 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; 50 thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. SEE 51 DEED OF RECORD INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION. 52 53 54 55 SIZE 26,850 square feet 56 57 LOCATION Approximately 11510 SW 92ND Avenue. 58 Tax Lot 6701 map 1 S 1 35DC. 59 See map attached. 60 61 ZONING DESIGNATION R-4.5 Single Family Residential (7500 - 62 square feet) • • _ 63 I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 64 65 A. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan 66 67 B. The Following Sections of the City of Tigard Community Development Code 68 Chapter 18.02 PURPOSE 69 Chapter 18.10 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAWS 70 Chapter 1. 8.26 MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS 71 Chapter 18.32 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: 72 QUASI-JUDICIAL 73 Chapter 18.50 R-4.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 74 Chapter 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 75 Chapter 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 76 Chapter 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 77 AND EXCEPTIONS 78 Chapter 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: EXCEPTIONS 79 Chapter 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 80 Chapter 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 81 Chapter 18.106 OFF STREET PARKING 82 Chapter 18.108 ACCESS, EGRESS & CIRCULATION 83 Chapter 18.15.0 TREE REMOVAL 84 Chapter 18.162 LAND DIVISION: MINOR LAND PARTITIONING 85 Chapter 18.164 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT 86 STANDARDS 87 88 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 89 9o The subject property has approximately 26,850 square feet and fronts on SW 92nd 91 Avenue for a distance of 89 feet. The subject property is zoned R-4.5, the same 92 zoning as the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are all in use as 93 single family residential. The property has a consistent slope of 5 to 6 percent. 94 Vegetation on the property consists of trees, shrubs and a grass field. 95 The applicant is requesting approval of a 3 lot minor land partition. The 96 proposed partition involves the creation of three parcels as depicted on the attached 97 Preliminary Plat. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 98 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 99 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. All three parcels are ioo intended for future single-family residential use. Five feet along SW 92nd street ioi will be dedicated to the city along with a non remonstrance agreement consisting of 102 an area of 450.41 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots, each exceed the required 103 minimum of 15 feet of frontage on SW 92nd. Frontage of the proposed lots are as • 0 104. follows, lot 1 has 58.33 feet, lot 2 has 16.46 feet, lot 3 has 16.46 feet. Public 1o5 utilities area available to serve the proposed partition (see section 18.162.040/A/3 106 later in this document). 107 108 log III. FINDINGS 110 n i A. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 112 113 COMMENT: 114 Except where specifically required by the community development code, this 115 application is not required to address goals and policies related to the development 116 of land, since the plan is implemented by the code. 18.02. 010 "this title is 117 designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and u g s use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard comprehensive plan n g 18. 10.010 "All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the 12o adopted comprehensive plan 121 122 B. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY 123 DEVELOPMENT CODE 124 125 18.02.010 PURPOSE 126 As a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this 127 title is designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing the 128 development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard 129 comprehensive plan. 130 131 18. CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAWS 132 Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this title 133 shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as 134 implemented by this title and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 135 All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the adopted 136 comprehensive plan. 137 138 18.26.030 MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS 139 "Flag Lot" a lot located behind a frontage lot, plus a strip out to the street for an 14o access drive. A flag lot results from the subdivision or partitioning of a residential 141 lot or parcel which is more than twice as large as the minimum allowed frontage to 142 allow two dwellings to front along a street. There are two district parts to a flag lot: D • 0 143 the "flag" which comprises the actual building site located at the rear portion of the 144 original lot, and the "pole" which provides access from a street to the flame 145 "Road" or "Street" a public or private way that is created to provide ingress ress or 146 egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a 147 private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction 148 with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. 149 COMMENT 15o The definitions above clearly define the pole of a flag lot as being part of a lot that 151 provides access from the street, and a street provides access to a lot, therefor in no 152 way can the lot or any part of the lot be considered a road or a street. 153 154 18.32 PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: 155 QUASI-JUDICIAL 156 157 COMMENT 158 The applicant specifically concurs with the dedication requirement that 5 feet of 159 the subject parcel be given to the City of Tigard for the right-of-way in SW 92nd 16o Avenue. 161 162 18.50 R-4.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 163 164 18.50.030 Permitted Uses 165 A. Permitted uses in the R-4.5 district are as follows: 166 1. Single-family detached residential units. 167 COMMENT. 168 The applicant is proposing the creation of a three lot minor land partition. All 169 three lots are intended for future single family residential use. 170 171 18.50.050 Dimensional requirements 172 A. Dimensional requirements in the R-4.5 district are as follows: 173 1. The minimum lot area shall be: 174 a. 7,500 square feet for each detached unit. 175 2. The average minimum lot width shall be: 176 a. 50 feet for detached units. 177 1 Except as otherwise provided in chapter 18.96(Additional Yard 178 Setback Requirements And Exceptions) and Section 179 18.100.130(Buffer Matrix), the minimum setback requirements are as 180 follows. 181 a. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 182 c. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet. 183 d. The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. 0 • 184 e. The distance between the property line and the front of the 185 garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 186 COMMENT: 187 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 188 R-4.5 district. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 189 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 19o calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. The requirement of a 191 average lot width of 50 feet is easily meet as demonstrated by the preliminary plot 192 map included with this application. The approximate width of lot 1 is 78 feet. The 193 approximate width of lot 2 is 65 feet. The approximate width of lot 3 is 87 feet. 194 The use of setbacks will be implemented at the time a building permit is applied 195 for. 196 197 CHAPTER 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT 198 199 18.88.040 Solar access for new Development. 200 E. Adjustments to Design Standard. The approval authority shall reduce 201 the percentage of lots that must comply with section 18.88.040 C to 202 the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown it 203 would cause or is subject to one or more of the following conditions: 204 1. Adverse impacts on density and cost or amenities. 205 a. If the design standard in section 18.88.040 C. 1. is 206 applied, either the resulting density is less than that 207 proposed, ect. 208 COMMENT 2o9 Although all three lot can contain a line along the north south axis exceeding 90 210 feet in length, as the definition of a north south line is applied the dimensions are: 211 For lot 1, 82.45 feet. For lot 2, 72.33 feet. For lot 3, 86.49 feet. Lot 2 does comply 212 with this section because the front lot line is oriented within 30 degrees of true east 213 west axis. Because 80%, or all three lots, must be included with 18.88.040 C, 214 applying 18.88.040 C. 1. would require elimination of one of the lots and would 215 reduce the density, therefor 18.88.040 C shall be reduced to allow for the R-4.5 216 density as stated in 18.88.040 E. Solar calculations will still be required at the _ 217 time of any construction on the site. See 18.88 solar access drawing included with 218 this application. 0 0 219 CHAPTER 18.92 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS. 220 221 18.92.020 Density Calculation. 222 COMMENT: 223 The net area of the subject parcel is 26,850.5 square feet. The subject parcel does 224 not contain any sensitive land nor is it near any sensitive land. Five feet along SW 225 92nd street will be dedicated to the city along with a non remonstrance agreement 226 consisting of an area of 450.41 square feet. 26, 850.5 - 450.5 = 26,400 square feet. 227 26,400 - 7500 square feet per lot = 3.52 or 3 single family residential units. 228 229 18.92.030 Residential Density transfer 230 COMMENT : 231 Based on the results of the above density calculation, a residential density transfer 232 is not required in order to obtain three lots on the subject site. 233 234 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND 235 EXCEPTIONS. 236 237 18.96.080 Lot Area for Flag Lots. 238 A. The lot area for a flag lot shall comply with the lot area 239 requirements of the applicable zoning district. 240 B. The lot area shall be provided entirely within the building 241 site exclusive of any accessway. 242 243 COMMENT 244 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 245 R-4.5 district. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 246 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 247 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. 248 249 18.96.090 Front Yard Determination 250 A. The owner or developer of a flag lot may determine the 251 location of the front yard, provided no side yard setback 252 area is less than 10 feet and provided the requirements of 253 Section 18.98.030(Building Heights And Flag Lots) are 254 satisfied. 255 COMMENT 256 The option described in this section may be applied if necessary at the time of a 257 building permit application. 7 0 • 258 18.98 BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: EXCEPTIONS 259 260 18.98.030 Building Heights and Flag Lots. 261 A. Limitations on the placement of residential structures on flag lots 262 apply when any of the following exist: 263 2. A flag lot is created after April 15 1985 by an approved minor 264 land partition. 265 B. The maximum height for a single-family residential structure on a flag 266 lot is 1-1/2 stories or 25 feet whichever is less, except that the 267 maximum height may be 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet, whichever is less, 268 provided: 269 1. The proposed dwelling otherwise complies with the applicable 270 dimensional requirements of the zoning district. 271 2. A 10 feet side yard will be preserved. 272 273 3. A residential structure on any abutting lot either is located 50 274 feet or more from the nearest point of the subject dwelling, or 275 the residential structure exceeds 1-1/2 stories or 25 feet in height 276 on any abutting lot. 277 4. Windows 15 feet or more above grade shall not face dwelling 278 unit windows or patios on any abutting lot unless the proposal 279 includes and agreement to plant trees capable of mitigating 280 direct views, or that such trees exist and will be preserved. 281 COMMENT 282 The limitations described in this section may be applied if necessary at the time of 283 a building permit application. The flag lots do provide a building envelope area 284 greater than 50 feet from neighboring buildings. If an applicant for building 285 permit wishes to build at 2-112 stories or 35 feet and plans to build with windows 286 15 feet or more above grade facing other dwelling unit windows or patios then the 287 applicant for building permit must plant trees capable of mitigating direct views. 288 289 18.100 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. 290 _ 291 18.100.030 Street Trees. 292 A. All development projects fronting on a public street more than 100 feet 293 in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the 294 in 18.100.035. 295 COMMENTS 296 The proposed minor land partition has a street frontage less than 100 feet in length 297 and therefor no street tree planting is required as stated in 18.100.030 A. 298 0 299 18.100.070 Buffering and screening General Provisions. 300 B. Buffering and Screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent 301 uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrix in this 302 chapter. 303 COMMENTS 304 The use of the proposed minor land partition is of the same type as the surrounding 305 properties and therefor is not required to provide screening as stated in 306 18.100.070 B. Other screening may be required, see section 18.162.050 307 F(Screening Of Flag Lots) later in this document. 308 309 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 310 311 18.102.015 Applicability of Provisions 312 C. The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: 313 1. The location and height of all hedges, trees, plantings, fences or 314 wall structures within the vision clearance area as computed in 315 18.102.030, 18.102.040, and 18.102.050; and 316 2. The location of all access points, parking and circulation areas, 317 loading areas and pedestrian walkways within the vision 318 clearance area as computed in Section 18.102.030,18.102.040, 319 and 18.102.050. 320 18.102.050 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accessway Less Than 24 Feet 321 In Width 322 A. The visual clearance area for accessway intersections having less than 323 24 feet in width shall be that triangular area whose base extends 30 324 feet along the street right-of-way line in both directions from the 325 centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family 326 residence. 327 COMMENT 328 Clear vision areas will be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 329 18.102. Existing 6' chain link fence on subject parcel will be removed as it will be 330 in the street right-off-way. Clear vision area for lot 1 will be determined at the 331 time a building permit is applied for. For lots 2 and 3 the clear vision areas 332 marked on the drawing represent the clearing required for 32.92 feet of pavement, 333 the width of the frontage of lots 2 and 3. The final product, constructed by the 334 applicant of a building permit, will not be required to be at the maximum width of 335 32.92 feet. The final product and the associated clear vision areas will fall 336 somewhere inside the clear vision area of the drawing. See visual clearance 337 drawing. 0 • 338 18.106 OFF STREET PARKING 339 340 18.106.030 Residential Uses 341 A. 1. Single-family residences - 2 off-street spaces for each dwelling 342 unit. 343 COMMENT 344 The proposed lots contain adequate area to accommodate a minimum of two 345 parking spaces for each respective dwelling unit in accordance with Section 346 18.106.030. 347 348 18.108 ACCESS, EGRESS & CIRCULATION 349 350 COMMENT 351 The attached Preliminary Plat demonstrates that the proposed parcels contain 352 adequate area to accommodate the minimum requirements for vehicular access to 353 dwelling units in accordance with Section 18.108.040 and 18.108.070. All tree lots 354 have direct access to SW 92nd Street. Access will be brought to within 50 feet of 355 the ground floor entrance or ground floor landing of a stairway leading to any 356 dwelling units built in the future by the applicant of a building permit. 357 358 18.150 TREE REMOVAL 359 360 18.150.025 361 A. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared 362 by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or 363 combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for 364 a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned 365 development or conditional use is filed. 366 COMMENT 367 For this minor partition a tree plan is not required as stated in 18.150.025 A, 368 minor land partitions are not included. It is the applicants understanding that 369 commercial forestry was not intended to and does not apply to land use decisions. 37o Trees on the property will be removed at the developers discretion. 371 372 18.050.030 373 A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree • 374 which is located on or in a sensitive land are as defined by 18.84 375 COMMENT 376 There are no sensitive land areas on or near the property being partitioned 377 therefor permits for removal are not required as stated in 18.150.030 A. It is the 378 applicants understanding that commercial forestry was not intended to and does • • 379 not apply to land use decisions. Trees on the property will be removed at the 38o developers discretion. 381 382 18.162 LAND DIVISION: MINOR LAND PARTITIONING 383 384 18.162.020 385 B. A minor land partition review is required when three lots or fewer are 386 created without the creation of a street or road, Within one calendar 387 year. 388 389 COMMENT 39o This application is for three lots and therefor is considered a minor land partition. 391 392 18.162.030 393 A. The applicant of a partition or lot line adjustment proposal shall be the 394 recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the 395 owner. 396 COMMENT 397 The applicant is the owner of the property. 398 399 B. Any application for a major or minor land partition or lot line 400 adjustment shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in 401 ORS Chapter 92, Subdivision and Partitions. 402 COMMENTS 403 The application is in conformity with state regulations as demonstrated by the City 404 of Tigard Community Development Code and this application. 405 406 18.162.040 Partition Approval Criteria 407 A. A request to partition land shall meet all of the following 408 criteria: 409 1. The proposal conforms to the Cities comprehensive 410 plan. 411 COMMENT 412 The proposal conforms to the Cities comprehensive plan as demonstrated by the 413 Cities Community Development Code, which implements the comprehensive plan, 414 and this application. The city of Tigard community development code states in 415 chapter 18.10.010 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LA WS: Each 416 development and use application and other procedure initiated under this title 417 shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as 418 implemented by this title and with applicable state and federal laws and 419 regulations. All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the 42o adopted comprehensive plan. %i • • 421 422 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and 423 ordinance requirements and regulations. 424 COMMENT 425 The proposal conforms to all ordinance requirements and regulations as 426 demonstrated by the Cities Community Development Code and this application. 427 The city of Tigard community development code states in chapter 18. 428 CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LA WS: Each development and use 429 application and other procedure initiated under this title shall be consistent with 430 the adopted comprehensive plan of the city of Tigard as implemented by this title 431 and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. All provisions of this 432 title shall be construed in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan. 433 434 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the 435 proposal. 436 COMMENT 437 Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal. A utility easement 438 will be granted, from neighboring parcel of land. See plat map. 439 SEWER 44o An 8" sewer line exists in SW 92nd Avenue. Another 8" sewer line exists in 441 Greenburg Road that may be accessed through a easement that will be granted 442 across the neighboring property. 443 WATER 444 A 4" water line exists in SW 92nd street. A 6" water line serves the fire hydrant at 445 the northeast corner of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. The fire hydrant has a 446 flow rate that meets the standards set by the fire marshal, see attached flow report. 447 STORM WATER 448 A storm water catch basin exists at the north east corner of Greenburg Road and 449 92nd Avenue to catch storm water run off that flows in a ditch at the side of 92nd 45o Avenue. Another storm water catch basin exists 45 feet, east along the northern 451 edge of Greenburg Road, from a easement that will be granted across the 452 neighboring property. Storm water can be diverted through the easement to the 453 curb on Greenburg Road or to the ditch along 92nd Avenue. 454 GAS 455 A natural gas line exists in 92nd Avenue 6' off the current property line. 456 ELECTRICITY, TV AND PHONE 457 Electricity, TV and Phone exist on the opposite side of 92nd street and at the end of 458 the utility easement granted across neighboring parcel of land. • • _ 459 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional 460 requirements of this title. 461 COMMENT 462 All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title as 463 demonstrated below in section 18.162.050 and by the preliminary plat included 464 with this application. 465 466 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable 467 agency standards. 468 COMMENT 469 All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards as 47o demonstrated by the Cities Community Development Code and this application. 471 472 18.162.050 473 A. Lot Width: 474 1. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall 475 meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning 476 district. 477 COMMENT 478 The requirement of a average lot width of 50 feet is easily meet as demonstrated by 479 the preliminary plot map included with this application. The approximate width of 480 parcel I is 78 feet. The approximate width of parcel 2 is 65 feet. The approximate 481 width of parcel 3 is 87 feet. 482 483 B. Lot Area: 484 1. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable 485 zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway 486 may not be included in the lot area calculation. 487 COMMENT 488 The proposed partition exceeds the minimum lot size and lot width standards of the 489 R-4.5 district.. Sizes of the proposed lots are approximately as follows, lot 1 has 490 7570 square feet, lot 2 has 8040 square feet, lot 3 has 7771 square feet. Areas 491 calculated do not include the pole area of the flag lots. 492 493 C. Lot Frontage: 494 1. Each lot created through the partition process shall front 495 a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a 496 legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access 497 easement. 498 COMMENT 499 Five feet along SW 92nd street will be dedicated to the city along with a non 50o remonstrance agreement consisting of an area of 450.41 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 • • 501 are flag lots, each exceed the required minimum of 15 feet offrontage on SW 92nd. - 502 Frontage of the proposed lots are as follows, lot 1 has 58.33 feet, lot 2 has 16.46 503 feet, lot 3 has 16.46 feet. All three lots conform with this code. - 504 505 506 D. Setbacks: 507 1. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning 508 district. 509 COMMENT 51o In the R-4.5 district set backs are as follows. 511 Front yard a minimum of 20 feet. 512 Side yard a minimum of 5 feet. 513 Rear yard a minimum of I5 feet. 514 Garage from the property line a minimum of 20 feet. 515 Implementation of setbacks will be made at the time when a building permit is 516 applied for. 517 518 E. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: 519 L When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may - 520 determine the location of the front yard, provided that no 521 side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally 522 be located so as to maximize separation from existing 523 structures. 524 COMMENT 525 Such front yard determination will be made at the time when a building permit 526 application is made. 527 528 F. screening of Flag Lots: 529 1. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a 530 lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is 531 located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance 532 with sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening 533 may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting 534 lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for 535 proposed development. 536 COMMENT 537 A screen will be required at the time of construction along the southern property 538 line were the driveway to lot 3 is within 10 feet of the neighboring property line 539 and must be installed before an occupancy permit is issued for any structure built 540 there. Some other screening may be required for the flag lots depending on the 541 structures built in the future. Any screening will be determined at the time of 542 application for building permits. The flag lots do provide a building envelope area ~y 0 • 543 greater than 50 feet from neighboring buildings. If an applicant for building 544 permit wishes to build at 2-112 stories or 35 feet and plans to build with windows 545 15 feet or more above grade facing other dwelling unit windows or patios then the 546 applicant for building permit must plant trees capable of mitigating direct views. 547 Other screening is not required, see section 18.100.070 B earlier in this document. 548 See the screening map included with this application, note that the house on the 549 drawing is only an example not a proposed house. 550 551 G. Fire Protection: 552 1. The fire district may require the installation of a fire 553 hydrant where the length of an accessway would have 554 a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 555 COMMENT 556 There is afire hydrant on the north east corner of SW 92nd and SW Greenburg 557 road. The fire hydrant meets the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue standard as 558 demonstrated by the flow test made by the Tualatin Valley water district included 559 in this application. The fire hydrant is within 500 feet of any portion of any 560 conceived structure that might be built on any of the three lots. Fire apparatus 561 access to the two flag lots must be provided by a minimum driveway width of 15 562 feet and shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story 563 of the buildings as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the 564 building. An approved turnaround will not be required for either of the flag lots as 565 the distance of the driveways will be less than 150 feet. Fire access roads will be 566 capable of supporting not less than a 12,500 pounds point load and a 50, 000 567 pound live load. Several designs for the fire road will be possible at the time of 568 construction and will be determined by the building permit applicant, the City of 569 Tigard, and the Tualatin Valley fire & Rescue Fire Marshal's Office at the time of 57o application for the building permit. Note that this application is for a minor land 571 partition, not for building permits. FOR ALL APPLICABLE RULES AND 572 RESTRICTIONS SEE THE FIRE MARSHALS "FIRE & LIFE SAFETY 573 REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE DEPAR TMENT A CCESS AND WA TER 574 SUPPLIES" INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICA TION. 575 576 18.1.64 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 577 578 18.164.030 Streets 579 1. c. The Director may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu 580 of street improvements if one or more of the following 581 conditions exist: 582 (iii) Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent 583 properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be 584 extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement /S~ 585 associated with the project under review does not, by 586 itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety 587 or capacity. 588 589 COMMENT 59o Five feet along the properties SW 92ND street frontage will be given to the city of 591 Tigard for the street right-of-way, the applicant specifically concurs with the 592 dedication being roughly proportional to impacts generated by future construction 593 on the subject parcel as a result of the newly created lots. A non-remonstrance 594 agreement will be given to the City of Tigard in lieu of street improvements, 595 because it is unlikely that SW 92nd(a dead end street) will be improved and the 596 minor partition under review does not by itself provide a significant improvement 597 to street safety or capacity. 598 Properties surrounding the subject parcel have existing residential 599 structures that would prevent the extension of a new street through to SW 91st 600 Avenue, and the proximity to Greenburg Road would make a new road between 601 91st and 92nd impractical. Public transportation moves in both directions along 602 SW Greenburg Road. Turnouts and bus stops exist on the northwest and southeast 603 corners of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. Bike lanes exist on both sides of 604 Greenburg Road for travel in either direction. Sidewalks exist on both sides of 605 Greenburg Road for pedestrian use. See the Vicinity map included with this 606 application. 607 608 18.164.040 Blocks 609 COMMENT 610 SW 92nd Avenue is a dead end street that does not, and would not if completed, 611 exceed 1800 feet. Because of existing development surrounding the property a 612 pedestrian/bikeway would not be possible or practical. A sidewalk and a bike lane 613 exist along Greenburg Road less than 135 from the property. 614 615 OTHER 616 There are no noise sources on the property. Noise sources off site are regular 617 traffic noise from SW Greenburg Road. 618 619 DEED OF RECORD 62o Two separate purchases of two separate parcels of land were made at two separate 621 times and were recorded separately on separate pages in separate books in the 622 records of Washington County. On September 27,1945 the subject parcel was 623 deeded separately to B. W. Robison and lucinda Robison from Mollie B. Dykes. 624 Then in On June 12, 1946 approximately nine months later the Robisons 625 purchased another parcel of land from Mrs. Dykes. See Washington County 626 Deeds of Records number 4407 book 249 page 391, and number 3018 book 260 0 • 627 page 601 included with this application. The book and page numbers of the 628 recordings are listed on the deeds and on the Dogwood Ridge subdivision map 629 included with this application. Robison then sold both parcels to P. Val Hoge and 63o Enid M. Hoge in 1947(recording number 7068) who sold the two parcels to Lloyd 631 P and Dorothy J. Shaw(recording number 230476 book 426 page 800) who sold 632 the property to Miles Downing in 1997 (doc: 97047536 rect: 186933) who 633 deeded the parcel to himself in 1997 providing the Deed of Record for the subject 634 parcel of this application. The two separate parcels of land remained under 635 single ownership up to now, and were listed under the same deed from 1946 until 636 June 20 of 1997, see the current deed of record included with this application. 637 Copies of the other deeds mentioned are included with this application. Deeds 638 previous to 1945 are not necessary to prove the parcels were separate. The above 639 information proves the subject parcel to be a legal parcel of land separate from 64o any other parcel. 641 642 SW 92ND A VENUE 643 It may be interesting to some people to note that SW 92 Avenue was previously 644 named Robison Avenue. This name appears to come from the owner of the subject 645 parcel, in other words the street in front of the property was named after the owner 646 way back when. /7 u • s~r p{AKOTA I w i ' Q 4 LpMITA Q LEw,s LN , ► E~ , i 1 TAN EIA C I • ~'d ~a' rl\ I I o _ S • p'~ S N Vicinity map w E • INDICATES FLAG LOT s v W DVNER Z OWNER RANDY JUNG, 191H HOUSE TERRENCE SMITH 11515 S, 91ST -J ° 11480 SV 92ND W ° YARD APPLICANT/OWNER qgg-k YARD o W = MILES DOWNING SHED AWNING P.O. BOX 230972 a o0 106.57 88.44 °o TIGARD ❑R 97281-0972 ch 2 LOCATION ° M MAP IS135DC g Q~ L0 T 1 L❑ T TAX LOT 6701 ON 2 222 0 i D W a 220 OWNER ~ `D DICK AND LINDA EATON 9625 SW LEWIS LN 620- ~n v w 620-20n3 1$ JJ6.06 s 218 c `D L❑T 3 w - SHED p Fq/ ~J4 os r y 214 <fsR ~0 3, yOpLy i ' 2 u % F OWNER '3 MARtLEE LOVRt = 11595 SW 91ST ~ j> q + S WATER CATCH lz 8 OWNER J VVARIA WILKINSON 11670 SV GREENBURG RD o FIRE HYDRANT y 639-2702 212 C OWNER JOHN ➢RENNA RA. B07 23607 TIGARD 639-5792 'V / ~ y 3P ~qT ~t ~F Fp ~O 210 JUNE 26 1997 T❑RM DRAINS TO CURB - STORM WATER CATCH BASIN NORTH SCALE 1°=507 Gf . LEGEND: EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE i + i i + + i i i + + i + + + + + + + + i i i + i + + + + + i i + + t T T SCALE 1"=30' 20.00 i 1 18,108 VISUA 6- a CLEARANCE Q W AREAS 45.0 ~ O 42'FI T V 24"FIR °o (~C o ~ o u.P °o 11 rnV L 4ao1 o0 C N~ LOCATION ❑E TREES ❑N SUBJECT PARCEL SCALE 1""-30' 036'FIR 6'FIR 0018'FIR O 13'FIR 4~° 10'DECID000S • /1038'FIR ~~O 40'FIR A&8-FIR -3 i' IR J -11yo13'FIR 31'FIR to 042-FIR 4022'FIR 4o9'FIR 7 4042'FIR 020'FIR ~~12'DOGWOOD \ ,/1,019'Fi~~, lp 0 13'F \'1032'FIR "O26TIR v3E~`FIR 9'HOLLY \'412'FIR 32'FIR '0 261FIR 1O'FIR ° 7'DECIDUOUS w 10'CHERRY A o16'FIR-~019'FIR ! 014'FIR 024'FIR , \ ( O 35-FIR 2'FIR (:)4 24'FIR \ \P016'FIR 1 015'FIR `'oi6'FIR -14-FIR 0 12',12'CHERRI 016'FIR • 36'FIR ° 8'FIR f' 0 018'2 4^FIR ll ' NORTH rr '1 24'FIR /Vvp24'FIR b~R 10'APPLE 04/24/97 THU 08:19 FAX 503 ;dmL ;6 T171) ENGINEERING • a001 r~ fe TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT Location: d, no s LA. C=f .=A..,. 9.z.~~. Date: Y .Z/ A Test Made 6y: (Company & Individual) 'f-✓ w Witness: aid J,6 Time: Purpose of Test: #1 #2 #3 #4 Total Flow Hydrant Ports GPM C = Hydrant Coefficient D = Inside Dia. Of Outlet, 7 in. P = Pitot Reading Sb Q=GPM X34, 0 Flow equation: Q = 29.83 C D2 (P)1`2 ; Use C = 0.9 for hydrant pitot flow gauge See Hydrant Monster data for flow equation; Use C = 0.8 for Hydrant Monster Flow tubes Used? Yes No_.Y,_ Hose Monster Used? Yes,C No No. of ports flowed at a time: 03-50 s ,,J Static Pressure psi Residual Pressure --79 psi Flow at 20 psi Residual Pressure (Calculated) G Remarks Location Map: Show on map which hydrants were flowed and which were used to monitor residual pressure. Label ports #1, #2, etc. Note: The mapping, flow, or pressure information contained herein reflects conditions on the date and time of the test. Tualatin Valley Water District makes no representations as to the system's ability to meet specific fire flow requirements. Future system capability may differ from the flows reported herein because of subsequent modifications to the District's system and/or because now and pressure may vary by time of day and seaso . Post-it` Fax Note 7671 Date .23 pages To From l+tJS co./Dept. CO. ,f t/ W o~„e a Phone N C) ,pry Dead End,Turniitg Radius attd No Tualatin Valley Fire & Fire & Life Safety Parlthig Sign Diagrams Rescue Statistics Requirements lZ ~1 'd Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue for Fife Department • 5~. r45' serves 310,200 citizens covering Access mill V20 , 216 square miles in unincorporated areas of Clackamas County, Water Supplies Washington County, Multnomah County and the following cities: 25' R 5' R. ♦ Aloha This brochure is being provided as a 20 ♦ Beaverton resource only. The items listed inside ♦ Charbonneau are the requirements most generally • ♦ Durham sited on plans for approval. If these ♦ King City items are included on the plans, the 45' 45' ♦ Rivergrove likelihood of a timely approval on the I*-►I+---►I --►I20'If- ♦ Sherwood initial review is greatly increased. If T ♦ Tigard questions arise with regard to any of the 1 45' provisions, please call the TVF&R Fire _ ♦ Tualatin Marshal's Office at (503) 526-2469. 20' .-65=► 1 • Wilsonville 25 R. I Tualatin Valley has 20 fire stations located throughout the Fire District. 90° - ~0• - Total staffing is 461. ~p-TIN Vq~ • f 1299 234 Career Firefighters/Paramedics 125 Volunteer Firefighters n®(\ 45' R. NO PARKING 40 Fire Prevention, Public V FIRE LANE FF4 TOW AWAY Education, Training ZONE 1877 47 Administrative Support & RESORS 98.810 to 15 Explorer Scouts 98.812 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Emergency Incidents in 1995 = 20,407 Fire Marshal's Office Fire 1,090 Medical 13,474 P.O. Box 4755 Mutual Aid 384 Hazards 630 Beaverton, OR 97076 (503) 526-2469 7ft Clear Pub. Assists 4,829 Space 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE shall be designed in accordance with the American hydrants shall be as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access Association of Highway and Transportation Officials "Standard 903.4.2.2) roads s"all be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall Specifications for Highway Bridges." The bridge shall b~ of the first story of the building as measured by an approved designed for a live load sufficient to carry 50,000 pounds. 15) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS route around the exterior of the building. An approved (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.5) ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire 9) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus access (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate 902 2 1) parked vehicles, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on 16) FIRE HYDRANT/ FIRE DEPARTMENT one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 needed. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) Signs shall read "NO feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants 2) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION PARKING - FIRE LANE - TOW AWAY ZONE, ORS 98.810 and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When - 98,812" and shall be installed with a clear space above apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC buildings are completely protected with an approved ground level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 locations shall be as approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire inches high and shall have black or red letters and border Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1) apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. on a white background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.(1) (2) & (3)) • (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) (See diagram on back) 17) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS: Where there are 20 or 10) GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not located on the building that is being protected. (UFC Sec. more dwellings, an approved second fire apparatus access exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum 903.4.2.5) roadway must be provided to a city/county roadway or access grade of 15 percent for lengths of no more than 200 feet. easement. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6). Intersections and turnarounds shall 18) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REOUIRED FIRE be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not 4) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND water run-off. exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi. A worksheet shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 11) PAINTED CURBS: Fire apparatus access roadway for calculating the required fire flow is available from the feet for not more than two dwelling units), and an curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING Fire Marshal's office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 . FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. (UFC 19) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE InchPS. (UFC Sec_ 902.2.2.1) Sec. 901.4.5.2) FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for single family 5) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily 12) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - MINIMUM NUMBER If the structure(s) is 3,600 square feet or larger, the OF FIRE HYDRANTS: The minimum number of fire required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC hydrants for a building shall be based on the required fire Appendix Table A-III-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5) supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel (low prior to giving any credits for fire protection systems. load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). There shall not be less than one (1) fire hydrant for the first 20) RURAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: • (UFC Sec. 2.2) You may need to provide 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) required fire flow and one ) registered engineer that the design will Required fire flow for rural buildings shall be calculated in documentation on from a .)e capable of supporting such loading and documentation (1) additional fire hydrant for each 1,000 GPM or portion accordance with National Fire Protection Association from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in thereof over 2,000 GPM. Fire hydrants shall be evenly Standard 1231. Please contact the Fire Marshal's office accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of spaced around the building and their locations shall be for special help and other requirements that will apply. approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) UFC Sec. 903.3 the Fire Code. l ) 13) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: 21) ACCESS AND FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY 6) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be respectively, as measured from the same center point. (UFC measured in an approved manner around the outside of the installed and operational prior to any other construction on Sec. 902.2.2.3) (See diagrams on back) building and along an approved fire appatatus access the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) 7) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access 22) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an 14) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS turnaround. Diagrams of approved turnarounds are for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office approved PP Fire hydrants for single family dwellings and duplexes shall for an application and instructions regarding installation available from the fire district. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.4) (See be placed at each intersection. Intermediate fire hydrants and placement. diagrams on back) are required if any portion of a structure exceeds 500 feet from a hydrant as measured in an approved manner around 23) INSPECTIONS: Site inspections may be required. 8) BRIDGES: Bridges shall be designed, inspected and final the outside of the structure and along approved fire construction approved by a registered engineer. The bridge apparatus acces's roadways. Placement of additional fire FORM No. 961 - BARGAIN AND SALE DEED - STATUMM FORM (individual Grantor). STEVENS-NESS LAW PUBUSNING CO. PORTLAND OR area NS S OF OREGON County of Washington SS 1 MILES L. DOWNING I, Jerry R•,Hanson• ,Director, of Assess- ment and Taxation and.. Ez;'Officio County t Clerk for saiddounfy,,do:hereby certify that the within ir)stfumentiof writing, was received Grantor's Name and Address and recorded, Ih;. book,; of records of said - ----I+9-1 IrES---L-S---DGWTi3P3G---------------------- county.rJ ~ (r,~;,C~`;,:~~ 7-~ ~ o t3 222-1------------------ t.. as r `i Grantee's Name and Address SPACE RESERVED , After recording, return to (Name, Address, Zip): FOR ~1\Jerry R ^FianSOri, Director of MILES L. DOWNING RECORDER'S USE z Assessment and Taxation, Ex- Officio Gounty'Clerk T1Gi f Ri _ ~ 2 z------------------ Doc 9 7 0 5 6 4 4 4 Until requested otherwise, send all tax statements to (Name, Address, Zip): Re c t : 188611 3 8 . 0 0 NO _ CHANGE 06/20/1997 08:38:19am I BY Deputy. BARGAIN AND SALE DEED - STATUTORY FORM (INDIVIDUAL GRANTOR) MILES L. DOWNING Grantor, conveys to M----I-----LES L. DOWNING Grantee, , the following real property situated in WASHINGTON_------------- County, Oregon, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'A' (IF SPACE INSUFFICIENT, CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE) i The tnie consideration for this conveyance is 0 .0 0 _ (Here, comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) II I I Dated this 19THday of JUNE----------------r 19---- 97-----Gr~~O~~--------------------------- II THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN _ THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU- MILES L. DOWN I l9 LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. j WASHINGTON i STATE OF OREGON, County of ss. JUNE 19, 1997 This instrument was acknowledged before me on MILES L. DOWNING OFFiCIAL SEAL - I: DEANNA McKIERNAN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON otary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. A025989 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 1997 My commission expires EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 890 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 00 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 00 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 880 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 890 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 00 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. 18,88 SOLAR ACCESS SOUTH DIMENSIONS NORTH 53.29 53.29 44,22 44,22 • M i- cu ~ ~ C~T OT 13 e~ • ~~'oNr NORTH 24,36° oz SCALE 1// - 3 0 ' 1 18,168,050/F-/1 SCREENING ❑F- 'FLAG LOTS F-1 ~ SOT SOT 1 zo/, ~ FD~R ANT - NORTH SCALE 1//-30/ LEGEND 6' HIGH CEDAR BOARD ❑N BOARD GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE in•tOnttderall0w Of....»».rf.~.:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T T~,..!l...S..Z...h.R.. ~Oltafl, #hlS~ A x~3ltL...Xr3iA,.Q »CDQ.A1dtTe! i ntt! tv...~1er ......pact by....r.w.i~St~.~A~#...!!1~..~t1~Q~..BQ.1AuL1'..~AlO~tA>:1d..111311..Rite........ do.... hereby grant, bargain, sell and crap uwto raid A.1Kw.JRob:Ln=..&ud Luc• nda.. j(NXq.S2A . uaband...lland..nti ~a, Lh41r,, "a led asrigwe, aU the foUowing real property. with the fene- menta. 'Aerrdi'amenis and appurterusnoee rihteted ins the County of.......... ShingtOn.,•„• ,,,,,,,,•-••....aad Stale of Oregon, boundad and described as follows, to-upit. TRACT 2-- Beginning at a point ILLhe north line of th- John Hicklin y1.C which bears 8.890341 E. H88.88 feet from the NF corner of said claim; thence S.0°Ol~ N. 1003.0 feet toe pipe at the true.point o.f beginning of the tract herein described; thenco -N.65038130"W. 21.9.53 feet to 'a plpe; thence N.00011E. 87.50 fe^t; thence S.880591E. 200.00feet; thence S.00011X•. 180.00 -feet to the true pa-Int of beginning. FFSTRICT:ON IT IS AGREED th-t for h perioa of 20 vpars from ^nuary 20th. 1945 the property 'herein conveyed shall be ust~1 for residence purposes only ana only by members of the Coucasic,ri r:.cf-, thrt no residence shall be constructed costinf less than '3,-700.()0 and -no 'building shall b-. constructe1 less than 40 feet from 'he street line or 10 feet•from the property line. Gas= MEN33a2rMa To. are nd t Hold, the abore described and granted premises unto the said.. .A'...iob~so.n •.nu :Lucinda 'Robison ..hus.brsnd...rsna...w e., . . . . their ..heirs a!!d avri;rrr< ;.•r, irr ...s.. : . keS RqQOii....P" otm...L.ewl's...Dy'k'e5.~...tlPC'e55t"I 4 nd ........I. the grantor abore a~ed 0.IS Covenant to and with the above named grantees their h, irs and n: <ia.r, ....s granted premises are free from aU encumbrances • . . (,nd that.. .......he...:wiU atul....... .er .heirs. executors and adm►iniatn4o►s. Shat: klarrant ,rnd i.•rrrr defend the above granted premises, and every part and parcel Ctereuf, against the lawful cini-ns as.: ,:,;;:«:u; ; of aU persons •whoasoever . tir 1'ib 45 li'iM+ss......................... hand.... and real ..._tlsis»...... dcy of :9..... Executed in the P►vsenee of IU.•... (SIL►L) (3w.) ti (SNAL) B87T --A.D. 1 D. 4 5 h a»d -for OR" G;mi ' ...._.....,.;11!',. f r c - . tom M. eel I~rtb+d ill d Wu tz~gl wt~i "owi Whand aekno+ol- 'q ' ` ' _ IX T~',g17Y071I1' li~S :}wo+bdo tet.+ny ++v+ and fast above written. j r':•, . : ; {~fai.R.L " . r ;I U.0 otary Public for Oregon. i• ~ - 1 ' i ~r p` 4 o g C T 1 1 ti Sri. Gtyo hldl J. nrJ 5/28/45 Dykes Nt W ~7& Of doe' d j7ahn :°i 0wf s Dukes q WI? to 10 6 Q0 and otvc B.W, Robison and Lucinda I A- Robloons Mw ...hbY gbsc all the fal' r ppty sit in the CO of Weah and . Of Ore bd as f Ole t f W . • Baa in the N line of the Jahn Ricklin Dom, wt a Tract P bears ~ 89 4 3~' W X88. ~ f t from the NB eor Of sd , ~ tvf'bagof the tr pt • 04.01' w x.003:0 ft to a pipe at the true 53 ft to a pip herein demo; thence N 8,50. Be, 30" w2190 -ft to th S 00 01' j th "N 0o (}1' E $7..50 f't;j th 8'89 591 W 3.80.00 ft to 4he true. pt of beg.. --ftstriction It is agr`.eed that far s period of 0 yrs " `:rangy:; Jan •y , ppty here=in conveyed • shall beua®d for ~eeidence_.. . ~Oth 1945 t]ae p members of the Caucasian teas, . • ~Y .~t thatt•oses only and only t no residence shall be constructed cos ing less.tllan 00004 :4gd-..Ao ,buil-di•n shall be' con-btructed less tha . , 40 ft Prom the st 1-ine or 16 ft from the ppty line. $.55 IRS CAN - , ; Sgd and Ack o I R_, W. Y Robison I Tigard, Oregq!n rl'~, ` t I.J {•~1..1 r- ` ..`lj ti. r?~ r ' . r } f1 ~l D L I ~_(7 ~i r • t fir.. 1 'i . r,.. - i~.t. ''i { Z'r)!7K'!f)t ~e ~,I_ i,`i :~•:•s: j a ,.1 __f f on ,IT _ .tom • l STATE Oir OREGON, op. ii County of...AL%-,b [1$ 1.nn...... BE IT )iEMEMBERED. That on this._..____-..__ day oe_.......... lt&y -.A. D. Ik:b. befnrs +w*, the.undrrsignid, .n,.........._..: '.4_t&ry._P31bUe....._..._ _ in nfvl 1 . said 4ntV And CtAIi un11« wNN1 IA♦ «.:1t.' ....................................:90111E..17....11y1S es,...a._NidnR..................................... who...... i z........... lrnown to me to be the identical individual...... described in and who executed the within instrument and achmowl- ;1 edged to. net tAnt.....;She ................................executed the sama:freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto eet ,ny hand and official seat the day and year t aLovs written it Notary Public or Oregon. My Commission expires ~f. 1 ti T 20 L j O w r -CA tr cc J! 3018 June 12p 19 46 '(`~l(-r~ . Mollie B. Dykes, Wid of John 5/.,-L_/4:6... Lewis Dykes, dec' d N6 ID L2Z WD to ~;1 • 410..OD. and oyes B W. Bobison and Lucin Robison, h&w r6i ..hby gbso all. the f of rp sitd in the Co of Flash ' and St of Ore, bdf , t /m: is Beg at the NE cor of the John Hicklin DLC, si.td - in Sec 35 M„8 - ..Blw,, pf the 3M and rng th S 89034-1 W 3t,6:EM f t; Th S. anal' W a distance of 1003.0 ft; th N 65038-1-1 W a distance of 97.14 ft to the true pt of beg of the tr herein dosed; th. continuing on sd bearing of N-65438-11 W a distance of 122.43 ft; th S 0401' W a distance of' 10.0 ft; th S 27P491 W a distance of 126.12 ft to the Nly ij of Greenburg Rd; th folg el..g ad Nly li of Greenburg EdS 560511 E a distance of 11F7.08 ft; th 13 28a10l E a distance of 153.27 ft to the pt of beg. r j - lLobijon ags. r R 2 g ~ \ td', 4regQl i y 3 a I- i 11 1 lop 706$ :B. W;' Robison and 'Nov 29, •1948 Lucinda Robison , h&W. _ • , • 8/: ~~47 - WD 291 P. Val Hoge and/or Enid M. Hoge, h&w, as .$10,1.00 tenants by the entirety and not in community opty, ~f . ....hby gbsc d11 the fol rp, sit in the Co of Vila~i,a nd;, t;..of Ore, bdf, t/ w: Parcel l: Beg at the NE cor of the Johan Hicklin DLC sit in Sec 359 T1S Rl_ W Qf the YVM, and rng th S 890 341 W 968.88 ft; f th 1i ti'~t a dist of 1003.0 ft, th AI 650 3821 W a dist of 97.10 ft to the true pob of the tr hin desc; th cont on sd bearing of N 65° 3821 W a dist of 122.43 ft; th S 00 01.1 W a dirt of 10.0 ft; th S 270 491 W a dist of 126.12 ft fm the Idly li of Greenburg Rd; th fol alg sd Nly li of Greenburg Rd S 560 511 E a dist of 117.08ft • th TMT P8° l nt V. A drat of 153.27 ft to the pob. F + y F • IN .s c " c Baap in the 11 li of the John Hicklin DLO which ` Parcel,a1: Tr 2: ~ be ,a • S g~;° 34! 1N .968.83 f t frrn the NE cor of s d clm;.- th S ,00 Olt 003.0 ft to:-a- pipe at the true pob of the tr hin. desc;th :N o r t ;65o. Sgt; 30" W 219.53 ft to a pipe; th Id 00 Olt E 87.50 ft; th S 89 '59 r•.':v1.200 .,00 ft; th S 0' Olt W 180.00 ft to the true pob. . . . 'TYi:i~,,,.~tr' conv to P. VallHoge and Enid Ni. Hoge, h&w, as tenants by the ent ire ty . . c BFI except rest of recd ' as to Parcel 11: $13* 7 5 IRS CAN Sgd & xck . T.' 'and T or-t land ..F. is • . • ~ . ~ L1 0 TIC Page 2/3 Job A, Nov 19 Tue 1,5:25 1996 nis WARRANTY ULEU i .1 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE f'RESF.NT$• Th., Enld M..Hoeo, a ,widoW and...unmarr.lad. grantor •r,consideration at..... To.n...9114.... 00/100...&DA...tat.her .valuable.... co;n3ldarutlon9....... Dollar.x ro 14R.......... paid by........... ,L1.Gyd..P......34aw.... and..Uorat.Ly ..J.....Sia&w. buaband.=1...wlf.v., 1................ grantee a. hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said grartree A. thQIDteirs and ,....vigns, all of the lol Inwing described roil property, with the tenemer+rs, hereditamenr:i and appurrenarr,cs thereunto belonging ,rusted in the County of....... 'AAahl.n.9tozi Sure of Oregon, bounded and described as /ollo»••x a. wit: Parcel I: Beginning at the NortheasL corner of the John iticklin only -Mn Land Claim situate in Section 35, Townalllp 1 South, Range 1 'Meat of the Willamette M*dian, In the County of Wasttlneton and • ~t.ate of OroScn, and running thence South b90 34' West g6b.88 feet; ttionce Soutt, 0° Olt West a distance of 1003.0 feet; tt,er,ee North 650 384' west a liatance of 97.10 feet ~v the true point of begin- ning of the tract herein described; thence continuing on said bearll,f• Cof North 650 38bt West a distance of 122.43 feet, thenoe(3outh 0" Olt Wost a distance of 10.0 feet jj thencoj$outb127° 49' West a dis- tance of ,jZk.17,,, feet to the Northerly line of resit urK"ad; thence following along Bald N herly line of ireenbur8 Road, Soutti 56° 51' mast a distance of 117 feet tner,ce QNQrth 28, 101 E st a J::tract .,f 153.27 feet)to tw point of beginning. i'arce II: Beginning at a point in the North line of 'hp jonn Hiclclli .:ona on Land Claim which bears Soutb 89° 34' West 068.88 fact from Lne Nortnoaat corner of said claim; thence South 00 01' Went 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein . -.lescrlheri; thenca orth 650 381 30" Wast 219.53 foot to a pp1 Li,er,~ 1 Lorth Oo Olt Last 119.0 fet~to an iron pipe that is L,utn b6 6' gust 1C foojfrum an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, Dogwood r.;dgo, a Flat of record in Wasnington County, Oregon; thenco Louth 690 ' Ec,st root to an iron pipe, said point heing tna .nutheest corner of sel:i Lot 9: ti.ence 5oatlh``0110 O1' 'Test ll't}.00 rn trio r :n i. lc:t .,lt• tl~f ff ~ , ~ • STATE OF OREGON i • County of Washington 1 SS )1 OREGON TITLE IILSLIIaIICC CGIII I, Jerry R: Hanson, Director of Assess- Pally ment and,Taxation'•Iihd Ex-Officio County clerk for seid`.county,:do_hereby certify that the wlth(n ingtrument of writing was received and recorded: in book"ot:. records :of said ^ After Recording, Return to: county: i,, L. Miles L. Downing = • 11600 Southwest Greensburg Rd. 'r,%✓,' Tigard, OR 97223 Jerry R-Fianon,'Director of ssessment and Taxation, Ex- Until a change is requested, tax statements OfficioCountyClerk shall be sent to the following address: SAME AS ABOVE Doc 97047536 Rect: 186933 268.00 05/23/1997 10:42:00am STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual) (Above Space Reserved for Recorder's Use) Dorothy J. Shaw, conveys and warrants to Miles L. Downing, a single person the following described real property in the State of Oregon and County of Washington free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: 3 (Continued) n 9 WASHINGTON COUNTY REAL PERTy TRANSFER TAX Is ~ 22 •~0 ' Z • FEE PAID r-rDATET F Tax Account Number(s): Z 0 This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: 2 1. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Unified Sewerage Agency and is 0 subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 2. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and is subject to the levies and assessments thereof. (Continued) The true consideration for this conveyance is $225,000.00 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLA- TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRU- KENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAW- SUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. ° DATED this Z Z- day of May, 1997. Dorothy J. S140 STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF Clackamas)ss. ,~j The foregoing ins rument was acknowledged before me this act "'day of May, 1997, by • Dorothy Shaw,. tart' is r Oregon My Commission Expires: ; OFFICIAL SEAL D REYES NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO.026029 Order No.: 865926w MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 1997 1-3 STAT . Y WARRANTY DEED (CONTINUED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued) Order No.: 865926w PARCEL I: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon; and running thence South 89° 34' West 968.88 feet; thence South 00 01' West a distance of 1003.0 feet; thence North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 97.10 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence continuing on said bearing of North 65° 38 1/2' West a distance of 122.43 feet; thence South 00 01' West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence South 270 49' West a distance of 126.12 feet to the Northerly line of Greenburg Road; thence following along said Northerly line of Greenburg Road, South 560 51' East a distance of 117.08 feet; thence North 280 10' East a distance of 153.27 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL Its Beginning at a point in the North line of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim situated in Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, which bears South 890 34' West 968.88 feet from the Northeast corner of said claim; thence South 00 01' West 1003.0 feet to a pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 65° 38' 30" West 219.53 feet to a pipe; thence North 00 01' East 89.0 feet to an iron pipe that is South 880 36' West 10 feet from an iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 9, DOGWOOD RIDGE, a plat of record in Washington County, Oregon; thence South 890 59' East 200 feet to an iron pipe, said point being the Southeast corner of said Lot 9; thence South 0° 01' West 180.00 feet to the true point of beginning. a :a 2, 01 A • STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Continued) ENCUMBRANCES (Continued) Order No.: 865926w 4 3. The rights of the public, governmental bodies, and public utilities, in and to that r. portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of SW 92nd Avenue and Greenburg Road. h :s 3 o i SITUATED IN SECTI O ^4 WASHINGTON Cc I SURVEYED JUNE 1951 ej ' .~.r.corLof'25 A.WbAOON FARMS t I /ron P' H YEw .v 8s°94'E-- -431.1 STREET - i a N 89° 34'E C sB9°3L n -68.9 n N89.34'E _ _ o - - - I 196.9 - - So /83.9 T/AL POi/JT C~i a / m v89°SB'w_ i Q N 8B°22•E ~ ~ :y- 'C 0 o I lac ..4 o••-Denotes 1,-on Qod 2 a uj.oI l O C W i 871 01 o 5W.Corner- Lof 2 - o / T9or0/✓l'//Q Pork - o :68.9 A ~ O rL ~ r O c - -189.f 0 w .5 a r ~o 41 N89°SB'w 4I i q j2 a o O :Ili /~L7~ F'alnl A v Z ' O a l ~ti, of"Char ben" /ohn Len . s ✓yAes w: re o o co e r F Vo/.i20 P 176 c U A ° West e c 2 - ° - HY C r. I 1 . t a.u11 lcr - , o I : 8d 9~ 0 1 al q I r I c 'v a&* 12"E ' o c /89s, .o off. .5 a !o lj 12 I q a Ill n/69°S8'✓V -9 n i w ~ I ~jCALE ' - ~ Z o o ;nl{ro/ t-bio1 o "Chorben " N i Z ./ohn LrN• S ✓yAlS t w. fe o o f m e v s. Vo/- 120 /76 p .c u west a Q ° - i H9 F. C 9 0 I It N :39.1 r"N so I / c G. 9 /89S t~d+ia2: ~ /vo H. D4v77 e3 l W 40 ^ S a 8.3 6' w I Uo% 244 P. 52 q %9.1 w I I 1 0 B.W- Roo, SOe7 l I 2 ° ✓aI249 P39i APf•ROVffD l4, '~~L C/v,~L•T~~ixr o W4SN1NGroN otjt4ry N, ANN11,16 Vol-244 PSiY ao ~Ir0A4M4. 5J0t J ~C 1 15 °hbry (_hOiir~rOii \'y Vol. 260 I - 1. 9c9c•J ~ B ~~~7 ~~_t Lo a tit 'f'c "'s' ~ y .Secretory - - - • fie/-eby cer:. Fy d`iot Jr . Co~n/y ✓ud c 006 {1'DOp iQ/U6 E:" I ,qpp•-Quad ~1L67 - r»isS~ over ' ' .4/O~oro ✓Ep/ 21f re Cor» o n er .4io/Q/O veo%54 -11 f/ To r c s i~o. ~a/ Fi-o m L4 -2 -L- ' SeSSor t:'' ' i~ 4~0r? y S ~ - _r I I t w< • E ( i i i _ 1 t CONST' F I L1 " J Ut HOW, ]HRILIL r z ' i • 1 CONSTUTION HILL WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE GOOD PEOPLE r' r WHO PROVIDED T HONES YOU LIVE . P i rv,, I N R O P ,Ti T710 Z NEIGHBORS UVNER 'ANDY -XJNGWIRT ❑ F J HOUSE o TERRENCE SN1 IN 1515 sv 91ST 11480 Sv 92ND W YAP APPLICANT/OWNER w YARD ° MILES DOWNING AWW. SHED 11600 SW GREENBURG RD 3 106.57 88.44 o TIGARD ❑R 97223 -a3 y ti LOCATION b M MAP 1S135DC CE 00 L O T 2 TAX LOT 6700 LOT 1 co PA 2 222 NOTEETHAT TAX LOTS D❑ NOT SHOW PARCELS ❑F 0 LAND. 9, 22 ' \R~9~ •1~ OvWR ° DICK AND LINDA EATpN j^ o 9625 Sv LEVIS LN 620-2043 Y ^ JJ m ~ \°6 s cal g Lr) 216 LOT 3 - -3s^ SHE D y .00 . r 2J? ps ~h'p~ sT f ~V ~tifo 214 Sq tiC N k OWNER Cry `~G / y" "PW WA LEE LDVRT OZ II793 Sv 91ST CiYNE S R11 WATER CATCH 1151!1 R VARIA WI LKINSGN J 11630 S 2 GRECNBIIRG RD FIRE HYDRANT 212 OWNER C w j am DPENNA -Jt1,f PO. BOZ 23603 TIGARD 63¢5792 v 1 ~ 210 JUNE 12 1997 TORM DRAINS TO CURB P STORM WATER CATCH BASIN NORTH SCALE 1"=50' LOCATION ❑E TREES ❑N SUBJECT PARCEL SCALE 1//-30/ , 036'FIR 6'FIR 018'FIR 00 13'FIR ° 10'DECID000S • 40'FIR 8'ALDER 038-FIR o (D48-FIR 1' ]R & 31'FIR o13'FIR 042'FIR 022'FIR o9'FIR 042'FIR 020'FIR ol2'DOGWOOD 019'FIR 0 13'FIR 032'FIR 026-FIR 036-FIR ° 9'HOLLY o12TIR 032-FIR O 26'FIR ° 7'DECID000S o 10CHERRY 016FIR °10FIR 0 14'FIR 024TIR 0191FIR O42'FIR 0 35-FIR _ O 24'FIR 016'FIR 015'FIR 016'FIR o14'FIR 0 0 12'.12'CHERR o16-FIR . 036'FIR o8'FIR 02 oi8'4'FIR NORTH 024'FIR 024'FIR 0 10'APPLE SCALE 1_2ooo L,j ~ = 18,102 VISUAL > ~ ~ CLEARANCE <1 ~ W AREAS -4so - ~j Cl) U. P, L T~ tj ;Pre::-Apps: (CD Meefings) June 1997 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14: EE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 €5:~':r:ii:'.~:;::~;::;<;;::;:2:;:::;:::::::::'?:::~ ':i€:Ss~~:::;:;:::2':::;::;:?:'? ~:::~2::~':~:2:: ~:;:;<::::~;:ii:•::::::::;::?:~?i";y€€;+ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • 29 30 : t T u 8:00 8:30 on utt 6 9:00 € ;>::..:.:;::::::....<.>:.;::.::.::.:.»:<.;:;;::;:.>:.:;.;:.;:;<:>:;:.»:.>:.;:.;:<:;;::<•,~:;.::.;:.;:.::.;;:.;:.;:.;:;;:<;.::.;:.;;:::.;:.;:.;::.;:.;:.;:.::.>;::<.:::.::.;:.;:.:.;::.: Su ivi 9:30 `tVl€les DowrtS 6847 334 M~,P 1 S135QG 06700 : 10:00 € 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00) 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 € 3:00 3:30 i 4:00 ; 4:30 j 5:00 f 5:30 6:00 1:OOPM Monday, June 16, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATlON CONFERENCE NOTES A 1-2- re 4 T- 7 rucANT: Vvl (e ACEIR: olae` I l b ~y- I ~33 PUM 11 IFEBU LOCATIOW ABIRESS: I I o S c.J G •Q b~~ TAX MAP/TAX LOT: S So a,.- L.a.ti( fA -uhf l~h USSAW APMICATIONISk VIA'. OPOSAL DESCB"O1t 104-OHO H Sh a ~e¢'aJf d *4~ A ae_- UPBERBOWE L-0 - 10 44 -C IN DESIGNATIOW w EINSDESIGNAMON: . S `7 Coo s jto J;4--w1 j /o UEN UMOLVE1NENT G a FACIMATOR: 5•e~~L-j W AREA PHONE 15031 IN6 DISTR1gT DIMENSIONAL RE@~ EMENi'S " ~t= is Minimum lot size: _ Sq. ft. Average lot width: Sd ft. Maximum building height: 790 - ft. adcs Front = ft. Sid ft. Rear I< ft. Comer 1!5~ ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: H % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area:% deter to Code Section 18. m; ` ITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet, unless lot is created through the Minor Land Partition process. Lots creat as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide acce easement The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2'/: times the average width, unless the parcel is less than I % times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district defer ti Cade Secboa 18.)64.060 letsl - I neaeo hs4moktln CNtaass RMS - P=@1 d18 (AL SFtIMS Streets: feet fro the centerline of Established areas: Lower intensity zones: ✓I et, alp a site's Pt jQ boundary. Flag lot: Ten (10)-foot si a ar setback. iaimum ten (101-foot separation between buildings. Multi-family residents uilding separation: _ (Refer to Cede Ol Accessory structures up to 528 square feet in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5}foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ccessory structure up to 1000 -fare feet on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. Ma x4dk > t OtaO dkWct ter orlwanl w I1111S1ON FIAT NM ON Prior to submitting a S ivision land use application with the City of Tigard, applicant's are =qujred to complete and file a subd' ' ion plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyors Office in order to obtain approval/reserva n for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the ed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. (Caaaty sm ovors omm LOT 201=111M6BT PROMONS Maximum height of VA stories or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2% stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12. R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Cade &Kdon18.98.030MI are met. DE1= B SM CALCBLAMON [Sae example iolew] The Net Residential Units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the Iat area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: 1. AU sensitive lands areas including: a. Land within the 100 year floodplain; b. Slopes exceeding 25%; and C. Drainageways. 2. Public right-of-way dedication. a. Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facifrties, and b. Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities. (Refer to Cade Section 18.921 IPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEIMM-CALCBLATMN& - t" ' ,1MPL.E: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS SM91e-famtty 1AURR WIV 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. R of gross site area 8.712 so_ ft. (20%) for public right-of-YM 534 sa R (15%) for oubliic right-of-wM 1 W. 34,848 square feet W: 37,026 square feet Z- Z- 3.050 (minimum lot areal 3.050 (minimum lot areal 1 - M Oats For Acre = 121 UM Ftir Acre *11111111 to* ~■Mattgelnsdome 3 te"e M fffdM Ma%"e iw.M.e In MMM R lS MKMM PM2dll ICK • The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1.800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or. pre- existing development. When block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. _ Cade Socdu 18.164.0401 ~IDENIIAL DEIISITY FER The City of Tiga (lows a Residential Density Transfer-of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been developed o sensitive lands areas listed in the density calculations that may be applied to the developable portion o the site. (Kehl to C-de S•ttl 18.9Z.030L for a residential development application to provide a dgtalled It is the resgons* * 'M calculation for both the permi residential density and the requested density transfer. i1DE1L11A1 DENSM TRANSMON _ Regardless of the allowed housing density in a zoning district'any property within 900-fieefof'a-designated established area shalt not be developed at a density 'greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent. parcel.-~,Jransition area applies to 'any ~Ct-p petty is designated as an pro which is a designated established area. The Aubf . 1area. The subject property is adjoined areas to th IRE STREET MAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS 1. A future street plan shag: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattem of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land dL b. Iing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pcilities on or within 500 feet of the site. L2. Where no give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets ped, shall be the boundary lines of the tract to be develo (Rotor to 0301 '189MAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to solar access requirements. These requirements state All that a minimum of 80% of all lots created must be oriented for solar accessibility. The basic standard, which determines solar accessibility, requires that 80% of total number of proposed lots: 1. Demonstrate a north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. 2. Demonstrate a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east west axis. ®FTISM ns . a■rasea RMs Fw 3 M1@ M10.11099IN The total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access requirement may be approved for the following reasons: 1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20%. 2. Off-site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography). 3. On-site shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments avowing a reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five percent due to either a. East, west or north slope greater than 10%. b. Significant natural feature. Q Existing road or totting pattern. d. Public easement or right-of-way. 2. Reduction in important development amenities. 3. Pre-existing shade (vegetation). ISE ROTE: Mops and M are rmlIM wMkM an ant Is show dut the deyelepmeat COM063 WIM the solar design sraadarft Of Mat SDUMc lets sbetld be exempted or adlaated oat The tegowiag items shag be iu Med In dw amlvft 1. The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. 2. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. 3. For the purpose of identifying trees related to exemption requests, a map showing existing trees which are at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade shall be submitted. This man shall include the following: a. Height b. Diameter. C. Species. . d. A statement declaring that they are to be retained. 4. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. " The design characteristics of a developed solar-oriented lot are- high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs of the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize the following: 1. Protected Solar Building Line - The solar building line must: a. Be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. b. Provide a minimum distance of 70 feet from the middle of the lot to the south property line. C. Provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the north property line. 2. Performance Options - There are two performance options which may be utilized as follows: a. The house to be oriented within 30 degrees of an east-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor's south wall protected from shade. b. At least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the roof area face south and be protected from shade. _ ~Fnsaao rr.-Awoan.. c~.raeacs Kas u. PWa w 11 I.SE NOTIE Aewdless d the sodeolsl and threaQb Me desiaa of the Sahdiften or lthtor land PuNso, ell one ad an family. slaelNamthl Middeaces are MdMd thnaall the kdl 2 Benoit amen for amteaata wdd Selo Oataoca hint standards. Men CUM Me Co8dia0 OMWU for further hdaughs MjMft Ike Selo Muce hint sta iduds and Me eadens Mat we available related to hlb8~ bieRt and csesatalee. IION6 ANO ACZESS All parking areas and driveways must be paved. Single famil : Requires 2 off-street parking spaces per dwellin > Multi a family: n or 1 bedroom. (Mutts farndy - requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1+ bedrooms.) Multi--family dwetli units with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of % of the total required parking. OWerto Code 11.166.1301 No more than 40 of fired spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimen ' ned as follows: > Standard parking spa dimensions: 8 ft 8 inches X 18 ftt > Compact parking space ensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft > Handicapped parking: All rking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking s 11 dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available on request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface a an appropriate sign shall be posted. YCLE Bicycle cks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in as protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided o the basis of one space for every fifteen. (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum numbe f accesses: Minimum access width: Maximum access wi Minimum pavement width: !OIREO WALKWAY CATION Within all attac housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be ected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, common open space and recreation facilities. 0 VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision are depends upon the abutting streets functional classification. q 18.1021 IFnrn rrF~lwrleadr•aalbus _ . _ trnsf.tu ON Aaftowl"an" Now" swan BRING ANO SC 6 In order to incre a privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developm nts, especially between different land uses. the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site 13 ' eters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupi by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve .a balance between ve I and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required: these are often a isable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may Sfl be occupied by vegetation, ces. utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be fou d in the Community Development Code. Motor to Cede Chater 18.1001 The required buffer widths which applicable to your proposal area are as follows: fL along north boun ft. along east boundary. ft. along south bounds ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is requi along HTTHM Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. . A minimum of one tree for every seven parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms. decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. Motor to Cade Cl 2PM 18.100, 18.106 and 18.1081 EREMOVALPIMMIN A tree pan for the anting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, arcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major p rtition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is prefe ed over removal where possible. The tree plan shall include t e following: > Identification of the to tion, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; > Identification of a program o save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must How the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following stan ards: Retainage of less than 25 per nt of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation . program according to Section 18. 50.070.D. of no net loss of trees: Retainage of from 25 to 50 percen of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be m ' ated according to Section 18.150.070.0: If TIAM h W4m@cW= Ca■fsnoa Nabs hN M tt low UWa a Retainage of from 50 to 75 ercent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be remo d be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.0: b Retainage of 75 percent or greate of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; Identification of all trees which are pro sed to be removed: and ~ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after consir uction. Trees removed within the period of one ) y ear pri to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above d will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.0. [Bator to Cede Section 18.150.0251 16ATIBN Replacement of a shall take place according to the following guidelines: 01 A replacement shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. i If a replacement ee of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Direct may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value JW If a replacement tree o the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Direct shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: > The number of replacement t es required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or d aged, by the caliper size of the. largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this num r of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) r more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public prope or, with the consent of the owner, private property. The planting of a replacement tree sh 1 take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D o this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs ' performing such tree replacement. Motor to Code Secdoo 18,150.478 Ol - NS Sign permits must be obtained prior to' stallation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon reque %.Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed w before the Hearings Officer. SMVE LANDS The Code provides regulations fo ands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natura rainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available informati o HOWEVER, the resoonsibilb to precisely iden ' sensitive lands areas. and their is thg r onsibiMy of the agglicant. Areas meeting the definitions _QJ sensitive lands development application, (Rater to Code CBastor 18.841 ®fnsaso M.#r~wca•tM.alUb~s r~.rNn nf~l ipOestUdNm~! ~Npla Saafu Chapter T8.84 also provides re~tions for the se, protection, or molWation of sensitive lands areas. Residential dervelgl2ment is grohoMed w* Si0PE5 When steep slopes exist, prior to issuan of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tig Community Development Code Section 18.84.040.8. The report shall be based upon field exploration an investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18.84.040.8.2 d 18.84.040.8.3. IRED SEINEAA6E AMCY OW QO STANURK a a 0 96.44 Purpose: Land development adjacent o sensitive areas shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide eno gh to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria• The vegetated •corridor shall be minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of a corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the veg ated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corn r that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, ex opt as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corridor ithin the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average wi of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: No structures, development, constru 'on:. activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, r other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provid by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: > A gravel walkway or bike path, not ceeding 8 feet in-width-;,lf.the-,walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor mu t be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be co structed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by th Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturban to existing vegetation: and > Water quality facilities may encroach into a vegetated corridor a .maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. Location of Vegetated Corridor: In any residential development which creates ultiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated co ridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for.the co ruction of a dwelling unit. 36ATIYE 1 The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings for all applicable approval standards. Faitur0 to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. Applicant should review code for applicable criteria. VTIMM h"111iCatlrP IN - 9 VMS lawistlt SECZ1~ 18.80 ~ 18.92 .100 _ 18.108 18.120 _ 18.150 84 _ 18.96 1 02 _ 18.114 18.130 _ 10. 160 18.88 18.98 - 06 18.116 18.134 _ ~18162 __t/1 8.164 ACTSZOOT - As a part of the application submittal requirements, applicants are required to include impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system. the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact. the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations- where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement. or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. When a condition of approval requires transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shad adopt findings which support the conclusion that the intermit in real property to be transferre4 is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. IMMUtshit 1t32 SetdN.2501 Menges G The applicant 0 notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator of their proposal A min' m of 2 weeks between the maTng date and the meeting date is required. Please review the land Use tification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. ~b tOt N ed Yttm! /adtttl 10016 PESYIiS . Plans for building and other related permits will. not be accepted for review until a. land use approval been issued. Final inspection approvals by` ttie •Buiidinj-DWW6i r=iii notT' be'"grantrrd :until: there is -'1`r _rtwr c a^,a]e_ v..d'1_Cs.;%R-+~er ra. .>1;::~.yrfi'~+.-,7 .?~:..w Z6c~w r. mpliance with all conditions of development approval `~5 °`~d~9e~@'.,y~.~12~,:.~~'S~.y,:.•S.. i'``.;K_i-.'.,~:.'~*-t',C~'e:Ci:::a. ;t':.)wf•~' ' -<:f'F; ...i'3.i•i~ `.~ro'!'j1:~~1•`tit,"„~~l.LV_S.. '.ti ~Ri'n "'d', ,=1: L; : srW4epi cir 9 ro u -ati4iti r~! Y t Applican ould contact franchise hauler for review of ' a'iz<z_ircrrc.~-.'s-r:..c.~-.a4:_. .av-tr.¢ •x c Pride Disposal ehicles. CONTACT PERSO . enny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. Meter to Cede Sezded 61 MONAL CONCERNS 08 COM MEM (l ovicel c . w eel lre.<forawl a s' O Ke all U 9 ~ 0 rov 2V ga IQ t7A ),:S: - Le ttlt~it h+tt~wOcartM Cwhr~p wds - - • - ; . - . hUr+ s rf 1/ • Now 1cEnoe~ • • Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. _ IUCA11oN sunl= Bogus All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or drooped off at the counter without Planning DivisiaLl acceotan^ cs may be returned. Application will NOT be accepted After 3.00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall he folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1; 8%"x 11" map_oa l2rapgAn l nroieet should lie submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision Anplicatlo with unfolded mans Shall not bg accgptecL The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven M days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public a al pgriod follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard A basic flow chart which illustrates -the review process is available the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. ASE NOTE 7% texW as ad nets came aver ad Cede 9 and eape~ d ON 30 01NIp tint .-a8ply b Ire develOporeat et~ear see ~ FaAea eitde staA ti hterssdM r+e~■hd 11 . the too sMN set cludU e a WdM ed ire Ala er ro eft I I eatL It t: reoale11101r mat a OMSOMN mft= dMer 800 ad raid ire Calf oevelaIreat Cede K N* aav 480080e1 CI1 stall Ntaft te NO rsI MI M ui nfIr to 2111 Additional pre-application conference(s) islare required if an application(s) islare to be submitted more than six (6) months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. FWAM BY: 9A R rL_ CM IFn6A8D RAMS DIMIN F81NE (5031639.4711 FAX-: 15031684-7197 gee 380= xWIWWW 264br-97 iFnCYe ~Ilwe~~ Gt+~lwMa Mt+ctas , talNlr ~t1 saw" INNOW04"Ses" cam! o0 ~Pgce_ Z •r:::;.:::,;: City of Tigard, Oregon PRE=APPLICATION CONFERENCEES ENGINEERING SECTION ° PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (1.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. (3.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of- way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for. (~c) SiAl AN6 to ZS feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: ( ) street improvements will be necessary along ( ) street improvements will be necessary along ( ) Street improvements on shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 5 &0-ng DePUMMd $KtiM streets, or in the CA Business District), necessary streesigns. and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. ( ) Street improvements on shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW _C_ ANF, Prior to REX1aP-VW 4 cF PLAI , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: 0 Xe ~Lx~ (2•) Pedestdanways/bikewavs: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) ® inch line which is located in Sv~l qZ Ate. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to t =75: Zo P-f4c- CRY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 5 E~iO Oepaanem SOCOM Water Supply: • • The VAuZ4Water District - Phone:(503) Z- 31 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a subbasin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse (impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site.. t o d Wl 4t xv t ckg %5 ~t 0aLxej l H ~vuW~S reo~ ~r~ ~e e f/i c o a SeAvfM 12,2 /`e ca/~c~•.y DO. -fir-. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. STORM WATER QUALITY The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove CITY OF TIGARD Pro-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Eno wing Depwonmt Section 65 percent of the phosphor contained in 100 percent of therm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall- be $180.00. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ( ) Construction of an on-site water quality facility. Payment of the fee in-lieu. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible Q* when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. pp~ fG1- PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4% of the cost of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 5 Fngneeinq Oeparanmt Section NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Department Building Department Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Department. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, contact the Development Services -Counter at 639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, .if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. PREPARED BY: ~?otr- 2 7 ENGINEERING DE ARTMEN Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 hNogin"ttyWeapp.eng (Master section: preapp-r.m st) December 23,19% CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 EnVieeing oepzwem section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST A W1, CITY of TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet IMUI be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: _ w( 6 Date: 97 APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE V MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) Y 6) Owner's signature(written authorization C) Title transfer instrument(or grant deed D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies ~d E) Filing Fee S `7 11SITE-SPECIFIC MAPMPLANS) SUBMrITAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE / MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies 0 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions b/ 3. Contour lines (2 k at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: ❑ (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ (c) Unstable ground ❑ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats ❑ (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses g/ 9. Location and type of on and oft-site noise sources 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways d1/ L kNO USE APPUCAnoN o' LIST PACE 1 OF 5 8) it ev to m n P191ndi in : 4to. of Copies 1. The proposed site and s rounding properties ❑ 2. Contour line intervals ❑ 3. The location, dimensions d names of all: (a) Existing & platted str is & other public ways and easements on the site nd on adjoining properties o (b) Proposed streets or oth public ways & easements on the site ❑ (c) Alternative routes of dea end or proposed streets that require future extensi n o 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the ite o (b) Parking and circulation area o (c) loading and services area ❑ (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circul ion ❑ (e) Outdoor common areas o (f) Above ground utilities o 5. The location, dimensions & setback tances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, i rovements, utilities, and easements which are located on t e site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site ❑ (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ❑ 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of d nstream conditions ❑ 7. Sanitary sewer facilities ❑ 8. The location areas to be landscaped o 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting co idering crime prevention techniques o 10. The location of mailboxes o 11. The location of all structures and their orientatio ❑ 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agree ents ❑ C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines ❑ (b) Slope ratios a (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) ❑ (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development ❑ 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report ❑ (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals ❑ (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated ❑ LANO USE APPLICATION *'LIST PACE 2 OF 3 D) Architectural Dr win Indicating: ~o. of Copies - The site develop en n proposal shall include: I . Floor plans in icating the square footage of all structures proposed for u e on-site 2. Typical elevatio drawings of each structure E) Lan a e Plan Indi No. of Copies The landscape plan shall b drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scal if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigati n system where applicable o 2. Location and height of fen es, buffers and screenings o 3. Location of terraces, decks, helters, play areas, and common open spaces o 4. Location, type, size and sp of existing and proposed plant materials o 5. Landscape narrative which als addresses: (a) Soil conditions o (b) Erosion control measures t will be used o F) Sign Drawinw. C3 Sign drawings shall be submitted in accor rice with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Developmen Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Gener ion Estimate: 0 H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adiustment Mao Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The owner of the subject parcel m~ 2. The owner's authorized agent Z/ .I_ 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet -1) inch north arrow and date 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines 7. Location and width of all water courses 8. Location of any trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level 9. All slopes greater than 25% 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements 11. For major land partition which creates a public street: (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width / (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip 12.. Any applicable deed restrictions y~ 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land / division where applicable d/ L MO USE APPUUnON J LIST PAGC 3 OF of Copies 1) ubdivi ion Pr limina I Ma grid Data Indicating. or. 1. Scale equaling 30,50 100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet ❑ 2. The proposed name or the subdivision ❑ 3. Vicinity map showing roperty's relationship to arterial and collector streets C3 4. Names, addresses and t lephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and esigner (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6.. Boundary lines of tract be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent sub ivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related t a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades great r than 10% o 9. The purpose, location, pe and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the propos subdivision): (a) Public and private 'ght-of-ways and easements ❑ (b) Public and private s itary and storm sewer lines ❑ (t) Domestic water main including fire hydrants ❑ (d) Major power telephon transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for pa , open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles f proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indi ted on the plans ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water distri ution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire by nts ❑ 12. Approximate centerline profiles sho ing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a real nable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed stree right-of=way(s) ❑ 14. The location of all areas subject to inun ation or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of a water courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approxi ate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used r purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon suc lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location f proposed tree plantings ❑ 18. The existing uses of the property, including t location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a st tement of which structures are to remain after platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision i provements ❑ 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, well nds & marsh areas ❑ 21. If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably a shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrati a and submitted with the application e LAND USE APPUCATION / UST PACE 4 OF 5 Solar Access Calculations: o/ IQ Other Information No. of Copies 2 ~ 'ate ~11+1A~f A*vtA0!n&"!5 ta vi !5 c- tree JLAA c to+Ae- d~,Jagu*Lo,< i \j j h:'lo3i^b~iscers~4 dct nt.~mt WY 21. 1995 Wv0 USE APPUCAMM. UST PACE 5 OF 5 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 917 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076 RECEIVED Legal Notice Advertising SEP 0 2 1997 • City of Tigard • Q Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 Q Duplicate Affidavit s OF TIGARD • Accounts Payable Ulf ifj 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION .;W STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the-igard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti rr;; rri in the aforesaid county and state, that the M ;!P Downing-92nd Avenue a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 28,1997 Subscribed and sworn to b re me this 28t-h day of August, 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL =3 lv~ ROBIN A. BURGESS Notary P is for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard Clty Council on Septem- ber 9, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center = Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.; Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is, invited. The public hearing'on this mattei will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chaptei 18.32 bf the-Tigard-,Municipal Code and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City,Council, or rules of procedure set forth in,Chapter' .18,30.- Failure to raise,an issue in person or by letter at some point-prior,to the close of the hearing 6n the request, accompanied by statements or . ` evidence sufficient to allow the Heariggs Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal tolhe Land Use Board of Ap- peals based on that issue, and failure. to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a coin- went is directed precludes an appearylbe d on that criterion. Further infor- mation is available at City Hall and obtained from the Community Development Director or City Recur 'at. the same location; or by calling (503) 639-4171 r a+t y7 r, c#j ~ , i= ;PUBLIC. HEARINQ: F t'-COUNCE ;yREJUVWO1 OR',S DECISIO ,F Rs j ~ f. ; DOVf11~fI1K Gam` vE pARTI~I7' a The° applicanE has;regtiested` al to par'tion qpF ot" ~prbximately 2 ,85, ej are feet .iato three, 3 lots of approx.: iie y4- 570, 8,040 and 7;7'71 `s uare teet'r WdATI ' Ns.:I1000 SW 9201. 4enue; WCTM*lS135DC, Tax"Lot'06701 e'APPLIC`ABI E"RftV .CRITERIA: Community Development Code.Chapters;,18.32,-18.50, 18.88, `18.92;;18. 6;-18,:98',:-18 ,1Q0; 18 102; 18106, 1.8A08,v18j50, 18.162' and 18.164':'ZONEi Residential; i4:5, Uiii ePer,*Acre; ~R 4:5. The purpose of R-4.5 zoning districtIsato e`sfablish standard urbah:low:den= sity.residential'sites: , • .r...<: r;;i J..; • #;;sti;fR:~. 4. i ; ~l i i' ,.t - ; ;s qty -~14 e~ 1• 77 r ..r Y. 'A I TT8917 - Publish August 28, 1997. A ti 9 EEI= DAKOTA T Q ~ev ER Q O - LW S LN LOMIT A cu W TANGELA C ~u Q O 4.0 U Vicinity Map N MLP 91-0010 Nta: Alpbrclbamb A DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION v OVI;A W Z pEORE .nN M IOIN HOUSE If 9[K[ SO)IN IISI 5 i V v 91 131 W J c y H Oc YARD : W SH. D F- AWNING Q 3 106.57 88.44 0 4 DO- • E-- s -Ito co LOT 1 LOT 2 c. ca 222 ' h ~Q 220 W ' 9,~ 1' OvNia z `J s j a olc~ .NO LsNO~ c.lnl y >1 •%Z I ; LCVIS LN L Y- fI6 Z z L. 9 L❑ T 3 Y4R 21>~6 z asHED ~4 °s ....1 y f ~tiEO 214 _ C. i wRILEE LnVAr x Q 11595 SV 91t1 S WATEP CATCH J ' V.9I. VILr1NS04 I rs FIRE HYDRANT 119,0,V WKCN9PG.n 2,1c _^Il y 679-1707 1 v AN ,C3 • .0 671•10l 77507 11G"0 v S ~9t 1 y c `qlf~ I 210 -STORM DRAINS TO CURB O STORM WATER CATCH-BASIN APPLICANT/OWNER MILES DOWNING P.O. BOX 230972 TIGARD OR 97281-0972 LOCATION MAP IS135DC TAX LOT 6701 CASE NO. PLOT T ' PLAN ~ R n DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION E~H1BIT MAP ~I MLP97-0010 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: July 10, 1997 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts U3171 Phone: [50316394fn Fax: [50316641291 RE: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 91-0010 DOWNING - GREENBURG PARTITION Q A request to partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: The northeast corner of SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 Zoning District is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and APPIICanrg Statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from 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: Monday - July 21, 1991 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: ftkase pnrvide the fo&ving information) Name of Person[s) Commentlng: Phone Number[s]: MLP 97-0010 DOWNING - GREENBURG PARTITION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NIMHUTION UST FOR UMI OSE a DEVELOPMENT 11PPUUTIONS CITAFft (Cl [El (3) cwl C=N INVOLVEMENT TEAMS W MCI lIff HYIIi1r b UWM CR Ilelk >t) FILE NOISL• VIAL P q7- Da 10- RLENAMEISI: 06w& bu 69veeut &7 WY OFFICES _ A ANCED PLANNING/Nadine Smith, aw.ps~o«,,,, Z.6-.UNITY DVLPMNT. DEPTJoe~.a eK.,w,. LPrO'ICE DEPTJcT»v'«. onr« UILDING DIVJDavid Scott, e.- oft., INEERING DEPTJBrian Rager, ow..a a«..E.P.... _WATER DEPTJMichael Miller, 0WMn1M&WW -CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley, cna...o.. _PERATIONS DEPTJJohn Roy. P.opo rmrmyw OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS _"A TIN VALLEY FIRE d. RESCUE ~ ALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT _ NIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Fire Marshall Administrative Office Julia HufrmarVSWM Program Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N. First Street (place In pick-up box) Beaverton. OR 97075 Hillsboro, OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE IURiSDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON _ CITY OF TUALATIN _ OR. DEPT. OF FISH & WILDLIFE _ OR. DIV. OF STATE LANDS PO Box 4755 Planning Director 2501 SW First Avenue 775 Summer Street. NE Beaverton, OR 97076 PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem, OR 97310-1337 Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland. OR 97207 _ Larry Conrad, s. Pumm _OR. PUB. UTILITIES COMM. _ Mike Matteucci. N.pN. co.e. METRO _ OR. DEPT. OF GEO. a MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street, NE 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 5 Salem, OR 97310-1380 _ CITY OF DURHAM Portland, OR 97232-2736 Portland, OR 97232 City Manager _ US ARMY CORPS. OF ENG. PO Box 23483 _ Paulette Alien, G.o.m mmewnw cou.aw. . _ OR. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERV.3 DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue Durham, OR 97281-3483 _ Mel Huie, G..«..o.o..Coaan.a(CPA•WZ0A's) 1175 Court Street, NE PO Box 2946 Salem, OR 97310-0590 Portland, OR 97208-2946 _ CITY OF KING CITY _ METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION City Manager 800 NE Oregon Street _ OREGON DEPT. OF TRANS. (ODOT) WASHINGTON COUNTY 15300 SW 116th Avenue Building #16, Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept. of Land Use & Trans. King City. OR 97224 Portland, OR 97232-2109 Attn: Tom Highland, Pim 155 N. First Avenue 3040 25th Street, SE Suite 350, MS 13 _ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _ OR. DEPT. OF ENERGY Salem, OR 97310 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Planning Director Bonneville Power Administration PO Box 369 PO Box 3621 _ ODOT, REGION 1 _ Brent Curtis (CPI) Lake Oswego. OR 97034 Routing TTRC - Attn: Renae Ferrara Sonya Kazan, opm. a«. com. _ Scott King MPA•s) Portland,. OR 97208-3621 123 NW Flanders _ Mike Borreson m qb..n _ CITY OF PORTLAND Portland, OR 97209-4037 _ Jim Tice o"-s) David Knowles, Pow - a.... or. _ OREGON, DEPT. OF ENVIRON. QUALITY _ Tom Harry (C....M PL Aqw) Portland Building 106, Rm. 1002 811 SW Sixth Avenue _ ODOT, REGION 1 - DISTRICT 2A _ Phil Healy mAwm PL AwL) 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland. OR 97204 Jane Estes. Pat sp.dan Portland. OR 97204 PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97298-0412 91111TY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AP>IEtiCES _ BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R _ METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO.(R/R) _ TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Administrative Office Jason Hewitt Clifford C. Cabe. Construction Engineer Michael Kiser, Project Planner 1313 W. 11th Street Twin Oaks Technology Center 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard 710 NE Holladay Street Vancouver, WA 98660-3000 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Portland, OR 97232 Portland. OR 97232 Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 _ COLUMBIA CABLE COMPANY _ TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Craig Eyestone _ NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY Linda Peterson Pete Nelson 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Scott Palmer 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street Beaverton, OR 97005 220 SW Second Avenue Portland. OR 97201 Portland. OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209-3991 _ GENERAL TELEPHONE Paul Koft. Engineering _ PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MC: OR030546 Brian Moore Tigard, OR 97281-3416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road Beaverton, OR 97007 rc%pattylmastwaVkraiee.mst 24day-97 v Q 1S135DBO4600 1S135DB03800 S135D6027 S135DB019 1S135DB04700 S135DB052 1S135DB03700 S135DB028 1 135D8018 0 1S135D600400 1S135D804800 W 1S135D803600 CA 5135DB029 44 135D8017 1S135D600500 S135DB051 v ~ 135D60490 135DB0 1 135DB030 1S135D600600 S135DB04 135DB016 ■ - 1S135 002 1S135DC06 15135 2 135DC071 DC072 135DC082 a O 1 135 1 35 00 Cu 1S135DC03000 1S1 5DC06 00 L d. 135DC06300 1 135DC070 15135DC073 1 35D 065 13500062 mo 1 135DC061 135 Cu 35DC026 S135DC074 1 135 13 2602 TANGIELA LN O TANGELA C ~u Q Q U 0 MLP 91-00 Vicinity Map Downing Greenburg Partition Note: Map is not to scale N "notification area map" December 15, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD Gerald Stolp, Housing Coordinator OREGON Office of Developmental Disability Services 2575 Bittesen Street, NE Salem, OR 97310-0520 Dear Mr. Stolp: We received your rational regarding the request to add a second stove to the residential home currently under construction at 11530 SW 92nd Avenue in Tigard. The Tigard Community Development Code defines dwelling units as "a structure or portion thereof that is used for human habitation including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation". Housing units with two full sets of the provisions listed above are considered to be duplexes. You indicated the desire to have two kitchens to serve five mentally or physically disabled residents since it is necessary to teach basic skills in small groups. Also, it was pointed-out that the property will carry a 60-year covenant restriction with the State of Oregon on the use of the property as a group home for disabled individuals. In addition, there is only one address, one water, gas, phone and electrical service, no separate garage, one fire detection system, and one hot water system. The plans submitted show an internal connection between areas of the residence and that the laundry facility is located in only one of the two living areas. Based on the above findings, we do not consider the residential unit to be a duplex and a second stove may be added. There are not complete independent facilities for two separate dwelling units. Considerable modification of the structure would be required for this unit to serve as a duplex. Conversion to a duplex would require additional building permits and prior land use approval. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please feel free to call me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, :C4- Ric FardH. Bewersdorff Planning Manager hcu rplnW ickU etterslstol p.doc c: Jim Hendryx 1999 Planning Correspondence File MLP97-0010 Land Use File Building Permit File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I~ 6-F ~ • -0 Department of Human Resources 0 regoiaCEIVED tal Health and Developmental. Men X859 John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Disability Services Division DEC 131999 2575 Bittern. Street NE CUtVINIU 11 ULVELOPMENT Salem OR 97310-0520 December 10, 1999 (503) 945-9499 Mr. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager FAX 378-3796 City of Tigard TTY 945-9836 13125 SW Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Dick: In our phone conversation yesterday you asked me to send you the rationale and supporting arguments for allowing a second kitchen in the residential home that is currently being constructed at 11530 SW 92nd Avenue. I hope the following information is useful in your determination. 1. Addition of a second kitchen to this plan does not create a "duplex" which is a conditional use in this zone. The home is configured to house five residents who are mentally or physically disabled under the authority and regulations of the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division (MHDDSD) who receive services and support from MHDDSD. The residence is owned by Specialized Housing, Inc., a not for profit housing agency who owns many such residences throughout Oregon. ORS 197.660 defines residential home to mean: "A residential treatment or training or an adult foster home licensed by or under the authority of the department (MHDDSD), as defined in ORS 442.400 to 443.500... which provides residential care alone or in conjunction with treatment or training or a combination thereof for five or fewer individuals who need not be related to each or to any resident of the residential home." In addition, ORS 1907.663 provides: (1) "It is the policy of this state that disabled persons and elderly persons are entitled to live as normally as possible within communities and should not be excluded from communities because their disability or age requires them to live in groups; (2) There is a growing need for residential homes and residential facilities to provide quality care and protection for disabled persons and elderly Assisting People to BeconTe Independent, Healthy and Safe ~It An Equal Opportunity Employer i • persons and to prevent inappropriate placement of such persons in state institutions and nursing homes; (3) It is often difficult to site and establish residential homes and residential facilities in the communities of this state; (4) To meet the growing need for residential homes and residential facilities, it is the policy of this state that residential homes and residential facilities shall be considered a resident use of property for zoning purposes; and (5) It is the policy of this state to integrate residential facilities into the communities of this state. The objective of integration cannot be accomplished if residential facilities are concentrated in any one area." Furthermore, ORS 197.665 provides, in part: (1) "Residential homes shall be a permitted use in: (a) Any residential zone which allows a single-family dwelling; and (b) Any commercial zone which allows a single-family dwelling. (2) A city or county shall not impose any zoning requirements on the establishment and maintenance of a residential home in a zone described in (1) of this section that is more restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on a single family dwelling in the same zone." I believe that state law makes it clear that this residence should be considered a single family home, occupied by one family according to the above definition of family, and not considered a duplex to be occupied by two families. The addition kitchen should be considered an accessory or auxiliary modification, considering that both kitchens are to be used by one family. Additional evidence that supports the conclusion that the use or design of this home is not a duplex is: (1) Only one street address for the property; (2) Only one water, gas, phone, and electrical service for the property, as well as other utilities; (3) Only one laundry room; (4) One fire detection a suppression system for the home; (5) No separate garages; (6) One domestic hot water system; (7) Internal connection of all parts of the residence; and (8) The property will be leased to one service provider with staff that is interchangeable and trained or experienced to provide care and training for any of the residents at any given time. Furthermore, the deed to the property will carry a 60-year restriction on the use of the property as a group home for disabled individuals (attached). 0 • 2. Permitting the addition of the second kitchen is necessary to meet the needs of the intended handicapped residents of this home and is a reasonable accommodation required under federal law pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. Even if the county interprets its zoning ordinances such that the addition of an auxiliary kitchen would convert the use of this home into a duplex, the county is required to consider the proposed modifications as a reasonable accommodation to meet the needs of these particular residents. See e.g., Allied Health Care inc. v. Baton Rouge, FHFL Pa. 16,066 (M.D.La 2- 15-96). The intended residents of this home suffer from mental or physical disabilities or a combination thereof. Thus, these residents meet the definition of "handicapped" and would qualify for protection under the Fair Housing Act 42 USC #3602 (h) (1)-(3 In order to permit individuals with disabilities to enjoy the same opportunities to housing as non-disabled individuals, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against individuals in the sale, Use or enjoyment of a dwelling. 42 USC #3604. Pursuant to 42 USC #3604(f)(3), "discrimination" includes: (A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modification of the exist premises occupied to be occupied by such persons if such modification may be necessary to afford such persons full enjoyment of the premises (B) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Thus a violation of the Fair Housing Act occurs not only when there is a discriminatory intent, or effect against a disabled individual in pursuing housing accommodations of the individual's choice, but also by failing to make a reasonable accommodation in order to allow a person with a disability access to housing. Several legal decisions affirm this right. In this case, MHDDSD is requesting access to a second kitchen to teach basic skills of independent living necessary for the individual to successfully reside in a community setting. It is necessary to teach these skills in smaller groups, and the general layout of the home separates the living areas for treatment and training purposes. Permitting the alteration would not require the city to make a fundamental or substantial modification to its zoning ordinances. Furthermore, the alteration would not have any noticeable or significant impact on the surrounding community. I hope this evidence is useful in your determination. If you wish to discuss the matter further, I may be reached at 503-945-9785, or you may page me at 503-316-4745. I have included copies of the regulatory agreement and trust deed, which will be recorded in Washington County when this home is financed. 4ed y, StOlp, Housin g Coordinator f Developmental Disability Services Attachments: Regulatory Agreement Trust Deed Trust Deed Note cc: Specialized Housing, Inc. Lloyd Clemans, Housing Specialist, ODDS Dave Huff, Housing Specialist, ODDS Jack Morgan, Deputy, ODDS Jeff Wahl, Assistant Attorney General Mary Lee Fay, Chief, Development, ODDS W CHICAGO Return Recorded Document to: -Rhonda Parent Key Title Company 222 High Street SE Recorded in the county of Multnomah, Oregon Salem, Oregon 97301 C. Swick, Deputy Clerk IIII~III~III~IIIIIII~I~!~III~III~II~II.53 . A01 9 5.00 45.0v o.d0 0.00 0.00 0.00 OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES DIVISION STATE OF OREGON REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND EQUITABLE SERVITUDE THIS REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND EQUITABLE SERVITUDE (the "Regulatory Agreement") is made and entered into this day of er , 191y. by and between, , having its principal office at (hereinafter referred to as the "Borrower"), and the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD), having its principal office at 1600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301-4246, and the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Division (MHDDSD), having its principal office at.2575 Bittern St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97310-0520 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "State"). RECITALS A. The MHDDSD funds and regulates community-based services for individuals with developmental disabilities, including residential services in homes which are located in neighborhood communities. REGULATORY AGREEMENT -1- B. The Oregon State Legislature has found and declared that a'significant number'of persons with mental or developmental disabilities currently reside in state operated hospitals and training centers because appropriate community-based services, including residential facilities, do not exist. C. The MHDDSD has determined that homes in which appropriate community-based services are provided should be developed, owned and maintained by organizations which specialize in property management and development, or who have expertise in the housing requirements of persons with developmental disabilities, and that these homes should be utilized by organizations which specialize in service delivery under a lease arrangement with the owner. D. The MHDDSD has entered into an Interagency Agreement with Oregon Housing, and Community Services Department in order to finance development of this housing and to facilitate the creation of community-based residential facilities. E. Borrower is a non-profit entity, one of whose purposes is to develop housing opportunities for populations such as those served by the MHDDSD. F. The Borrower proposes to develop or renovate a home which is to be licensed by or under the authority of the MHDDSD as a group home or residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities pursuant to ORS 443.400 through 443.455 or 443.705 through 443.825, in order to provide residential care alone or in conjunction with treatment or training or a combination thereof (hereafter referred to as the "Project") located within the State of Oregon. G. It is the parties' intention that the use of the Project be maintained as a group home or residential facility for the duration of this agreement and that this agreement shall be binding on Borrower's heirs, successors and assigns. AGREEMENT In consideration of the above premises and of the mutual covenants and undertakings set forth herein, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows in order to ensure that the Project will be financed, .used and operated in accordance with the purposes for which funding has been allocated for the Project: Section 1. Definitions. Capitalized terms not defined in this Regulatory Agreement shall have the meanings defined for such terms in other Loan Documents. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: REGULATORY AGREEMENT -2- orrowe . The term "Borrower" means the Borrower identified in the first paragraph of this Regulatory Agreement, its successors and assigns, and any owner of the Project during the Qualified Project Period. Loan Documents. The term "Loan Documents" means any Loan Agreement, any Trust Deed, any Trust Deed Note or Note, this Regulatory Agreement, the Disbursement Agreement, the Borrower Tax Certificate and any other documents associated with the loan of Bond Proceeds or State funds extended to the Borrower for the Project. ro'ect. The term "Project" means that real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto which is to be developed or renovated with financial assistance from OHCSD and MHDDSD, and is synonymous with residential facility or group home. Qualified Project Period. The term "Qualified Project Period" means the period of time beginning on the date this Regulatory Agreement is executed and continuing for sixty (60) years, unless this Regulatory Agreement is terminated earlier as provided herein. Section 2. o'ect. The State and the Borrower hereby declare their understanding and intent, and the Borrower hereby specifically agrees with the State, that the Project shall be established and maintained as a group home or residential facility for individuals with mental or developmental disabilities pursuant to MHDDSD's rules. The provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect during the Qualified Project Period and shall not terminate upon the satisfaction of any obligation evidenced by the Loan Documents. Section 3. Covenants to Run With the Real Property and to Constitute an Equitable Servitude. The Borrower hereby subjects the Project, including the real property described in Exhibit "A" hereto, to the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth in this Regulatory Agreement. The State and the Borrower hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the real property as well as constituting an equitable servitude with respect to the real property in favor of the State and shall pass to and be binding upon the Borrower's successors in title to the Project; provided, however, that on the termination of this Regulatory Agreement said covenants, reservations and restrictions shall expire. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument executed together with this Regulatory Agreement or hereafter covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered an d accepted subject to such covenants, reservations and restrictions, as well as the equitable servitude regarding same, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, restrictions or equitable servitude are set forth in such contract, deed or other instruments. REGULATORY AGREEMENT - 1 -3- e Section 4. Burden and Benefit. The State and the Borrower hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants and equitable servitude set forth herein touch and concern the real property in that the Borrower's legal interest in the Project is rendered -less valuable hereby. The State and Borrower hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants and equitable servitude touch and concern the real property by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Project by individuals with mental or developmental disabilities, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering'the public purpose for which funds to develop the Project were extended. This section is not intended to create any private right of action under this Regulatory Agreement in said beneficiaries as residents or occupants of the Project. Any private right of enforcement which might subsequently be deemed to exist in said beneficiaries shall be enforced solely by the State at the State's discretion. Section 5. Term. This Regulatory Agreement shall become effective upon its execution and delivery. Except as provided in Section 6 hereof, this Regulatory Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the Qualified Project Period, without regard to whether or not the obligations or documents executed in connection with the Loan have expired. Section 6. Mutual Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Regulatory Agreement, this entire Agreement, or any of the provisions or Sections hereof, may be terminated upon mutual agreement: (a) If Division funding from federal, state or other sources is. not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the adequate maintenance and repair of the Project; or, (b) If federal or state laws or regulations are enacted or modified, or if a court of competent jurisdiction interprets such laws or regulations so that the use of the premises, consistent with the purpose of this agreement, is no longer allowable or appropriate under this agreement; or, (c) If the Project is no longer eligible for funding for the stated use authorized by this agreement. If this agreement is terminated as provided by this section, the termination of this agreement shall in no way affect any other restriction on the use of the Project established by any other provision in the Loan Documents. Section 7. Events of Default: Enforcement. If the Project is not constructed and operated as required by this Regulatory Agreement, or if the Borrower defaults in the performance REGULATORY AGREEMENT -4- v or observance of any covenant, agreement or obligation of the Borrower set forth in this Regulatory Agreement or the other Loan Documents, then. the State may declare that an Event of-Default has occurred hereunder and may exercise any or all remedies provided in the Trust Deed, Loan Documents, or as otherwise provided by law, including but not limited to any one or more of the following steps, at its option: (a) By mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity, require the Borrower to perform its obligations and covenants hereunder, or enjoin any acts or things which may be unlawful or in violation of the rights of the State hereunder; (b) Take whatever other action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to enforce, or to recover. damages for any breach or default by Borrower of, the' obligations, covenants, equitable servitude and agreements of the Borrower hereunder; or, (c) , Declare a default under the Loan Documents, accelerate the amount due thereunder, and proceed with- foreclosure and the exercise of all other rights and remedies under the Loan. No delay in enforcing the provisions hereof as to any breach or violation shall impair, damage or waive the right of any party entitled to enforce the same or to obtain relief against or recover for the continuation or repetition of such breach or violation thereof at any later time or times. The selection of one or more remedies by the State under the Loan Documents or Regulatory Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedies available to the State. Section 8. Governing Law. This Regulatory Agreement. shall be governed, enforced and interpreted by the laws. of the - State of Oregon. Any litigation with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion, or if necessary, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, except for any foreclosure action, determination of an interest in real property or specific performance of an agreement in relation thereto shall be brought in the county in which the real property is located. Section 9. Amendments. Except as provided in the next succeeding paragraph, this Regulatory Agreement shall be amended only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto and duly recorded in the county where the Project is located. Section 10. Severabilitv. If any one or more of the provisions of this Regulatory Agreement shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, then such provisions shall be deemed separable from, and shall.in no way affect the validity of, any of the other provisions of this Regulatory Agreement. REGULATORY AGREEMENT Section 1 L. Cross Default. An Event of Default hereunder also shall constitute an Event of Default under the Loan Documents: An Event of Default under the other Loan Documents shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder. Section. 12. Recording and Filing. The Borrower shall cause this Regulatory Agreement and all amendments and supplements hereto to be recorded and filed in the real property records in the office.of the County Recorder of the county (or counties) in which the Project is located and in such manner and in such plate as the State may reasonably request, and shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection therewith. Upon the latest to occur of the termination of this Agreement or the expiration of the Qualified Project Period, if applicable, the State shall cooperate with the Borrower, at the sole expense of the Borrower, in the recording, of such instrument or instruments of release or termination with respect to this Agreement as the Borrower may reasonably request. Section 13. Notice.. Notice required under this Regulatory Agreement shall be in writing, mailed, faxed or delivered in a manner consistent with that required in the Trust Deed. Section 14: Expenses and Attorney Fees. The prevailing party in any dispute arising from this ' Regulatory Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the other its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred preliminary to and at trial, on appeal and in bankruptcy and arbitration proceedings. .Section 15. Counterparts.. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, and, in making proof of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the State and the Borrower have caused this Agreement to be signed, acknowledged and attested on their behalf by duly authorized representatives, all as of the date first written hereinabove. REGULATORY AGREEMENT OREGON HOUSING AND-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, STATE OF OREGON ByL _ Mousing Finance Section STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of .art sa- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / 2 day of : 19, by , ana er: Housing Finance Section of the Orego Housing and Community'Services Department; on behalf of the State. OFFICIAL SEAL N01ARY PUBUC-OREGON NOTARY PU IC FOR O GON Orw ~N MRS JUNt g, m i _ My Commissl n Expires: MENTAL HEALTH AND' DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES DIVISION, STATE OF OREGON By: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of . 19_, by Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. Division, on behalf of the State. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: REGULATORY AGREEMENT -7- By: _ An Oregon C. 0 4 t o 1,0 yt nMCIAL SEAL STATE OF OREGON ) "^T•°" O1R1 e'- ORES / ) ss W COMMISSION E7IPIHtS MAT a, cw3 County of The foregoing inetn,ment was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 19!~~ by - of _ an Oregon . on behalf of the Borrower. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expiies: 2~3 REGULATORY AGREEMENT -8- - EXHIBIT A , in the City of Portland, County of Multnomah and State of Oregon. REGULATORY AGREEMENT -9- y MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION STATE OF OREGON TRUST DEED NOTE $00,000 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, xxxxxxxxxx., an Oregon non-profit corporation (hereinafter "MAKER"), having its principal office at xxxxxxxxx, promises to pay to the Mental Health & Developmental Disability Services Division, State of Oregon, having its principal office at 2575 Bittern Street NE, Salem OR 97310 (hereinafter referred to as the "DIVISION"), on order, the principal sum c s ($00,000) (the "LOAN") plus interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of -0- % per annum. Said LOAN is made to MAKER for purchase of property and the construction of certain improvements with respect thereto described in Exhibit A. MAKER agrees that property described therein shall be exclusively and continuously used as a location in which persons with developmental disabilities reside and receive services approved by the DIVISION. The DIVISION shall reduce indebtedness created by this loan in the amount of $000 (hereinafter called "INSTALLMENT") for each month the property is used for this purpose. This same INSTALLMENT shall be due and payable from the MAKER within 15 days following any month in which the property is not used for this purpose, unless the Property is not used for such purpose for reasons beyond the reasonable control of Maker, in which event the Maker shall not be obligated to pay such INSTALLMENT for so long as Maker is reasonably prevented from using the property. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to allow or require an interest rate which would be prohibited by law. If at any time MAKER pays interest in an amount greater than the amount required by the rate in effect pursuant to this Trust Deed Note at the time of such payment, any such excess amount paid shall, at the sole option of the DIVISION, or other holder thereof, either be refunded promptly to MAKER by the DIVISION or other holder hereof for deposit in MAKER'S Operating Reserve Account or be credited to MAKER'S next payment due. Payment of principal and interest and other fees due the DIVISION shall be payable at the offices of the DIVISION, 2575 Bittern Street NE, Salem OR 97310, or such other place as the DIVISION may designate in writing. The DIVISION shall notify MAKER in writing of sale, assignment, or transfer of this Trust Deed Note within 30 days of the date of such sale, transfer, or assignment, but failure to give such notice shall not affect the obligations of MAKER hereunder, except for amounts thereafter paid to the DIVISION. TRUST DEED NOTE 51 - If default occurs in the performance of any agreement herein or the payment of any installment due under this Trust Deed Note, and if such default is not cured before the due date of the next such installment, the entire original principal sum and accrued interest shall, at the option of the holder of this Trust Deed Note, become due and payable without notice, together with all other amounts due or to be become due under the Deed of Trust of the same date as this Note and in the same principal amount as herein stated securing this Trust Deed Note. Failure to exercise this option shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it in the event of any continuing or subsequent default. In the event of default in the payment of this Trust Deed Note, and if the Note is submitted for collection by the DIVISION, its successors, and/or assigns, the undersigned hereby agree(s) to pay all cost of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements of the DIVISION or other holder of this Note. Upon disbursement of the LOAN, the DIVISION will specify the principal amount of obligations deemed necessary, in the sole judgment of the DIVISION, to provide funds to pay the DIVISION costs incurred in making the LOAN, an allocable share of underwriter's discount, costs of issuance, capitalized interest, necessary reserves, and any other similar costs incurred by the DIVISION in connection with the financing of the LOAN. Such amount, reduced at any point in time in proportion to the reduction of the principal amount of the LOAN, shall be conclusively deemed to be the amount of the Financing Securities to be redeemed in the event of advance payment of the LOAN. The covenant of any limited partnership MAKER to pay the principal and interest is included in this Trust Deed Note for the purpose of establishing the continuing nature of the existence of such indebtedness. However, it is a condition of this covenant that in the event of default under the terms hereof, neither the DIVISION nor its assigns shall take any action against a limited partnership MAKER or any partner thereof personally, except as may be necessary in order to subject the property to the satisfaction and said indebtedness the property described in the Trust Deed, of the same date as this Note, granted by the limited partnership MAKER in favor of the DIVISION to secure said indebtedness, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference. More particularly, the DIVISION warrants that it will not seek a deficiency judgment against any limited partnership MAKER or any partner thereof personally following a foreclosure and sale of the completed housing project which serves as security for this Note, provided, however, that the DIVISION has acknowledged, in writing, satisfactory completion and acceptance of the project. TDi-qT DEED NOTE No waiver of a breach of any of the agreements or provisions contained in this Trust Deed Note shall be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or of any other provisions of this Trust Deed Note. If any clause, sentence, section, paragraph, provision, or part of this Trust Deed Note is judged to be invalid or unenforceable, such adjudication shall not affect nor invalidate the remainder of this Trust Deed Note, it being understood and agreed that such invalid or unenforceable clause, sentence, paragraph, provision, or part is and shall be severable from the remainder of this Trust Deed Note. ALL COVENANTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE BORROWER SHALL BE JOINT AND SEVERAL. The terms, provisions, covenants, and conditions contained in this Trust Deed Note shall apply to, inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the parties hereto and upon their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the MAKER caused this Trust Deed Note to be executed by its duly authorized officer(s) as of this day of , 19 MAKER: By: Title: By: Title: 1113M.CIP REV 7/8/92 TRUST DEED NOTE 5136 SW Custer -14 - Return Recorded Document to: Rhonda Parent Key Title Company 222 High Street SE Salem, Oregon 97301 OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATE OF OREGON LOAN AGREEMENT THIS LOAN AGREEMENT ("Loan Agreement") is made this3~/ day of , 1922 2 )by and between - an Oregon non-profit corporation, having its principal office.'at (hereinafter referred to as 'Borrower"), and the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, having its principal office at 1600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301-4246 (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"). RECITALS: Borrower has requested the Department to make a loan to Borrower in the principal amount of for the long-term financing'of a housing project for elderly and disabled persons. The Department is willing to make this loan on the terms and conditions of this Loan Agreement. Accordingly, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Loan Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings: LOAN AGREEMENT -1- (a) "Act" shall mean ORS 456.515 to 456.720. (b) "Administrator" shall mean the administrative officer of the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department appointed pursuant to ORS 456.554. (c) "Allocable Portion" shall mean an amount equal to the ratio of the principal amount of the Loan to the aggregate principal amount of all loans made from the proceeds of the Bonds. (d) "Bonds" shall mean the State of Oregon, General Obligation Elderly and Disabled Housing Bonds, 1999 Series A - Elderly and Disabled 501 (c (Z 3)._ (e) "Financing Securities" shall mean the Allocable Portion of the Bonds. (f) "Loan" shall mean the loan made to the Borrower under this Loan Agreement in the principal amount of The loan will be documented with two Trust Deed Notes, one in the original principal amount of 9 with a term of 30 years and one in the original principal amount of with a term-of 6 years. (g) "Occupant" shall mean people who meet the requirements of Section 5 hereof and occupy dental space in the-Project. (h) "Operating Expenses"' shall mean all federal, state, county, and local government taxes, assessments, or charges; water and sewer charges; operating costs incurred in maintaining and operating the. Project, including without limitation costs of utilities, supplies, insurance, compensation of all persons who perform duties connected with the operation, maintenance, and repair- of -the ' Project, management of . the Project, legal, accounting,' and other professional fees incurred in connection with the operation, maintenance, and management of the Project; and any other costs or expenses incurred by Borrower or its agent with respect to the Project and not otherwise reimbursed by Occupants of the Project, which are properly allocable to the operation or maintenance of the Project in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (i) "Operating Receipts" shall mean rents paid by Occupants and all other receipts of the Project. (j) "Operating Receipts and Expense Account" shall mean the account established under Section 4(a) hereof. (k) "Project" shall mean the Property plus all assets of whatsoever nature used in and owned by Borrower on the Property. LOAN AGREEMENT -2- (1) "Property" shall mean the Property as defined in the Trust Deed. (m) "Trust Deed" shall mean the Trust Deed securing this Loan Agreement and the Trust Deed Note. (n) "Trust Deed Note" shall mean the Note evidencing the Loan as described in Section 1(f) above. Notice to Borrower: Do not sign this Loan Agreement before you read it. This Loan Agreement authorizes the Department to refuse to accept repayment of the Loan before maturity of the Loan and provides for payment of a penalty if you repay the Loan with the Department's permission before that date. Section 2. Payments of Principal and Interest. Prepayments. (a) Borrower promises to repay the principal of and accrued interest on the Loan made hereunder in equal monthly installments of 270.00, payable for Thirty (30) years, beginning on October 15, 1999, at the rate of 6.375% per annum and $1,955.76, payable for Six 6 years, beginning on October 15, 1999, at the rate of 6.375% per annum. The 30 year Loan is due in full on September 15, 2029. The 6 Year Note is due in full on September 15, 2005. (b) The amounts payable by the Borrower under this Loan Agreement and Trust Deed Note are payable solely from legally appropriated funds and from money received by the Borrower from the Mental Health Division, Department of Human Resources, State of Oregon. (c) The Loan may not be prepaid without the prior written consent of the Department. The Department may consent to a prepayment of the principal provided that the sum to be prepaid, computed as of the date of prepayment, shall equal the unpaid principal balance of the Loan plus accrued interest, plus a premium for the privilege of prepayment equal to: (1) The difference between the unpaid principal balance of the Loan and the amount of the Financing Securities, each as of the date of such prepayment; plus (2) Interest on the amount of the Financing Securities at the same rate as interest is payable on the Loan from the date of prepayment to the earliest date on which the Financing Securities may be redeemed, other than by reference to special or extraordinary redemption provision, at the option of the Department; plus (3) The aggregate premium payable upon the redemption of the Financing Securities on LOAN AGREEMENT -3- the earliest redemption date; plus (4) The amount determined by the Department as necessary to reimburse the Department for fees and expenses of the trustee, paying agents, and counsel as may be necessary in connection with the redemption of such Financing Securities (such amount in no event to exceed 2% of the amount of the Financing Securities). (d) In the event of default which results in the Borrower paying the entire amount of the Loan prior to the date set forth in Section 2(a) hereof, the Borrower shall pay a default fee equal to the amount set forth in Section 2(c) hereof. Notice to Borrower: Do not sign this Loan Agreement before you read it. This Loan Agreement provides for the payment of a penalty if Borrower defaults and repays the Loan prior to the date set out in section 2(a) hereof, (e) All other payments and prepayments of principal and other amounts payable to the Department hereunder will be made to the Department at its office located at 1600 State Street, Suite 100, Salem, Oregon 97310, or at such other place designated by the Department to Borrower in writing. Section 3. Rental Rates and Operating Expenses. Borrower shall operate the Project in such a manner so as to maintain the Project in good condition. All Operating Expenses shall be paid by Borrower during the life of this Loan Agreement even if an operating deficit occurs. Section 4. Accounts and Funds. (a) Operating Receipts and Expense Account: Borrower shall establish and maintain a Project Operating Receipts and Expense Account. All Operating Receipts shall be immediately deposited in the account, and Borrower shall promptly pay all Operating Expenses out of this account. (b) Escrow for Taxes. Insurance, and Other Charges: (1) Borrower shall pay, in addition to the monthly payments required by the Trust Deed Note, a sum equal to the premiums that will next become due and payable on the policy or policies of fire and extended coverage and other property insurance covering the Property, plus taxes and assessments next due on the Property, minus all sums already paid for these items, divided by the number of months to elapse before one month prior to the date when such premiums, taxes, and assessments will become delinquent or due. These sums shall be held by the Department or the Department's agent in escrow to pay said premiums, taxes, and special assessments LOAN AGREEMENT -4- at such time as such obligations become due. (2) All payments required to be made by Borrower pursuant to this Section 4 and all payments to be made under the Trust Deed Note shall be added together and the aggregate amount thereof shall be paid each month in a single payment by Borrower to the Department or the Department's agent. Department shall apply the payments to the following items in the following order of priority: (a) taxes, special assessments, fire and other insurance premiums; (b) interest on the Note; and (c) amortization of the principal of the Note. Section 5. Occupant Qualifications. Borrower covenants and agrees that no occupant of the Project shall be approved by Borrower unless the following conditions shall have been met at the time of such approval, unless any requirement has been waived by the Administrator as allowed by the Act: (a) The Occupant is a low or below median-income person or family as defined by the Act and the Department's Administrative Rules and the head of the household is 58 years of age or older at the time the person or family occupies the dwelling unit; or (b) The Occupant meets the definition of a disabled person under the Act and Department Administrative Rules. Section 6. Borrower's Representations and Warranties. Borrower represents and warrants to the Department that: (a) Borrower has full power and authority to transact the business in which it is engaged, and full power, authority, and legal right to make this Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed, and the Trust Deed Note and to incur and perform its obligations hereunder and under the Trust Deed and Trust Deed Note. (b) The making and performance by Borrower of this Loan Agreement, the Note and the Trust -Deed and the borrowing by Borrower hereunder (i) have been duly authorized by all necessary action of the Borrower, (ii) do not and will not violate any provision of any applicable law, rule, regulation, or order of any court, regulatory commission, board, or other administrative Department or any provision of Borrower's articles of incorporation or bylaws (articles of partnership) and (iii) do not and will not result in the breach of, or constitute a default or require any consent under, or result in the creation of any lien upon any properties or assets of Borrower pursuant to any other indenture, bank, or other credit agreement, mortgage or other agreement or instrument to which Borrower is a party or by which LOAN AGREEMENT -5- Borrower or any of its properties may be bound or affected. (c) This Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed Note, and the Trust Deed have been duly executed and delivered by Borrower and will constitute the legal, valid, and binding obligation of Borrower, enforceable in accordance with their terms subject to the laws of bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights generally. (d) No authorization, consent, license, or approval of, or filing or registration with, or notification to, any governmental body or regulatory or supervisory authority is required for the execution, delivery, or performance by Borrower of this Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed Note, or the Trust Deed or for the borrowing hereunder. (e) Since Borrower applied to Department for the Loan, there has been no material adverse change in the financial condition of Borrower. (f) No representation or warranty by Borrower in this Loan Agreement or on any written statement, including information, data, exhibits, and other materials submitted in connection with the Loan, furnished to the Department pursuant to this Loan Agreement or in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Loan Agreement, when taken together, contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omits or will omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements not misleading. Section 7. Affirmative Covenants of Borrower. Borrower covenants and agrees to all of the following: (a) It shall abide by the terms of the Trust Deed and Trust Deed Note dated the date hereof and by this reference incorporated herein. (b) The Project shall be open to all persons without discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or local residency, unless otherwise specified by law or this Loan Agreement. (c) No commercial facilities will be located in the Project. (d) Payment for services, supplies, or materials for the Project shall not exceed the amount ordinarily paid for such services, supplies, or materials in the area where the services are rendered or the supplies or materials are furnished. (e) Borrower shall at all times maintain books, contracts, records, documents, and other papers relating to the Property and the Project in reasonable condition for proper audit, and all such LOAN AGREEMENT -6- books, contracts, records, documents, and other papers shall be subject to inspection by the Department or its authorized agents upon reasonable notice. (f) Borrower shall submit financial statements as requested by the Department. (g) At the request of the Department, Borrower shall furnish to the Department monthly occupancy reports and provide specific information relating to the income and assets of the Occupants. (h) Effective at the time of closing on any land and/or building purchase approved by the Department, the Borrower shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance with vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements on the property and improvements in the amount of the full replacement value thereof. The Borrower shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance with limits of not less than: $50,000 to any claimant for any number of claims for damage to or destruction of property, including consequential damages, arising out of a single accident or occurrence; $100,000 to any claimant for all other claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence; $300,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence. If self-insured, the Borrower, in accepting this agreement, certifies that its self-insurance guarantees coverages at a minimum of the amounts specified above. If the Borrower discontinues its self-insurance program, the Borrower shall notify the Department immediately, and furnish the Department as its interest may appear with certificates evidencing all required insurance coverage. All policies and certificates required under this Loan Agreement will name the Department as additional insured, and will contain an agreement that the coverage will not be canceled or diminished without 30 days' advance notice to the Department. (i) The Department or its agents may enter upon the Property or the Project for the purpose of inspection during Borrower's normal business hours. (j) Borrower shall comply with the requirements of all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and orders of any governmental authority, except where contested in good faith and by proper proceedings. Section 8. Negative Covenants of the Borrower. Borrower covenants and agrees that it shall not, without the express prior written approval of the Department: (a) Sell, lease (except individual units to Occupants), convey or otherwise transfer or encumber any of the Project or the Property, or permit such sale, lease, conveyance, or other transfer or encumbrance of the Project or the Property or any portion thereof, except as expressly LOAN AGREEMENT -7- authorized in this Loan Agreement and in the Trust Deed. (b) Sell, assign, dispose of, or otherwise transfer or encumber any personal property of the Project, including rents, or pay out any money except for reasonable Operating Expenses and necessary repairs as provided herein. (c) Remodel, add to, reconstruct, or demolish any part of the Property or the Project. (d) Transfer, assign, or pledge any right to, interest in, or title to any funds deposited by Borrower with the Department or reserved by the Department for Borrower. Section 9 Further Provisions Applicable to Borrower. (a) No amendments will be made to a Borrower's articles of incorporation or other documents establishing the legal status of Borrower which would affect the Department's rights under this Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed, or Trust Deed Note, without the Department's prior written approval. (b) At the option of the' Department, the Loan may be reamortized within the original term of the Loan if a partial prepayment results from an award in condemnation, or from an insurance payment resulting from a loss on the Property. (c) Borrower shall save and hold harmless the State of Oregon and the Department and their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, or actions of whatsoever nature resulting from or arising out of the activities of Borrower or its subcontractors; agents, or employees in connection with this Loan or the Project. Section 10 Special Covenants Related to Tax-Exempt Status of Bonds Issued to Finance the Loan. The Loan is being funded, in part, with the proceeds of the Bonds, the interest on which is excludable from gross income under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the "Code"). The Bonds are "qualified private activity bonds" under Section 141 of the Code. The Borrower agrees to comply with all reasonable requirements of the Department which it may subsequently impose in order to ensure that interest on the Bonds remains excludable from gross income under the federal income tax laws under Section 103 of the Code. In addition, the Borrower specifically covenants: (a) All property financed with the Loan will be owned by.the Borrower. (b) The Borrower is a governmental unit of the State of Oregon, or is an organization qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, which is using all property financed with the Loan in LOAN AGREEMENT -t3- activities which do not constitute unrelated trades or business, determined by applying Section 513(a) of the Code. (c) If the Borrower is a 501(c)(3) organization, and if the Borrower owns or uses any other facilities which have been financed with tax-exempt bonds, the total amount of tax-exempt bonds outstanding which are allocable to facilities owned or used by the Borrower, or any related person, does not exceed $150,000,000. (d) The Borrower will not permit the facilities to be used under a lease, sublease, rental agreement, or any other agreement, by a service provider or other entity other than an Occupant, unless: (1) the entity is a city, county, housing authority or other governmental unit of the State of Oregon; or (2) the entity is an organization qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, which is using the facilities financed with the Loan for activities which do not constitute unrelated trades or businesses, determined by Section 513(a) of the Code, and there are not more than $150,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations outstanding which are allocable to any facilities owned or used by the entity or any related person; or (3) The use is pursuant to a "qualified management contract" approved in advance of executing such contract and in writing by the Department. (e) Neither the Borrower, nor any entity or person related to the Borrower in any way, has or will enter into any arrangement, whether formal or informal, to purchase any bonds directly or indirectly used to finance the Loan in an amount which is related to the amount of the Loan. (f) The average maturity of the Trust Deed Note executed in connection with this Loan Agreement does not exceed 120 percent of the average reasonably expected economic life of the facilities being financed with the net proceeds of the Loan. (g) No portion of the facilities financed with the Loan will be used to provide any airplane, skybox, or other private luxury box, health club facility, facility primarily used for gambling, or store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off-premises. (h) The Borrower agrees that any agreement it executes with any service provider or any other entity for use of the facilities financed with the Loan (and any agreement any user executes with another user of the facilities), other than a rental agreement with an Occupant, shall LOAN AGREEMENT -9- ! ! (unless the agreement is a "qualified management contract" approved in writing and in advance of executing such contract by the Department) contain the following certifications of the user: (1) The user is an organization qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, which is using the facilities financed with the Loan for activities which do not constitute unrelated trades or businesses, determined by applying Section 513(a) of the Code, and there are not more than $150,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations outstanding which are allocable to any facilities owned or used by the user or any related person. (2) The agreement for use of the facilities may be terminated immediately if the Department or nationally recognized bond counsel reasonably determines that termination of the agreement is required to ensure that interest paid on the Bonds remains excludable from gross income under the Code. (3) The Borrower also agrees that a copy of such agreement shall be provided to the Department prior to its execution and that any covenant made therein may be relied upon and enforced by the Department. (i) The Borrower covenants that any residential rental property for family units within the meaning of Section 145 (d)(2)(A) of the Code financed with proceeds of the Loan will meet either the requirements for "qualified residential rental projects" within the meaning of Section 145 (d)(2)(B) and Section 142 (d) of the Code or the first use of such residential rental property for family units was made pursuant to the Loan within the meaning of Section 145 (d)(2)(A) of the Code. (j) If the first use of such residential rental property for family units was made pursuant to the Loan, the Borrower covenants and agrees that: (1) Any building financed with the Loan is new construction and any equipment or material financed with the Loan is new equipment or material; and (2) If the construction, acquisition and equipping of the Project was not initially financed with the proceeds of the Loan, the first use of the Project was pursuant to a taxable financing and the Borrower reasonably expected (at the time of such taxable financing) that the taxable financing would be replaced by tax-exempt financing and such taxable financing was replaced by the Loan within a reasonable period after the taxable financing was provided as contemplated by Section 145 (d) (3) of the Code. (k) If Loan proceeds are used for residential rental property for family units that do not qualify for the first use exception set forth above, Borrower covenants as follows in accordance with LOAN AGREEMENT -10- Section 145 (d) (2) (B) and Section 142 (d) of the Code, and applicable regulations: (1) Each Project will satisfy either the "20-50 Test" or the "40-60 Test" of Section 142 (d) (1) of the Code, as specified in the commitment for each Project, during the "qualified project period," which is the period beginning on the later of (i) the first day on which at least 10 percent of the residential units in the Project are first occupied or (ii) May 20, 1999, and ending on the latest of (A) the date which is 15 years after the date on which at least 50 percent of the residential units in the Project are first occupied, (B) the first day on which no tax-exempt private activity bond issued with respect to the Project is outstanding or (C) the date on which any assistance provided with respect to the Project under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 terminates. (2) Project units will be held vacant until the required number of units is occupied by low-income tenants; tenant income will be adjusted for family size and verified annually; and, if the tenant income exceeds 140 percent of the applicable income limit, the next available unit of comparable size will be rented to a person who meets the income limit. (3) All Bond proceeds will be used for "complete living units" and facilities which are functionally related and subordinate thereto. (4) No Projects will be hotels, motels, nursing homes, sanitariums, rest homes or other transient facilities. (5) Students will not be treated as low-income tenants. (6) No Project costs will be financed unless the costs were incurred after the Department has accepted a Loan commitment for the Project. Section 11. Events of Default. If any of the following events occurs and is continuing, namely: (a) Borrower defaults in the performance or observation of any of its covenants or agreements contained herein or in the Trust Deed Note and Trust Deed, and the default continues for 30 days after the Department gives written notice thereof, or (b) any representation or warranty with respect to current or historical information made to Department herein or in any certificate, notice, report, financial statement, or other instrument or document furnished to Department hereunder or in connection herewith proves LOAN AGREEMENT -11- • 0 to have been incorrect in any material respect when made; or (c) any authorization, consent, license, approval, filing, or registration now or hereafter necessary to enable Borrower to comply with its obligations hereunder or under the Trust Deed or Trust Deed Note or incurred pursuant hereto or thereto fails to be timely issued or granted, or expires or lapses and is not forthwith renewed or extended, or is revoked, withdrawn, withheld, or modified so as to materially interfere with such compliance; or (d) Borrower (i) applies for or consents to the appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a receiver, custodian, trustee, or liquidator of itself or of all of its property, (ii) admits in writing its inability, or is generally unable, to pay its debts as they become due, (iii) makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (iv) commences a voluntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code (as now or hereafter in effect), (v) is adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent, (vi) files a petition seeking to take advantage of any other law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or adjustment of debts, (vii) fails to controvert in a timely and appropriate manner, or acquiesces in writing to, any petition filed against it in an involuntary case under such Bankruptcy Code, or (viii) takes any corporate action for the purpose of effecting any of the foregoing; or (e) a proceeding or case is commenced, without the application or consent of Borrower, in any court of competent jurisdiction, seeking (i) the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, or the composition or readjustment of debts, of Borrower, (ii) the appointment of a trustee, receiver, custodian, liquidator, or the like of Borrower or of all or any substantial part of its assets, or (iii) similar relief in respect to Borrower under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or adjustment of debts, and such proceeding or case continues undismissed, or an order, judgment, or decree approving or ordering any of the foregoing is entered and continues unstayed and in effect for a period of 60 consecutive days, or an order for relief against Borrower is entered in an involuntary case under the Federal Bankruptcy Code (as now or hereafter in effect); or (f) Borrower effects a change or ownership, a change of control of the business, or transfers any interest in properties securing the Loan without the prior written consent of the Department; or (g) Borrower fails to terminate the management agreement after request by the Department or fails to make satisfactory arrangements for a new management agent, thereupon, and in each such case, if such violation is not convected to the satisfaction of the Department within thirty (30) days after the date the Department gives written notice to Borrower or within such additional time as the Department allows Borrower to correct the violation, the Department may, without further notice, declare a default under this Loan Agreement, effective on the date of such declaration, and thereupon the Department may, subject to the rights of the LOAN AGREEMENT -12- • • Landlord under the Ground Lease as described in the final paragraph of this section 11, (in addition to those actions permitted under the Trust Deed or Trust Deed Note in the event of default) apply to any appropriate court, state or federal, for specific performance of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or for an injunction against any violation of such covenants and agreements, or for the appointment of a receiver to take over and operate the Project, or for such other relief as may be appropriate and allowed by law, since the injury to the Department arising from a default under any of the terms of this Loan Agreement would be irreparable and the amount of damage would be difficult to ascertain. All such remedies shall be cumulative and the Department's election to pursue any one or more of the above remedies shall not be construed to preclude or to be a waiver of the Department's right to pursue any other remedy. The Department may also take possession of the Project, bring any action necessary to enforce the rights of the Department growing out of the operation of the Project and to collect the rents and operate the Project until such time as the Department, in its discretion, determines that Borrower is again in a position to operate the Project in accordance with the terms of this Loan Agreement and in compliance with the requirements of the Trust Deed Note and Trust Deed evidencing and securing the Loan. It is expressly understood and agreed that the provision for thirty (30) days' notice to Borrower and Landlord for violation of the terms of this Loan Agreement contained in this section is inapplicable to the provisions for.disbursement by the Department from the accounts described in sections 4(a) and-(b) of this Loan Agreement. Section 12. Mutual Covenants and Agreements. Both parties covenant and agree that: (a) If any term; covenant, or condition of this Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed, or Trust Deed Note shall be finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the term, covenant, or condition so determined to be invalid is hereby declared severable and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Loan Agreement; (b) No waiver by either party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Loan Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by both parties hereto; (c) No amendment, modification, or termination of this Loan Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both parties; (d) Except as otherwise provided, whenever any approval or notice by the Department is required under this Loan Agreement, or whenever any action by the Department is required or permitted, the Administrator of the Department or the Administrator's successor or authorized agent shall have the power and right to approve, give notice, or act on behalf of LOAN AGREEMENT -13- the Department, as the case may be; and (e) This Loan Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns. (f) The prevailing party in any dispute arising from this Loan Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the other its reasonable attorney's fees and costs at trial and on appeal. (g) This Loan Agreement together with the Trust Deed, Trust Deed Note and Regulatory Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. (h) Any and all notices by the Department to Borrower, or by Borrower to the Department, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made when deposited in the mails, certified and postage prepaid addressed to the parties at the addresses stated on page one, or at such other address of which such party shall have notified in writing the other parties hereto. (i) This Loan Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. (j) Whenever used, the singular number should include the plural, and the plural the singular; and the use of any gender shall apply to all genders. (k) All covenants and agreements of Borrower shall be joint and several. (1) The captions and headings of the sections of this Loan Agreement are for convenience only and are not to be used to interpret or define the provisions hereof. (m) Time is of the essence in the performance of this Loan Agreement, the Trust Deed and the Trust Deed Note. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Loan Agreement the day and year first above written. LOAN AGREEMENT -14- STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through Oregon Housing and Community Services Department By: - mousing Finance Section V BORROWER: By Title: By: Title: STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of w n~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _12- day of 19-IL, by Housing Finance Section, Oreg Housing and Community Services Department, on behalf of the DeoartmPnt . (IF Notary Pufor Oregon -=4(IYAEG,ON'UUJ My Commission Expires : 1 LOAN AGREEMENT -15- OFFICIAL SEAL NUTAt~T fUOUI.{Jr(t(j~N MY COMMIwSIU1u UPIHtS MAY 5, ZUU3 STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of ~~a fL a nti~ S ) The foregoing instrument wne ->r.,, -ledged before me this 3~ d2v (If ,4.~ wS 19 _ of an Oregon nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon S My Commission expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19-, by of , an Oregon nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: LOAN AGREEMENT -16- -CHICAGO, Retutri Recorded Document to: Rhonfia Parent • Key Title Company Recorded to IIlIlthe County of Multnomah, Oregon 222 High Street SE Deputy 48.0@ erk Salem, Qregon 97301 .+.o a n.nn 45.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION STATE OF OREGON SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED' THIS TRUST DEED, made this `3 ' day of , 19!n, between , as Grantor, Key Title Company, and Oregon Department of Human Services, Mental Health & Developmental Disability Services Division, as Beneficiary, WITNESSETH: Grantor irrevocably grants, bargains, sells, and conveys to Trustee in trust, with power of sale, all grantor's equity in the property in Multnomah County, Oregon, described as follows: Exhibit "A" This instrument does not guarantee that any particular use may be made of the property described in this instrument. A buyer should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verify approved uses. SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -1- Together with all and singular, the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances and all other rights thereto belonging or in any way now or hereafter appertaining, and the rents, issues; and profits thereof and all fixtures now or hereafter attached to or used in connection with said real estate. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PERFORMANCE of each agreement of Grantor herein contained and the acceptance of a loan in the sum of Fifty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred Forty Dollars and Forty Nine Cents($52.940.49)Dollars, made by the Mental Health Division for Grantor's purchase of the above-described real property. The time when debt secured by this agreement becomes due is upon sale or transfer of the property or when the Grantor ceases' to use the property exclusively as a location in which persons with developmental disabilities reside and receive services approved by Division. Repayment of this debt shall be according to terms of that certain Trust Deed Note executed on this date to establish the loan. This Trust Deed is inferior, subordinate, and made subject to a prior Trust Deed(s) on the above-described real estate made by to Oregon Housing and } Community Services Department dated and recorded ! in the Official records of the above-named county in Reel/VolumeBool . Page ; the first '^,e* n--d was given to secure a note(s) for the principal sum a1 .1 AJurty 31X LVXJL u. "I--- the unnaid principal balance thereof on the date of execution of this instrument is Or. 11~u _ _ i;• interest thereon is paid to September 15, 1999; said prior Trust Deed is referred to herein as "First Trust Deed." The above-described real property is not currently used for agricultural, timber, or grazing purposes. To protect the security of this Trust Deed, Grantor agrees: 1. To protect, preserve, and maintain said property in good condition and repair; not to remove or demolish any building or improvement thereon; not to commit or permit any waste of said property- 2. To complete or restore promptly and in good and workmanlike manner any building or improvement which may be constructed, damaged, or destroyed thereon, and pay when due all costs incurred therefor. 3. To provide all necessary maintenance and repairs to the structure, foundation, exterior walls, roof, doors and windows, emergency lighting, and sidewalks; to maintain, repair or replace, if necessary, the heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical and lighting systems; to keep SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED e: r -L- the interior of the home in good repair and appearance; to repair and/or replace refrigerators; washers and dryers as needed. 4. To maintain grounds and landscaping in good repair and appearance, replacing dead, damaged or diseased plant materials when necessary, mowing and raking the lawn routinely a nd removing clutter from the grounds. 5. To assure continued payment for all utilities and services that are being furnished to the property at the time the trust deed is executed. 6. To retain files on all transactions, including correspondence, related to any maintenance of the structure or grounds, for a minimum of three years following the close of the calendar year, or until any outstanding audit questions are resolved. 7. To participate in the Housing and Maintenance Repair program jointly operated by Oregon Housing- and Community Services Department, holder of the first Trust Deed, and Beneficiary. Such participation shall include, but not limited to, cooperation with annual inspections of the property by Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, reporting all maintenance problems to Beneficiary, and participation with Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, and Beneficiary in planning for long term scheduled maintenance. 8. To impose no rent increases on service providers without prior Division approval. Increases may be permitted either upon an increase in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) room and board rate for persons with developmental disabilities or upon documentation of exceptional circumstances justifying an increase. 9. To comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions affecting said property; if the Beneficiary/Mortgagee so requests, to join in executing such financing statements pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code as the Beneficiary/Mortgagee may require and to pay for filing same in the proper public office or offices, as well as the cost of all lien searches made by filing officers or searching agencies as may be deemed desirable by the Beneficiary/Mortgagee. 10. To provide and continuously maintain insurance on the buildings now or hereafter erected on the said premises against loss or damage by fire and such other hazards as the Beneficiary may from time to time require, written in companies acceptable to the Beneficiary/Mortgagee, with loss payable first to the Beneficiary hereunder; all policies of insurance shall be delivered to the Mortgagee under the first Trust Deed (mortgage) as soon as insured; and a certificate of insurance executed by the company in which said insurance SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -3- is written, showing the amount of said insurance, shall be delivered to the Beneficiary hereunder; if the Grantor shall fail for any reason to procure any such insurance and to deliver said certificate to the Beneficiary at least fifteen days prior to the expiration of any policy of insurance now or hereafter placed on said-buildings, the Beneficiary may procure the same at Grantor's expense. The amount collected under any fire or other insurance policy may be applied by Beneficiary upon any indebtedness secured hereby and in such order as Beneficiary may determine, or at option of Beneficiary the entire amount-so collected, or any part thereof, may be released to Grantor. Such application or release shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice. 11. To keep said premises free from construction liens and to pay all taxes, assessments, and other charges that may be levied or assessed upon or against said property before any part of such taxes, assessments, and other charges become past due or delinquent and promptly deliver receipts therefore to Beneficiary; should the Grantor fail to make payment of any taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, liens, or other charges payable by Grantor, either by direct payment or by providing Beneficiary with funds with which to make such payment, Beneficiary may, at its option, make payment thereof, and the amount so paid with interest at the rate set forth in the note secured hereby, together with the obligations described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Trust Deed, shall be added to and become a part of the debt secured by this Trust Deed, without waiver of any rights arising from breach of any of the covenants hereof and for such payments, with interest aforesaid, the property hereinbefore described, as well as the Grantor, shall be bound to the same extent that they are bound for the payment of the obligation herein described, and all such payments shall be immediately due and payable without notice, and the non-payment thereof shall, at the option of the Beneficiary, render all sums secured by this Trust Deed immediately due and payable and constitute a breach of this Trust Deed. 12. To pay all costs, fees, and expenses of this trust including the cost of title search as well as the other costs and expenses of the Trustee incurred in connection with or in enforcing this obligation and Trustee's and attorney's fees actually incurred. 13. To appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; and in any suit, action or proceeding in which the Beneficiary or Trustee may appear, including any suit for the foreclosure of this Deed, to pay all costs and expenses including evidence of title and the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorney's fees; the amount of attorney's fees mentioned in this paragraph 7 in all cases shall be fixed by the trial court and in the event of an appeal from any judgment or decree of the trial court, Grantor further agrees to pay such sum as the appellate court shall adjudge reasonable as the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorney's fees on such appeal. SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -4- ` - _ •.-L wa`::: Y _ _ 1. Xf'.~.~~, I •r „ r J It is. mutually agreed that! 14. In the event that any portion or all of said property shall be taken under the right of eminent domain or condemnation, Beneficiary shall have the right, if it so elects, to require that all or any portion of the monies payable as compensation for such taking, which are in excess of the amount required to pay all amounts due the Beneficiary under the first Trust Deed and all reasonable costs; expenses, and attorney's fees necessarily paid or incurred by Grantor in such proceedings, shall be paid to Beneficiary and applied by it first upon any reasonable costs and.expenses, and attorney's fees; both in the trial and appellate courts, necessarily paid or incurred by Beneficiary in such proceedings, and the balance applied upon the indebtedness secured hereby; and Grantor agrees, at its own expense, to take such actions and execute such instruments as shall be necessary in obtaining such compensation, promptly upon Beneficiary's request. 15. At any time and from time to time upon written request of Beneficiary, payment of its fees and presentation of this Deed and the Note for endorsement (in cases of full reconveyances, for cancellation), without affecting the liability of any person for the payment of the indebtedness, Trustee may (a) consent to the making of any map or plot of said property; (b) join in granting any easement or creating any restriction therein; (c) join in any subordination or other agreement affecting this Deed or the lien or charge thereof; (d) reconvey, without warranty, all or any part of the property. The grantee in any reconveyance may be described as the "person or persons legally entitled thereto," and the recitals therein of any'matters or facts shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness'thereof. Trustee's fees-for any of the services mentioned in this paragraph shall be not less than five dollars ($5.00). 16. The entering upon and-taking possession of said property, or the proceeds of fire and other insurance policies and compensation or awards for any taking or damage of the property, and the application or release thereof as aforesaid, shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice. 17. Upon default by Grantor in payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in his performance of any agreement hereunder, the Beneficiary may declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable. In such an event the Beneficiary at his election may proceed to foreclose this Trust Deed in equity as a mortgage or direct the Trustee for foreclose this Trust Deed by advertisement and sale. In the latter event the Beneficiary or the Trustee shall execute and cause to be recorded his written notice of default and his election to sell the said described real property to satisfy the obligations secured hereby, whereupon the Trustee shall fix the time and place of sale, give notice thereof as then required by law and proceeZ to foreclose this Trust Deed in the manner provided in ORS 86.740 to 86.795.12. SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -5- 18. Should the Beneficiary elect to foreclose by advertisement. and sale then after default.at any. time prior to five days before the date set by the Trustee for the Trustee's sale, the Grantor or other person so privileged by ORS 86.760, may pay to the Beneficiary or his successors in interest, respectively, the entire amount then due under the terms of the Trust Deed and the obligation secured thereby (including costs and expenses actually incurred in enforcing the terms of the obligation and Trustee's and attorney's fees not exceeding the amounts .provided by law) other than such portion of the principal as would not then be due and no default occurred, and thereby cure the default, in which event all foreclosure proceedings shall be dismissed by the Trustee. 19. Otherwise, the sale shall be held on the date and at the time and place designated in the notice of sale or the time to which said sale may be postponed as provided by law. The Trustee may sell said property either in one parcel or in separate parcels and shall sell the parcel or parcels at auction to the highest bidder for cash, payable at the time of sale. Trustee shall deliver to the purchaser its Deed in form as required by law conveying the property so sold, but without any covenant or warranty, expressed or implied: The recitals in the Deed of any matters of fact shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness thereof. Any person, excluding the Trustee, but including the Grantor and Beneficiary, may purchase at the sale. 20. When Trustee sells pursuant to the powers provided herein, Trustee shall apply the proceeds of sale to payment (1) to all persons having recorded liens prior to the interest of the Trustee herein as their interests may appear in the order of their priority, (2) of the expenses for sale, including the compensation of the Trustee and a reasonable charge by Trustee's attorney, (3) to the obligation secured by the Trust Deed, (4) to all persons having recorded liens subsequent to the interest of the Trustee in the Trust Deed as their interests may. appear in order of their priority, and (5) the surplus, if any, to the Grantor or to his successor in interest entitled to such surplus. 21. For any reason permitted by law Beneficiary may from time to time appoint a successor or successors to any Trustee named herein or to any successor Trustee appointed hereunder. Upon such appointment, and without conveyance to the successor Trustee, the latter shall be vested named or appointed hereunder. Each such appointment and substitution shall be made by written instrument executed by Beneficiary, containing reference to this Trust Deed and its place of record, which, when recorded in the office of the County Clerk or Recorder of the county or counties in which the property is situated, shall be conclusive proof of proper appointment of the successor Trustee. 22. Trustee accepts this trust when this Deed, duly executed and acknowledged is made a public record as provided by law. Trustee is not obligated to notify any party hereto of pending sale SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -6- ~E'' • ~ •t`•'a'^,rr, a .7'•rS, F~'.yr:i - :~hi,+ '1'~'li';~.~.: • r. under any other Deed of Trust or of any action or proceeding in which Grantor, Beneficiary, or Trustee shall be a party unless such action or proceeding is brought by Trustee. The Grantor covenants and agrees to and with the Beneficiary and those claiming under him, that he is lawfully seized in fee simple of said described real property, that said real property is free from all encumbrances except the first Trust Deed/Mortgage, and that he will warrant and forever defend the same against all persons whomsoever. The Grantor warrants that the proceeds of the loan represented by the above-described Note and Trust Deed are for an organization, and are for business or commercial purposes other than agricultural purposes. This Deed applies to, inures to the benefit of, and binds all parties. hereto, their heirs, legatees, devises, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. The term "Beneficiary" shall mean the holder and owner, including pledgee, of the contract secured hereby, whether or not named as a Beneficiary herein. In construing this Deed and whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and.the neuter, and the singular number includes the plural. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has caused this Trust Deed to be executed as of the day and year first above written. GRANTOR -By. `21 Title: - By: Title: SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -7- OFFICIAL SEA - STATE OF OREGON ) NOTARY puBU93!!-t~N (13 )Ss. J16J County of 6%( (7 5 ) MY COMMIJ~1% a1a1 J W"n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 by of an Oregon nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. i lfn$ 1, .,A, Notary Public for Ore on My Commission expires: 6046, STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by of an Oregon nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: SUBnRDINATE TRUST DEED -8- EXHIBIT A in the City of Portland, County of Multnomah and State of Oregon. SUBORDINATE TRUST DEED -9- SPECIALIZED HOUSING, INCORPORATED 5319 SW Westgate Drive • Suite 124 • Portland, Oregon 97221 Paul J. Lasner Executive Director RECEIVED NOV p' 21999 COMMUNITY ORWAIFIG Specialized Housing, hereby certifies that the conditions of the Halstead report (attached letter) of October 14, 1999 will be fulfilled. The arborist will provide the City of Tigard with a report indicating compliance. Paul J. VLner Executive Director C (503) 292-5066 (u 11 FAX (503) 292-5219 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "Specialists in the care and CONSULTANTS preservation of frees" David Halstead, Consultant B.S P.O. Box 1182, Tualatin, OR 97062 K Phone: (503) 245.1383 Mr. Rick Levak October 14, 1999 Specialized Housing, Inc. 5319 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 124 Portland, OR 97221 Reference: Addendum to report dated 915197 Location: 11530 SW 92nd Avenue, Tigard, OR Subject: Care and Preservation I visited the site today for the purpose of inspecting trees numbered JK90373 and JK 90368. 1 found them to be in similar condition as mentioned in our report dated 915199, (enclosed). It appears now however that excavation will encroach within the 15 feet of root zone preservation recommended in the previous report. This will be possible from a preservation standpoint providing the following precautions are taken. 1. A qualified Certified Arborist shall be on site during excavation within the limb spread (drip line) of these trees. 2. Any roots discovered during excavation are cared for per the resident ! arborist direction. 3. Therapeutic root stimulants consisting of beneficial Mycorrhizal-fungi spores, Soil conditioning bacteria, N-P-K complete fertilizer and root hormones shall tic be applied as needed after excavation is completed. 4. The trees will require a Class II pruning to reduce the wind sail as directed by the resident arborist. 5. As soon as possible after excavation is completed an orange barrier protection fence shall be erected under the guidance of the resident arborist to allow the trees as much protection as needed. If I can be of further assistance or if more technical information is needed please call me immediately. Since Phillip Whi comb Certified Arborist i uesaay, uctooer 7t, 7aaa •ivis vm 10: uicK tsewersOOM rrom: vasin ramovets, ~=5) LbluILf rage: L of L 'qW V.P.Pro Tree & Shrub. 1231 SE 89th Ave Portland OR 97216 Ph# 261 0727 Cel:267 7365 October 12, 1999 Mr. Sergei Kravchanko 12810 SW Morningstar Dr Tigard OR 97223 Dear Sergei, I inspected the trees (JK90367),(JK90368) and found no damage done to either trunks of trees or roots, no fertilizing is necessary at this time and no root hormones should be applied. Best time for fertilizing is late winter or early spring. Lower section of tree # JK90367 has been deadwooded and no farther pruning should be performed at this time. Tree At JK90368 should not be touched at this time due to excessive pruning by previous owner. No more than 1/3 of the greenery should be taken off at one time(one year). An orange barrier has been erected on 10 12 99 for farther protection of the trees Sincerely, Vaus Pavlovets Owner/Operator o0l 4- ~a`.sT~rz~S p~d~T RECEIVED SEP 2 91999 COMMUNIfl DEVELUPMENt ORIGINAL -29-1'_r'D9 1'.._,_> F.F'r_i•I:HH_'.,1>r:r D,WEa_, F. tlCt'c' iiGt:. HALST AD'S ARBORICULTURE "sp seslS in me care and ~1 ~+feresrvar;on of aces" CONSULTANTS Ddvd0 MdlSr;•d0 C :,^^~llar,t ° S • ~ P.O. Bon 7v:,arin GA 9?QE2 Mr. Sergei Kravchenkc August 29, 1999 128 10 SW Morningstar Dnve Tigard, OR 97224 Reference. Addendurn to rooc?r, oicjze ' 9/5!99 Location: .11510 SW 92"'Avorioe. Tigar;l, OR Subject- Care and Presdrvatiu:, 1 visited the site today for the puri,,ose of inspecting tr~,es numbered JK90367 and JK 90366. 1 found them to be in similar condition as mentioned in our report dated 9,15199, (enclased,' It appears now however that excavation will encroach within 12 feet of the tree's tit wks rather than the 15 feet of root zone ' preservation recommended in the previous 1tieport. This will be possible from a preservation standpoint providing the following precautions are taken. 1. A qualified Certified Arbonst shall be on sits during excavation within the ' limb spread (drip line) of these trees. 2. Any roots discovered during excavation are cared for per the resident arborist direction. 3. Therapeutic root stimulants ccnsisting of beneficial Mycorrhizal-fungi spores, Soil conditioning bacteria, N-P-K complete fertilizer and root hormones shall R r be applied as needed alter excavation is completed. 4- The trees will require a Class !l (mining to reduce the wind sail as directed by the resident arbotist. 5. As soon as possible after excavation is completed an orange barrier protection fence shall be em:,cted under the guidance of the resident arborist to allow the trees as m. uch protection as needed. i~ If I can be of further assistance or it rna'e technical information is needed t please call me immediately Since emf, , Phillip Whi comb Certified Arbonst - SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: Company: Phone: y - / 3 3 y Fax: 9 - S 9 From: to Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 Date: 3 / q Pages including this page: COMMENTS: P. 3. c City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY CITY OF TIGARD 20 4k CftV Co m mun ty(D°foP,ent LAND USE APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE SFia A (Better Communft a- ?OCEDUnE' Exms~i I - ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS 100 ANNEXATION 1,160 APPEAL ➢ Director's Decision (Type II) to Planning Commission $ 250 ➢ Expedited Review (Deposit)** $ 300 ➢ Hearings Referee $ 500 ➢ Planning Commission/Hearin 's Officer to City Council $1,745 + Transcript APPROVAL EXTENSION $ 150 BLASTING PERMIT $ 145 CONDITIONAL USE (CUP) ➢ • Initial $ 1,615 ➢ Major Modification $ 1,615 ➢ Minor Modification $ 100 DESIGN EVALUATION TEAM (DET) RECOMMENDATION (Deposit) $1,000 DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISION REVIEW ➢ Single-Family Building Plan $ 40 ➢ Commercial/Industrial/Institution $ 250 EXPEDITED REVIEW • ➢ Land Partition $ 1,280 > Subdivision $ 2,625 + $10/Lot ➢ Subdivision with Planned Development Add 20 % PD Fee HEARING POSTPONEMENT $ 115 HISTORIC OVERLAY/REVIEW DISTRICT (HD) ➢ Historic Overlay Designation r $ 2,190 ➢ Removal Historic Overlay Designation $ 2,190 ➢ Exterior Alteration in.Historic Overlay District $ 545 ➢ New Construction in Historic Overlay District $ 545 .__Demolition_in_Historic.Overla _District.- $ 545 HOME OCCUPATION-PERMIT-(HOP Type I Type 11 ➢ Ori inal Permits $ 30 $ 545 INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 340 LAND PARTITION (MLP) Residential and Non-Residential $ 780 Expedited . $1,280 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MIS 100 MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLAN. 100 NON-CONFORMING USE CONFIRMATION 100 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ➢ Conceptual Plan Review $ 2,170 Detailed Plan Review (Applicable SDR Fee PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE 240 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) Type 11 Iyi~eJJl ➢ Within the 100-Year Flood Plain $ 1,240 ➢ With Excessive Slopes $ 745 $ 1,240 • ➢ Within Drainage Ways $ 745 $ 1,240 ➢ Within Wetlands $ 745 $1,240 SIGN PERMIT (SGN) ➢ Existing and Modification of Existing Sign (No Size Differential) $ 50 ➢ Temporary Sign (Per Sign) $ 15 Chapter 18.420 LAND PARTITIONS Sections: 18.420.010 Purpose 18.420.020 Administration 18.420.030 Approval Process 18.420.040 Application Submission Requirements 18.420.050 Approval Criteria 18.420.060 Final Plat Submission Requirements 18.420.070 City Acceptance of Dedicated Land 18.420.080 Recording Partition Plats 18.420.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations and standards governing approval of partitions. 18.420.020 . Administration r A. Applicant. The applicant of a partition proposal shall be the recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. B. Conformance with state statute. Any application for a land partition shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivision and Partitions. C. Prohibition on sale of lots. No lot or parcel to be created through the partitioning process shall be sold until approval and filing of the final partition plat. D. Future re-division. When partitioning tracts into large parcels, the Director shall require that the parcels be of such size and shape to facilitate future re-partitioning of such parcels in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. 18.420.030 Approval Process A. Decision-making process. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application partition, which shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.420.050. B. Time limit on approval. The partition approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. C. Lapsing of approval. The partition or approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. The partition has not been recorded or has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. Land Partitions 18.420-1 11126198 D_ 1 p, 310, D. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: =7 1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the Director; 2. The applicant can show intent of recording the approved partition or lot line adjustment within the one-year extension period; and 27 3. There have been no changes in the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. 18.420.040 Application Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall include information required for a Type II application, as governed by Chapter 18.390. B. Specific submission requirements. All applications shall include the preliminary lot line map and necessary information in graphic and/or written form. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about these submission requirements. 18.420.050 Approval Criteria A. Approval criteria. A request to partition land shall meet all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 2. There are adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 3. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards; and 4. All proposed lots conform to the specific requirements below: a. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. b. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. c. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement. d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. e. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. f. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. Land Partitions 18.420-2 11126198 Y 03/04/99 08:50 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 9 001 4p ~a ERROR TX REPORT TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO. 3074 CONNECTION TEL 9685798 CONNECTION ID START TIME 03/04 08:50 USAGE TIME 00'00 PAGES 0 RESULT NG 0 #018 SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SER VICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: Company, Phone: & y / g y Fax: 9 Y S 4 From:, Company: City of Tigard Phone, (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 6847297 Date: -3 Pages including this page: COMMENTS: ML.P q4_0100. MAR- 2-99 TUE 0:08 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.01 MILES DOWNING 684-1334 P.O. BOX 230972 968-5798 fax TIGARD OR 97281-0972 3/2/99 TO: CITY OF TIGARD ATTN. PATTY RE: City of Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.162.035.C AS THE APPLICANT FOR THE MLP 97-0010 I AM REQUESTING THAT THE CITY GRANT AN EXTENSION OF THE APPROVAL PERIOD FOR ONE YEAR AS STATED IN THE CODE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE A FEE WITH THIS EXTENSION AND THAT ALL YOU WILL NEED IS THIS LETTER. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE THIS LETTER TO THE APPROPRIATE PERSONS. THANK YOU MILES DOWNING ,low CONDITIONS: View Add Mult-case Ins-before Change Delete Ren er ri t Esc view text of highlighted condition MINOR LAND PARTITION :MLP97-0010: PROJECT:DOWNING PARTITION STATUS:P - UPD: :CMC: APPLICANT:MILES DOWNING PRI 010: SITE ADDRESS:11510 SW 92ND AVE OF GTIGMD Code Title---------------- CONDITIONS Stat Date---- BgREGON - 1) 0001 STREET OPENING PERMIT/P-IMP PLANS DONE 01/05 8 BDR 2) 0001 COMP AGRMNT/INFO REQ'D DONE 01/05/9 BDR 3) 0001 UTILITY EASEMNT (OFF SITE) APPRVL DONE 01/05/98 4) 0001 ROW (ADDTN'L) DEDICATED ON F-PLAT DONE 04/30/98 BDR 5) 0001 LID NON-REMONSTRATE'AGRMENT REQ'D BR- p J 6) 0001 TUAL VALLEY H2O CONNECTION PERMIT BR 7) 0001 STORM DRAIN DESIGN APPROVAL DONE 01/05/98 BDR 8) 0001 UTILITIES (EXISTNG) UNDERGRND/PAY BR 9) 0001 F-PLAT SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: DONE 04/30/98 BDR 10) 0001 BLDG PERMIT REQ'RS SITE PERMIT BR 11) 0001 RCRD'R MYLAR OF PARTIN PLAT PRVD DONE 04/30/98 BDR See Minor Land Partition file 97-0002. CONDITIONS: View Add Mult-case Ins-before Change Delete Renumber Print Esc View text of highlighted condition MINOR LAND PARTITION :MLP97-0010: PROJECT:DOWNING PARTITION STATUS:P : UPD:10/08/98: :CMC: APPLICANT:MILES DOWNING PRIM..:MLP97-0010: SITE ADDRESS:11510 SW 92ND AVE JUR...:TIG: CONDITIONS Code Title---------------------------- Stat Date---- By- 12) 0001 BLDG PERMIT REQ'RS H2O QUAL FEE BR 13) 0001 PAVED DRIVEWAYS REQUIRED MR 14) 0001 FLAG LOT SCREENING PLAN REQRMNTS MR 15) 0001 TREE PLANTING PLAN C,L , D / / C~~}- aYL~ See Minor Land Partition file 97-0002. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • ST OF OREGON Co ~ or of Washington SS RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO' C1TY HALL RECORDS DEPARTMENT, I, Jerry R. Hanson,!Qirector of Assess- ment and Taxation ' and Ex-Officio County CITY OF TIGARD Clerk for said county, do hereby certify that RECEIVED PLAtwNG the within instrument of: writing was received i 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 and recorded im- book- of :records'of said $ county. MDIVIDUAI_. SUN 2 3 199 _ - GIN Jerry R: Hanson, ,Director of File No. Assessment and .Taxation, Ex- Officio"County Clerk Doc 98043796 Rect: 207702 13.00 04/29/1998 09:49:34am WAIVER (NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT) S7REET !M.D1 RO!fZN EMT The undersigned owners (including purchasers) of the real property described below do hereby record their consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving the public streets upon which the described property abuts. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets, reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they may have under the laws of the State of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described As PAP rjeA.S 1. 7- a,.A)~. cj~r PAe;:'Ci0" PL,.vr No. 1998-049 1) IeA-C.P O As Doc,>&&caiT No. 9804379L W1P60*4cI*r.I Cvv-r~ , L~aµ . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this day of ;mlLC- l7oCJ tiiN(A Print Name Print Name Signature Signature ?O. / QX 236g7Z2 Address Address STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Washington ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on v`1 15, 159k(date) by: (name of person(s)). OFFICIAL LSEAL VICKI GI1:Notary's Signature ~ NOTAPY Pt )FJU 140.0 N My Commission Expires: W COMMIS O."" AEG 00 Accepted on behalf of the City of Tigard this day of AA4L- , 19_'M tP- Q.~ ity Engineer NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT • Route To: • Surveyor ✓ Development Review Engineer FINAL PLAT REVIEW CHECKLIST Plat Name: NVyN1M(;2 P4-:_r1-TLU_A ( Case Number(s) U~ -\O Address: 1k000_) <&Vj Ge-i 3Ly!~ . (Do NOT release addresses to the public without consent of the Engineering Department.) 11 Contact name and phone S & 04- ` ~ (Fill in when plat is dropped off) DATE RECEIVED: DATE FORWARDED TO SURVEY:Itle)N'] SURVEY SECTION Check if Check if Considered Okay 1. Street alignment and width, continuity El 0 2. Curve, corner, cul-de-sac radii ❑ ff F~ 3. Dedication, vacation, easement conveyance 4. Residential Survey Certificate match the map Comments: 1~l w D-eJ e-e f10,v NOT 9eJo,z~~ y dV • 0e~~~~~ 3~ib~1 By: o G~i ~ L~ ~ dET '7 Surveyor's Signature Date Page 1 of 1 1 AENGkM V-DE V0N-PLAT. DOT Route To: 1. Planning ✓ 2. Building 3. Engineering Tech I ✓ 4. Development Review Engineer FINAL PLAT REVIEW CHECKLIST Plat Name: [:1yyj-41"6 A~JC ~ i 1 Case Number(s) Q -1-1~ 1 O DATE RECEIVED: 1211 5 (~l 1 DATE FORWARDED TO PLANNING: Z 14 ~ -1 To: ~A 4eltL Planning Division Check if Check if Considered Okay 1. Phase boundaries El a 2. Lot and/or tract size and configuration E 3. Lot numbers El 4. Access restrictions, reserve strips y/ly V-- 5. Condition of Approval Satisfied El 6. Public & Private streets (location, width, etc....,) El 7. Preliminary Plat approval date - 1 yr period OK 8. Special Deed Restrictions (C.C.&R's) 9. Open Space (Deed or Dedication) 10. SPECIAL SETBACKS ARE 11. Assign Case Number (above) Other Comments: By: _ PI 's Signature Date FORWARDED TO BUILDING DIVISION: -2- D to Page I of 4 1 ~ENG\MV-DEW IN-PLAT.DOT BUILDING DIVISION Comments: ~Swtt~ ~al`6 By: 1 ding Dept. Signature Date FORWARD TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (Attn.: Engineering Tech/Engineering Records) q Q I j ate ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (Engineering Tech) Check if Okay Street Names Acceptable Manhole Numbers ❑ Assign Address(s) - (front page) Update City-wide maps Comments: By: G/k Engineering Tech's Signature Date FORWARDED TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER Date Page 2 of 4 I:%ENNaM V-DE VTN-PLAT.DOT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Check if Okay Public Improvement Plans Approvable/Approved Public Improvement Fees/Deposits Right-of Entry, Release & Waivers, Easement El (onsite - offsite) Public Improvement Agreement Public Improvement Assurance ❑ Conditions of Approval Satisfied? M Sewer Availability Letter Prepared D Joint Access, Non-Remonstrance Agreement Comments: By: Development Review Engineer's Signature Date Page 3 of 4 I:1ENGM V-0E VTM-PLAT. DOT 92- Returned to Surveyor for Correction BY: DATE: I & 1% Corrections Reviewed and Approved BY: DATE: 4113, he) T2 P Forwarded for City Signatures BY: - DATE: (l 1 Q Copy of Signed Plat Made and Put in File BY: DATE: 13Iq N~ Released to Developer for Recording BY: DATE: Aj j3 Authorize Eng. Tech I to release addresses BY: V f, Date: (Ago Copy of Signed Plat to DST's BY: 9f 1 Date: `EI13~rt~ Page 4 of 4 I:IEN ,MRIV-DEVTW-PLAT.DOT 0 Agenda Item No. y Meeting of ► DI 1,4 1q,2 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Tim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim*Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff, Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Planner Mark Roberts; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported Councilor Hunt's concern regarding greenspaces. Councilor Hunt was opposed to acquiring both the Bond Street property and to the property just north of Cook Park. > Goal Setting Mr. Monahan reviewed his memo regarding scheduling the goal setting session. He noted the Council discussion at the previous meeting to schedule a goal-setting meeting on September 30, with discussion and prioritization of goals at that meeting, and a second session on October 4 to finalize the list prepared by staff. He mentioned that his performance review was also due soon. The Council discussed scheduling goal setting. Councilor Scheckla objected to a Saturday meeting. Councilor Rohlf said that he would be out of town for the September 30 meeting. Councilor Moore asked to see the Visioning Task Force report as part of the Council goals discussion. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reported that the Action Committees were still meeting. Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling the two sessions for October 7 and October 21 (at the regular study session). The visioning report should be ready by October 9.. They could still hold the special events discussion on October 21, and do his review in November. > Feed & Seed Store Mr. Monahan reported that staff has cleared the concrete off the property. The fencing was still up, as the demolition company's lease did not run out till the end of the month. He, Ed Wegner, and the two John Cooks visited the site to investigate what needed to happen next. Mr. Monahan reviewed the options before the Council: take the fence down, make the necessary improvements and let people park on it, or keep the fence up and not let people park on it. He explained that staff did not budget money to make the required improvements for a parking lot CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 1 on it. He explained that staff did not budget money to make the required improvements for a parking lot because they knew that the Chamber would not build this year. He mentioned the expectation that the Railroad would abandon one of its lines and transfer the underlying land to ODOT. If that happened, then the 25-foot setback from the railroad on this property was not applicable, and there was more room for parking. Mr. Monahan noted that the fencing lease was between the demolition company and the company renting the fence, and did not concern the City. However if the City picked up the fencing contract, there was a concern for appearances since the Mayor's brother owned the company renting the fence. He mentioned that they were asking for six-month quotes for fencing. If parking was not allowed, should staff keep a fence up or arrange for some other method of keeping people off the lot? He suggested holding off on a decision until they received more information on the plans of the Railroad and the Chamber. Staff would return in two weeks with another update. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was a City policy prohibiting people from parking on dirt. Mr. Monahan said there was a policy prohibiting the use of unimproved lots for parking. Councilor Rohlf suggested revisiting that policy. Mr. Monahan pointed out the wintertime problem of cars tracking mud from unimproved lots onto the streets. Councilor Scheckla asked what the status was on the Chamber and their building. Mr. Monahan said that he thought the Chamber might begin construction in 18 months. However, if the Railroad abandoned its line, that gave the Chamber more room for their building and they could change their plan. He explained that Willamette Pacific said last week that they were close to purchasing the track and dedicating the land under the track to ODOT. Councilor Moore asked what the cost of leasing a fence would be for 12 to 18 months versus the Public Works Department installing railroad ties and chains. Mr. Monahan said that the ball park estimate for the chains was $3,500 while a fence could be leased for $200 per month. Councilor Rohlf asked if the policy prohibiting parking on unimproved lots served other areas of the City. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, said that this question came up often. Cities commonly require pavement in parking lots. One reason was preventing cars from tracking gravel onto the streets. Mr. Monahan pointed out that at some point the Council had to decide whether or not they were going to make this lot available for parking. That decision would determine future action. The Council discussed the issue. Councilor Scheckla supported allowing parking. Councilor Moore pointed out that people would question putting in a parking lot now if it turned out that by waiting they would have received the extra 25 feet from the Railroad. Mr. Monahan suggested staff return in two weeks with more information for Council. > Friends of the Library CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 requiring offering this concession to the Commission for the Blind but the Commission did not have anyone who could meet the Friends' requirements. They have narrowed the vendor proposals down to one. The Board was ready to enter into an agreement with the Friends to authorize implementation of an espresso cart that could be on line by October 1. Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of food and drink in the library. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Monahan said that current Library policy did not allow food and drink in the library, although the former City Librarian, Kathy Davis, had allowed coffee in the Puett Room in an attempt to increase adult usage of the Library. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the potential mess food and drink could cause, and favored allowing it only in designated areas. Councilor Rohlf noted that Powell's had a coffee area. Mr. Monahan pointed out that for this idea to work there had to be a policy created, it had to be policed, the staff had to buy into it, and the patrons had to buy into it. He commented that the Friends were willing to move ahead without that policy. He mentioned that the contract would be between the Friends and the vendor; the Council simply agreed to allow this use in the public space. He said that once the vendor had built up his clientele and cash flow, he would give back revenue to the Friends who would in turn use it for the Library. The Council discussed whether or not to allow the Friends of the Library to utilize the public space and have a vendor provide an espresso service. Councilor Rohlf supported doing so, pointing out that the Library needed to discuss the policy about allowing food and drink in the Library immediately because in the winter people would want to come inside. Councilor Moore concurred. Mayor Nicoli noted that the City employees could use this service. Ms. Newton mentioned that the service would not provide sandwiches or lunches. Mr. Monahan said that the operating hours might extend beyond the Library's operating hours to accommodate the employees. The Council agreed by consensus to allow the Friends to use the public space as requested. > November 11 meeting Mr. Monahan mentioned that November 11 was Veteran's Day. He asked if the Council wanted to reschedule the meeting to November 4. The Council agreed that if there was a lot of business, they would hold the November 11 meeting; otherwise, they would cancel the meeting. > Agenda Review Mayor Nicoli asked about the review of the telecommunications ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the entire ordinance would come back to Council through the Code rewrite process. Mayor Nicoli said that he would like to see a higher level of screening required for a tower located within 200 feet of a residential area. He said that it was fair to ask the companies to spend a few thousand dollars on appropriate screening of their pole. He noted that on the west CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 3 • • side of town, which was primarily residential, they might have to locate poles in residential areas because of the lack of commercial spaces. Councilor Scheckla cited other jurisdictions, such as Camas, Washington, that required cell companies to provide documentation that they have exhausted all other possibilities before a tower could be put up in a residential area. Staff mentioned that only 2 of the 16 permits that have been granted were close to residential, one on Main Street, and one north on Highway 99W. Mayor Ncoli expressed his continuing concern that they allowed the monopole onto a non- conforming site. The Council briefly discussed the situation. The Mayor noted that the neighbors have called the police on numerous occasions because the businesses were not conforming to regular business hours. Mr. Bewersdorff suggested including an amendment to the ordinance regarding the screening of poles within the Code rewrite process. Staff reviewed the procedures for the public hearing on the director's decision on the Downing property. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that he sent out a letter regarding the Erickson timber lot in which he explained that cutting the trees met the definition of a development (a major change to the appearance of the land) and was, therefore, subject to site development review. He reported that the owners then asked if thinning the trees would be subject to development review. He said that he needed more information before he could make that determination. He mentioned that the trees left after thinning would be more dangerous because they lacked the root structure needed to withstand high winds. Mr. Monahan pointed out that at some point all the trees would be removed. The question was whether or not how they harvested the timber would give the city a dangerous winter with erosion. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Ncoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: NONE • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: NONE 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: NO VISITORS , 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 4 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 12 & 19, 1997 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 5. COUNCIL REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: STOP SIGNS AT MAIN & BURNHAM STREETS Gus Duenas; City Engineer, reported that the four-way stop signs at Main and Burnham streets were working well. He said that the intent was to allow left-hand turns at that intersection and to create spacing in the traffic to allow left-hand turns at other intersections on Main Street. He commented that this was the opportunity for the public to provide input on the stop signs. He recommended completing a three-month trial, and then doing an assessment to determine if they wanted to make them permanent. S. Carolyn Long, 14240 SW Main Street, Executive Director of the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed the support of the Chamber staff and Board for the four-way stop signs. She commented that it slowed traffic and helped greatly with the traffic situation in the downtown. Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Court, supported the stop signs as an improvement to the traffic situation in the downtown. He noted the slowing down of the cut-through traffic also. Councilor Moore asked if traffic counts were taken before and after the stop signs. Mr. Duenas said that they had traffic counts from before and intended to take traffic counts at the end of the trial period. He stated that they suspected that much of the traffic was cut-through traffic from 99W which would reduce in volume and speed once the motorists realized that it was not a shortcut. Councilor Moore noted the letter from Mr. Mintner that spoke of a five to seven block backup because of the stop signs. Mr. Duenas said that there had been a backup on the first day and only one other backup that he was aware of. He has travelled through the area with no problems. Councilor Rohlf said that he saw backups on the 99W side in the first week but believed that it was cut-through traffic. Since then the traffic has been smooth flowing. Councilor Scheckla asked if the police were writing citations in the area. Mr. Duenas said that he did not know and would check into it. The Council agreed by consensus that staff should complete the three-month trial period and report back to Council at the first meeting in January. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 5 5. CONSIDERATION OF GREENSPACE PROJECT LIST Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented a slide show of the new sites nominated by citizens for the Greenspace project list. The slides included the Bull Mountain 47-acre forested site located between the BPA power lines and Sunrise Lane (which had a preexisting trail system and many owners), a 3.5 acre site located on Little Bull Mountain (asking price $400,000), a 2.4 acre site on Fonner Street (assessed value $75,000), and a one-acre site in three tax lots at SW 69'x' and Baylor with two owners (asking price $303,000). Mr. Roberts mentioned that the City received a letter from the Oregon Education Association requesting that its 10-acre site (nominated by a citizen) not be considered for the greenspace program. He noted that the 3.7- acre Fonner Street property was not available. Mr. Roberts reviewed the staff recommendations. They stood by their original recommendations for the Fanno Creek and Bull Mountain target areas. In addition they recommended Bull Mountain Forest Acres. He asked for allocation of greenspace money to purchase the two small river tracts owned by the Tualatin Country Club that staff negotiating on per Council authorization last month. He clarified that the City of Tualatin requested a $50,000 contribution from Tigard for the design of the pedestrian footbridge. Mr. Roberts said that the rail line, if abandoned, could be made available to the City for trail use but it was an unknown at this time. He recommended that staff be authorized to hire a contract person to assist in the negotiations with owners. Councilor Scheckla asked how much money was left in the fund. Mr. Roberts said that the City had a balance of $633,000. The Council discussed the Bull Mountain forest area. Mr. Roberts identified its exact location relative to the Water Dept. property on Menlor. In response to Councilor Scheckla's question on the timeframe, he explained that the City had until September 1, 1998, to complete purchases with some opportunities for extending the date. > Ramsey McPhillips, 13020 SW McPhillips Road, McMinnville, pointed out that staff shifted his Little Bull Mountain property down to the bottom of the list because it was low priority. He reviewed the history of the parcel, explaining that his grandfather, Barney McPhillips, purchased the property originally. His grandfather was the founding Director of the Environmental Quality Commission in Oregon, served the State with distinction, and received many awards. He said that if purchased, it would be appropriate to dedicate the land in his grandfather's memory, considering his considerable work for the State. He said that his grandfather would be pleased if the land were preserved for the families in the area. Mr. McPhillips pointed out that this area was developing very quickly, and this was one of the last opportunities to preserve a greenspace for the residents. He said that he believed that the purpose of the greenspace program was to quilt together pieces of greenspaces for everyone. He mentioned that when driving on Highway 99W, the trees visible on the top of Bull Mountain CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 6 were on this property. He explained that his family would most likely sell the land to a developer for $600,000 if the City did not buy it for $400,000. Councilor Scheckla asked where this property was located in relation to the cemetery. Marge Davenport reviewed the exact location of the property. She stated that the developers of the apartments nearby have agreed to save the big trees at the top and to take over maintenance of the 3.5 acres of greenspace. She pointed out the many children living in the apartments and condos who had no place to play. > John Putnam, 6960 SW Clinton, said that he nominated the one-acre parcel on the corner of SW Baylor and 69 h in keeping with the DKS plan for the Tigard Triangle. He quoted the provisions regarding the protection and enhancement of natural resources in the Triangle. He noted that this parcel was expensive but contended that land would only get more expensive in the Triangle. He spoke to getting some greenspace area in the Triangle while they could, as he believed that high-density housing would be built in the Triangle east of Dartmouth. He suggested a public/private partnership to purchase the land. > Nikki Matnati, 10529 SW Naeve, said that she represented the Summit Homeowners Association, the neighborhood right below the Erickson tree farm. She spoke to preserving greenspace in the area for the children to play in, especially with the harvesting of the tree farm. Mayor Nicoh noted the work staff has done in the past year-and-a-half to purchase greenspace land and the difficulties they have run into. He spoke to purchasing property for a large regional park in the middle of what would be a heavy residential area, and completing the pathway and greenway through the City. He said that at this point he was looking at the interests for all the citizens of Tigard, not simply one neighborhood. Therefore, he supported the staff recommendations. Councilor Rohlf spoke to staff's need for flexibility in moving forward with this program. He commented that identifying specific properties seemed to aggravate the problem of prices escalating beyond the City's reach. He supported staff moving as quickly as possible to secure these properties. Councilor Moore pointed out that they did not have the money to buy every space on the list. He supported the staff report, concurring with the need for flexibility in purchasing as much as they could with the funding they had. Councilor Scheckla said that he could support the staff report also, although he would like to see the Bull Mountain properties purchased if possible. Mr. Roberts said that staff would return with a resolution amending the intergovernmental agreement to reflect the new list of projects. Tonight staff had a resolution to identify the Tualatin Country Club properties and to authorize use of greenspace money to purchase them. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, read the sentence to be added to Resolution No. 97-37: "The CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 7 allocation of the balance of $267,000 remaining from the elimination of the 129` and Bull Mountain Road site will be decided at a future public meeting." Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 97-37. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-37, A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE, TRAIL ACQUISITION OR ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the need for speed in purchasing these lands. He stressed that delay cost the City precious resources that they did not have the money to offset. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92"D AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same PO Boa 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,670, 8,040, and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92"d Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164 ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The Purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 8 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilors Moore and Scheckla each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mark Roberts, Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that at the August 12 meeting, the Council moved to review the Director's Decision on MLP 97-00010. He reviewed the location and specifics of the .60 acre property located on SW 92d Avenue. He reported that at the August East CIT meeting, five of the six regularly attending members requested that the Council call this application up. Mr. Roberts reviewed the information developed by the neighborhood property owners as presented in an August 8 letter from the East CIT, and in an additional 23-page letter. He noted the first argument that the minor land partition should be reviewed as a subdivision. He explained that while the property owner did own both the subject site and the property at the corner, they were two legally separate lots, created in 1940 in accordance with the applicable law at the time. Because the applicant did not include the second lot in his application, and was dividing the first lot into only three parcels, his application did not meet the definition of a subdivision (one or more contiguous units of land that create four or more lots). Mr. Roberts noted the neighbors' argument that the definition in the Code of the pole portion of a flag lot met the Code definition of a street. He said that the Director made the interpretation that the pole portion of a legal lot was not a street, as it was not created for street purposes but rather to provide a separate legal building site. He stated that to interpret the pole portion as a street meant that driveways serving residences would be defined as streets, rendering the lots non-conforming in size because street area was not included in net lot area. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that because the City was considering a revision to the Code requiring minor land partitions,to file a tree mitigation plan, the Code did not at this time implement the Comprehensive Plan provision requiring the City to protect large stands of trees through the planned development process and the removal process. He explained that the City has not required tree-mitigation plans for minor land partitions because of the development constraints inherent in these smaller sites that filed for minor land partition. Also the revision was under consideration because the state statutes no longer made a distinction between minor and major land partitions. Mr. Roberts stated that the Code tree-removal section was specifically aimed at large stands of trees found on large acreages proposed for subdivision or commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Roberts noted three other issues raised to support the neighbors' contention that this partition did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. First, the lot sizes were significantly CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 9 smaller than the Dogwood Ridge subdivision lot sizes of 18,800 square feet. However, the proposed lot sizes did conform to the R-4.5 zone. Second, the application did not address the traffic safety issues of adding three more homes to a narrow 20 foot street. Staff did not find that adding three homes would significantly impact the controlled intersection at SW 92nd and Greenburg. They further concluded that children already had to use safety awareness to traverse the existing driveways along 92nd. Third, tree removal would remove a needed buffer for the adjoining trees. Mr. Roberts said that if the City had a requirement that removal of trees would not be allowed where it might affect the character or integrity of trees on adjoining properties, then they would effectively place a moratorium on new development at sites near other wooded properties because nearby trees were usually affected by removal of nearby trees. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that the R4.5 zoning in the Comprehensive Plan for this area was in error; it should be R-3.5 in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said that this property was not part of the subdivision. He pointed out that this entire area was zoned R-4.5. He reported that staff who worked on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan have stated that property owners in this area were involved. Mr. Roberts noted the argument that the five-foot of right-of-way dedication was inadequate. SW 92nd presently had a 50 foot right-of-way dedication with a 20 foot street. Staff felt that future improvements to widen the street and put in curbs and gutters could be accomplished in 45 feet of.right-of-way. He said that the East CIT was asking the Council to find that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not support that finding, and recommended approval subject to the Director's Decision. Councilor Moore asked for clarification regarding the right-of-way dedication. Mr. Roberts said that staff was not requiring half street improvements with this site because there was unimproved right of way between this site and Greenburg Road. They were requiring a five-foot dedication and a waiver of remonstrance against a future LID. Councilor Rohlf asked if the East CIT took a position on this application or asked for Council review. Mr. Roberts said that the CIT asked for Council review. d. Public Testimony APPLICANT > David B. Smith, 6975 SW Sandburg, attorney representing applicant, Miles Downing, stated their agreement with the staff report. He pointed out that the Council needed to focus on the specific review criteria applicable to a minor land partition (Section 8.162.040). These five criteria were conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with state statutes and city ordinances, availability of adequate public facilities, conformity with lot size and dimensions, and compliance with all applicable city and agency standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 10 Mr. Smith discussed the neighbors' contentions that the partition did not comply with Comprehensive Plan polices and implementing criteria regarding trees (Section 3.4.2) and that there was a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan because this area should not have been zoned R- 4.5. Mr. Smith argued that this lot was never designated as a timbered or treed area and therefore was not subject to the planned development process or to the tree removal provisions. Such designations had to be done through the Goal 5 process. W. Smith stated that to challenge the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial land use action was an "impermissible collateral attack on the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan." That type of action should occur during periodic review, as supported by the courts. W. Smith cited the staff report's conclusion that this application did conform with all statutory, regulatory, and ordinance requirements. He stressed that this was a minor lot partition occurring on one lot. He said the state definition of a "tract" in ORS 215 (cited by the neighbors) applied to rural lands and counties, not to lands within the urban growth boundary. He said that the Code clearly distinguished between accessways and streets, and it defined the pole portion of a flag lot as an accessway, not a street (18.108.070). He argued that to adopt the construction of the CIT for this section would annul the section and make it meaningless. Mr. Smith pointed out the staff conclusion that five foot of right-of-way dedication was more than adequate. He reiterated that the Council could not deal with the question of whether or not the Code properly implemented the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial application. That took a legislative process, as did identifying significant groves or stands of trees under the Goal 5 process. Mr. Smith emphasized that this was a minor land partition that conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. It had no designated unique stands of trees, and the tree ordinance did not apply to minor partitions. He stated that Mr. Downing has engaged a certified arborist to investigate the site, as the trees were the major issue of concern to the neighbors. He entered into the record the overlay map that indicated which trees could be saved and which could not. He mentioned that the arborist found diseased trees on the site which would have to come out in any case. He explained that Mr. Downing was simply preparing the site for development but was not the actual developer. He said that they would make every reasonable effort to save every tree they could. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the tree map. David Halstead, 4490 SW 160`n, Beaverton, Halstead Arborculture Consultants, said that the Douglas fir grove on this site was infected with laminated root rot, though he did not have sufficient time to confirm his diagnosis with lab tests. He reviewed the four trees he hoped to leave as a buffer to the north but pointed out that they would have to remove diseased trees. Councilor Rohlf asked if the removal of trees would impact neighboring trees on adjoining properties. Mr. Halstead said no, and commented that he had not seen many trees on the neighboring lots. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 11 Mayor Nicoli asked if this document was entered into the record at previous hearings. Mr. Smith said that they created this document by overlaying a site plan showing tree locations with a site plan showing the flag lots. The two site plans were submitted previously as separate documents. Councilor Scheckla commented that if the Douglas firs were dying, then there was little point in preserving the trees. Mr. Halstead concurred. He stated that the Pacific Northwest was experiencing a general infestation of laminated root rot that was doing serious damage to the trees. He cited work he has done in Gresham, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego diagnosing root rot and removing trees. He explained the specifics of how this disease destroyed the trees. He pointed out that within this neighborhood there were no young Douglas firs, despite the large number of seed produced by a single tree. Councilor Scheckla expressed his displeasure that the applicant did not address the tree situation until it was too late to get back lab tests to confirm the presence of the disease prior to this hearing. Mr. Smith explained that the red dots on the tree map indicated trees to be preserved. He said that the remainder of the trees were within the driveway or house footprints or too close to the house to be preserved. He commented that trees identified for preservation would have to be removed for safety reasons if they were infected. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Smith said that they had no objection, that that was Mr. Downing's intent. PROPONENTS OPPONENTS > Carrie Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, thanked the Council for reviewing this application. She said that in response to the Council indications that they wanted to support the neighbors on the tree issue, the neighbors prepared documentation in detail. She presented an aerial photograph of the area to demonstrate that, while this property was not technically part of the Dogwood Ridge subdivision, it was nonetheless within the neighborhood because it was on SW 92od Avenue. She pointed out that the neighborhood was ringed by Douglas firs, and that the large lots enabled them to preserve that feature. Ms. Gavett stated that they were not trying to stop the development but wanted to minimize the impact to the neighborhood by insuring that his development would be similar in character and quality to the neighborhood. They held that the Code and the Comprehensive Plan provided the means to do so. I Ms. Gavett reviewed the interactions between the neighbors and Mr. Downing. She said that Mr. Downing originally told them that he intended to clear cut the lot for profit. During the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, the neighbors rejected his offer to preserve one tree on the entire property and prepared a counteroffer (Appendix B) that he build two homes and preserve more trees. Mr. Downing rejected their proposal, stating that he would remove all CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 12 i • the trees "just to spite us," and informed them that any more contact with him would have to be through City staff. At that point negotiations broke down. Ms. Gavett reiterated that the neighbors had understood that Mr. Downing intended to clear cut the lot. The information that he intended to preserve any trees at all was news to them. She asked that his intentions for tree preservation be in writing, especially since he would not develop the lot himself. She asked for a tree mitigation plan with testing to confirm the claim that the trees were infected with root rot. Ms. Gavett discussed the issue of the incorrect processing of the application as a minor land partition. She reviewed the neighbors' reasons why they thought it should be processed as a major land partition. She said that the distinction between "major" and "minor" did not occur at the state level, and therefore was a local distinction. However the state regulations defined "street" or "road," and the Code adopted that definition verbatim. She pointed out that a major land partition required tree mitigation plans whereas a minor land partition did not. Ms. Gavett argued that in the Code the characterization of the pole portion of a flag lot as an "access drive" met the state definition of a private street (an accessway that was under private ownership). It also met the definition of "street" or "road" (a public or private way that was created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas, or tracts of land.) Ms. Gavett cited Mr. Roberts' statement in the staff report: "If more than one lot is accessed by the flag pole, in the director's opinion this kind of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." She argued that the definition said "one or more" and that the staff interpretation was not supported by the Code. She held that because the definition came from the state, it lay outside the City's jurisdiction to use the interpretation that it had to be going to more than one lot. Ms. Gavett disagreed with Mr. Roberts' contention that defining the pole portion of a flag lot as a "street" meant that all standard driveways in Tigard became roads, making the lots nonconforming in size because roads were not included in lot size calculations. She said that the purpose of a driveway was to provide offstreet parking per the Code requirements. She argued that the street a house was located on provided the ingress and egress to the house, not the driveway. Ms. Gavett noted several differences between driveways and accessways. Accessways cannot be included in the lot size calculations, cannot be used for off street parking, and have to meet emergency vehicle width requirements. None of these provisions applied to driveways. Ms. Gavett reiterated the neighbors' contention that the application should be reviewed as a major land partition requiring the applicant to consider the preservation of trees and a tree mitigation plan. She said that the central issue was whether or not poles to flag lots were streets. Councilor Rohlf asked for the definition of a "street" in the state interpretation. Ms. Gavett said that it was the same as in the Code. CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 13 > Wes Gavett,11435 SW 92"d, said that as a licensed civil engineer practicing for more than 13 years, much of his professional experience dealt with the interpretation and implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and codes: He said that, as he read the statutes, the approval authority had to insure that their decision was based upon proof of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that in approving this application, the Council has failed to do so. Mr. Gavett cited the Comprehensive Plan goal "to maintain and improve the quality of life for the city residents by retaining natural areas and resources." He mentioned the policy that "the city shall designate by definition features to be protected as natural areas." He pointed out that it was done by definition, not by designation. He cited other provisions relating to protection of natural areas so that the character of the area would not be altered by development. He mentioned the findings of the Tree Task Force adopted in 1995 in which they recommended that the city conduct a significant tree inventory including a review of other communities' work, and that the city require a tree plan with strategies to save existing trees or to mitigate tree removal. He cited the ORS statutes requiring local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to implement their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Gavett cited the more than 50 trees identified in the applicant's site plan as evidence for the existance of a significant stand of trees on the property. He said that the applicant indicated to the neighborhood that he had intended to remove all the tree without any mitigation. He argued that because the Code did not define use based on size or magnitude of development, a 100 acre parcel could be divided in such a way that it was a minor land partition. He said that this was a loophole. He contended that the Code did not implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan because it had no mechanism to establish trees as significant. Yet the Plan stated that stands of trees were designated by definition as significant. Mr. Gavett read from a memo prepared by Dick Bewersdorffto the Council in July 1997. He pointed out that Mr. Bewersdorff said that the intended tree inventory to identify unique trees or stands of tree needing protection was not done due to other work priorities. He quoted Mr. Bewersdorffs statement that the Code was silent on designation of significant trees, lacking a mechanism or program to so designate them. He reiterated that clearly a major Plan objective was the protection of trees and natural areas. Mr. Gavett contended that this property and the entire neighborhood contained significant trees which were an integral part of the community. He mentioned the argument that an application (with regards to tree mitigation and protection) did not have to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it complied with the Code which complied with the Plan. He held that this argument was in error because the Code was mute on the topic and clearly contradicted the Plan requirements. Mr. Gavett pointed out that in the tree cutting policies of Forest Grove, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Portland, this property would be subject to a tree mitigation plan. He mentioned that the Council could take judicial notice of ordinances of other planning authorities in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 14 Metro area. He held that Tigard should be obligated to use the same high standards to protect natural resources. Mr. Gavett said that he did not expect this property to go undeveloped. He commented that in his work as an engineer he found solutions to people's problems that minimized the impact on the local community, protected the environment, and were compatible with local land uses. He said that he believed that that could be accomplished on this property but not with this proposal. Mr. Gavett commented that this neighborhood of mature trees, large lots, well maintained and established homes was unique in Tigard. He asked the Council not to allow it to be diminished by poor planning and the ability to play fast and loose with the Code. He asked the Council to uphold the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Moore asked what results did the neighbors expect to get from a mitigation plan. Ms. Gavett said that if the applicant's numbers were accurate, he had estimated that it would cost him $70,000. She presented a petition signed by all neighbors on SW 92nd Avenue supporting the report. > Tom Strong, 11465 SW 92"d Avenue, reiterated that the neighbors did not believe that this decision was based on proof by the applicant that his applicant fully complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to the issue of maintaining quality of life, which was the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He cited reasons why he believed that his quality of life would be affected by this development. The neighbors have always thought of the subject parcel as part of the neighborhood, regardless of whether or not it was officially in the Dogwood Ridge subdivision. Allowing a development on this parcel that clearly did not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood diminished the quality of life for the neighbors. He cited the aerial photograph as evidence that the neighborhood was ringed by a significant stand of fir trees. Mr. Strong addressed the issue of safety as a part of quality of life. He mentioned that the neighborhood children played on the narrow dead-end street, though not allowed to get too close to Greenburg Road. He said that he thought that the addition of three houses to the existing neighborhood would create a significant increase in traffic for the neighborhood, although it might not appear that way from a city-wide perspective. This would affect the kids walking down to catch the school bus. He held that the Comprehensive Plan provided the umbrella of protection that prohibited development from diminishing the quality of life. > Barbie Knauss, 11495 SW 92"d Avenue, stated that her lot was not part of Dogwood Ridge either but when they built on it 15 years, they were required to line up with the pre-existing access and to dedicate a portion of the frontage to the City. She asked why this property (directly across from her lot) was not required to do so. She asked how the neighborhood could acquire the additional five feet of right-of-way in the future, should this lot be approved. with a misaligned right of way and the neighbors decide to form an LID to improve the road to the full 50 feet. She pointed out that the additional five foot of right-of-way could help improve the safety of the entrance which was curved. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 15 - i • Ms. Knauss asked if it was not the normal practice of jurisdictions to clean up right-of-way misalignments as part of the approval process. She asked how it could be construed as fair to the rest of the street to not require consistent dedication. She asked if the City would vacate all the way up the street to align with the new standard for the street. Ms. Knauss read a letter from William Weber, 11285 SW 92"d Avenue, in which Mr. Weber addressed the two conflicting philosophies involved in this proposed development. They were higher density housing units to accommodate growth without causing an expansion of the urban growth boundary, and the dependence of cities on their neighborhoods for quality of He and vitality of the city. He pointed out the City's commitment to its neighborhoods through its emphasis on citizen involvement. He spoke to SW 92"d Avenue between Greenburg and North Dakota as a neighborhood actively involved in the city. He contended that this new development would change their neighborhood and downgrade it which was not consistent with the City of Tigard's interests in preserving old and established neighborhoods. > Terry Smith, 11480 SW 92"d Avenue, submitted his testimony in writing with accompanying materials. He declared that the City has not processed this application correctly because the City has not applied defined criteria to evaluate whether or not the development qualified as a treed area. He cited two petitions by the neighbors asserting that a large and unique stand of trees has been observed on the subject property. He contended that the City, in processing this application as a minor land partition, was effectively saying that the tree stand did not exist. He argued that this failed as criteria because it did not serve to determine whether the trees existed or whether they were large or unique. Mr. Smith contended that the City promised the state and Tigard citizens that it would designate natural areas by definition, not by location, but it still lacked a definition or an instrument to do so. Therefore the Code failed to implement the Plan, and the City could not legally implement this application until it provided the necessary definition. He said that minor land partition development allowed harvesting of unlimited size parcels of trees without mitigation. Within one year, a subdivision application could be made. Mr. Smith requested in writing that the City provide the defining criteria for large or unique stands of trees. Then the City could process this application using that criteria to demonstrate that development was not occurring in a designated tree area. He contended that the City had to demonstrate that the subject parcel was not a treed area according the defining criteria. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the pole portion of a flag lot meeting the definition of a road or street. He contended that the City has not demonstrated that the definition of a minor land partition excluded or exempted the creation of an accessway under private ownership or that the pole portion of a flag lot did not meet the definition of a street or road. He held that the legal lot area included only the flag, not the pole. If a partition created a road or street, then it was not a minor partition. He said that the purpose of the pole was the same as the purpose of a road or street. He reiterated the different standards for driveways and accessways mentioned by Ms. Gavett. He argued that since a flag lot could not be legally created without creation of an accessway, it meant that flag lots had to be processed as major partitions. CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 16 Mr. Smith requested an interpretation of the phrase "area or tract." He said that the City's actions indicated that the phrase meant only "parcels." He argued that this was contrary to the state definition. He asked if the staff conclusion that one person could own contiguous areas or tracts of land but did not have to include neighboring parcels in an application was a legally correct concept. He spoke to handling the phrase "area or tract" as the state intended in order to avoid unlawful partition. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the R4.5 zone as an incorrect zoning designation of this area. He cited the large lot sizes, and a previous City Council's denial of an application to partition one of these parcels into a flag lot. He said that none of the neighbors were aware of when they participated in the Comprehensive Plan process, as indicated by staff, nor did staff provide a record of that involvement. He noted that the only other lot developed since the subdivision, Ms. Knauss' lot, developed with the same characteristics as the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors were realizing that R4.5 zoning did not prohibit development from diminishing the character and property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that the zoning did not allow for homesite and substantial tree protection. He held that the City promised to allow only development that accomplished its purposes. Those purposes included insuring development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, promoting and protecting the neighbors' welfare, and prohibiting development that caused a diminishing of the quality of life. He spoke to R-3.5 zoning as allowing an appropriate level of development while preserving the neighborhood. He reiterated that R4.5 zoning was a mistake, and requested that it be changed to R-3.5. Mr. Smith commented that the overlay drawing submitted by the applicant tonight had not been submitted before because no other document in the application showed the neighboring trees. He said that the neighbors felt that they could not rely on the verbal promises of a developer who would not live in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to make the requested interpretations and definitions, and to find that the application should not be processed as a minor partition. Councilor Rohlf asked if anyone in the neighborhood had approached the City regarding a significant tree designation prior to the discussion of this application. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors had not been aware until now what the impact could be. He explained that he did ask the director about a Council hearing on a significant tree designation after Mr. Downing withdrew his first application. A month and a half later, the director told him that he could submit an application. He pointed out that the neighbors tried to follow the Mayor's request to provide specific code and policies in addressing this situation. > Linda Eaton, 9625 SW Lewis Lane, owner of a rental property on SW 92nd Avenue, expressed her concern that a large walnut tree in the back yard along the fence would be damaged by this development. She said that she asked Mark Roberts what could be done to preserve her tree, and he told her not to worry at this time; if anything happened, she could sue the developer. She asked that the developer be required to do something to protect her tree. She suggested that the arborist not be employed by the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9; 1997 - PAGE 17 > Jack Frechette, 11300 SW 92"d Avenue, spoke to the neighborhood as a wonderful place to live with rich soil for growing things and a beautiful entrance with the trees along Greenburg. He questioned the diagnosis of the trees as diseased, commenting that he did not see any signs of rot on the roots of trees blown over by the windstorm. He submitted a letter from a gentleman who has lived in the neighborhood for 47 years. THOSE NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR AGAINST > Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91' Court, East CIT facilitator, stated that while the. East CIT did vote to support bringing this application up for review, the CIT did not take a stand the application. REBUTTAL David Smith said that the width of the flag pole for a flag lot was defined by the minimum required frontage on a street, and that the access drive had to fit within the pole. He cited the definition of public street access in CDC 18.108.040 as evidence that the access drive in the pole was not a public street because it connected to a public street. He argued that the purpose of the Code to protect natural areas was implemented in the Code through the procedures for legislative decisions (CDC 18.30). He reiterated that the City could not decide if this was a designated tree area within a quasi-judicial hearing. He argued that the purpose statement in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the diminution of quality of life was not in and of itself an approval criteria. He said that they intended to use Mr. Halstead as their arborist, noting his work for the City and well-established reputation. e. Council Questions Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that their office reviewed this application and was satisfied that it was not a subdivision. He said that the subdivision argument was based upon a definition in the statutes that applied to the county plans. He said that they felt that the applicant had the better argument on the issue of whether or not the flag pole was a street. The pole was counted towards lot area, and the frontage measured based upon where the pole connected to the street. He commented that he knew of no jurisdiction that interpreted the pole portion of a flag lot as a street. Councilor Rohlf asked if it was economically feasible for Mr. Downing to put in two lots instead of three. Mr. Smith said no, and mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for higher density. Councilor Rohlf asked about the suggestion to get a neutral arborist, mutually accepted by both parties, who would devise a tree plan more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Downing was going to pay for the arborist, then Mr. Downing should get to pick the arborist. He reiterated that Mr. Halstead has worked for the City and had well-established credentials. CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 18 Jim Hendrya, Community Development Director, cited the closure of the City's periodic review through the recent adoption of the Goal 5 Safe Harbors element into the Comprehensive Plan as evidence that the state found that the City's implementing ordinances for its Plan were consistent with state wide goals and guidelines, and implemented the Plan. He said that there was no further requirement for the City regarding the preservation or removal of trees other than what was adopted in the Code. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that this has been an exhaustive process for the neighbors, the applicant, and the staff. He said that staff evaluated the numerous issues raised during the process, and verified the process and procedures with the City Attorney's office. He pointed out that the staff report was exhaustive on all issues raised tonight. He stated that the conclusions and findings in the staff report justified the decision made. Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of tree mitigation would be on this partition. Mr. Bewersdorff said that there was no guarantee that the trees would be saved. He explained that the impact depended on the number of trees removed. He mentioned a tree mitigation plan that mitigated for trees removed for disease by payment of fees. Mr. Roberts said that the cost would be in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. He mentioned that mitigation did not refer to diseased trees, and a special requirement would have to be included for this site. Councilor Scheckla asked why there was no requirement to install a sidewalk from Greenburg Road to the development. Mr. Hendryx said that the City's normal practice was not to require sidewalks where it would begin in the middle of a block, as in this case. He mentioned that the applicant would sign a remonstrance for improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that City policy has changed regarding sidewalks. Councilor Scheckla spoke for requiring a sidewalk, since three driveways would be added. He argued that the change of policy created inconsistency in sidewalk installations. He expressed concern that whoever bought the lot from Mr. Downing would pay for a sidewalk through a future LID, not the developer. E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval with the findings in the staff report. h. Council Deliberation Councilor Rohlf said that he heard a willingness from the applicant to accept a condition that he make all efforts to preserve the trees to the largest degree possible. Mr. Bewersdorff said that was up to the Council. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:26 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE. 19 Councilor Rohlf commented that the tree ordinance had been a painful process for the City because of the high emotions on both sides: the rights of private individuals on their property versus the right of a community to have quality of life. He said that he was sympathetic to the neighborhood trying to preserve quality of life, and to the applicant trying to make use of his property. Councilor Rohlf complimented the neighborhood on an outstanding presentation but said that their legal arguments did not convince him. He stated that the best the Council could do was to condition the application to preserve as many trees as possible. He said that he wished they had better "teeth" for preserving the quality of life, citing Bull Mountain as an example. He commented that people defined "quality of life" as different things. He reiterated that he thought that Mr. Downing had the better legal arguments, and that he had no choice but to approve the application and to request a condition to preserve as many trees as possible. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Rohlf s remarks. He said that he had voted "no" on the motion to call this application up for review because he thought that it met all the applicable criteria. He mentioned the excellence of the neighbors' presentation. He said that he still thought that the applicant met the criteria, and that he would approve it. Councilor Scheckla spoke against approving the application. He said that doing so made it more difficult for that neighborhood (or any neighborhood in Tigard) to maintain its quality. He said that he did not think it was attractive to the rest of the area. Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Rohlf s comments. He commended the neighborhood also for an excellent presentation. He complimented the applicant for his willingness to accept a condition regarding the trees. He suggested a condition that the applicant agree to replant a four inch diameter tree somewhere on the site for any of the trees marked to be preserved on the overlay drawing which could not be saved for any reasons, be it disease or damage. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the Council was invited to take judicial notice of other communities' tree ordinances. He said that if they did that, then they broke faith with those who helped the City craft their tree ordinance. If there was an issue with the tree ordinance, then the community needed to go through the same process in order to deal with it. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion for four inch diameter trees to replace those marked for preservation but lost to damage or disease. The Mayor reiterated that he wanted a sizable tree put back in for each of the trees lost. He said that he understood that the applicant has already offered to put fencing around the trees to be saved during construction but he wanted a guarantee to the neighborhood that there would be a certain number of trees left on the site, no matter what happened during construction. Mr. Monahan restated the condition as "after the applicant makes every effort to save the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 20 designated trees, then, if the trees cannot be saved due to damage or disease, and are removed at a later time, then those trees will be replaced." The Council discussed whether this condition would run with the land. The Mayor said that he did not want the condition to run beyond the first property owner. The Council discussed the logistics of crafting the ordinance. Staff said that they had until November 5 under the 120 day-rule. Staff said that they could return in one week with a draft ordinance for Council review at the September workshop. In response to staff questions, Mayor Ncoli said that he did not want the applicant to submit a tree mitigation plan but to stick with the overlay drawing submitted this evening. He said that he was comfortable with Mr. Halstead's analysis on whether or not they could save a tree. He reiterated that he wanted an assurance that the applicant would make every effort to save the trees he has proposed saving, and if he could not, then he would replace them on the site in a location that Mr. Halstead determined allowed the best chance of survival for the tree and that fit in with the future homes. The Council directed staff to craft the condition, send it to the City Attorney's office for review, and to the Council for approval next Tuesday. Councilor Moore expressed concern that the overlay drawing used fictious footprints, and that the trees that could be saved might change with the actual footprints. Mr. Ramis said that he understood the applicant to be volunteering to restrict his building envelope in order to save the trees. Mayor Ncoli said that using the actual footprints as an excuse to cut down one of the trees marked to be saved was unacceptable. > Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Terry Smith said that if the right of way was extended to match the rest of the street, then the City would have control over the significant large tree that stood within that right of way. He spoke to the impact that large tree had on the entrance to the neighborhood. David Smith said that he did not disagree with Mr. Smith's comments. > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to September 16 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Terry Smith has asked that his request for an interpretation of the definition of significant trees and of an area or tract be considered next week. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City had a request mechanism for interpretations of the Code. He asked if it was appropriate to circumvent this process during a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Ran-is said no, unless the interpretation was critical to the decision. He stated CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9,199.7 - PAGE 21 that these definitions were not critical to this decision because by approving the application, Council declared those issues as not relevant to the decision. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: NONE 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CANCELED 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:03 p.m. 4 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder F, City of Tigard `Iq (ate: O/~~^t 1-7 i:\admkathy1ccm\970909.doc CITY COUNCII. MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 22 • 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OFTIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community ,SVTE Of MGO9V' ) County of Washington ) ss. City of TWard ) I, Patricia L Lunshrd, being first duly swom/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for th City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED PUBLIC NEARING FOB: y 9 9-7- 1EKK .YYeWIN gal {tod i~INII>ta wac whir} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ir/ Tigard City Council - ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED DECISION FOB: 0 City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED FINAL ORDER FOm: {~t>1wrNrlw b wNr} 0 City of Tigard Planning Director 0 Tigard Hearings Officer 0 Tigard Planning Commission 0 Tigard City Council ❑ That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOB: A copy of the PUBLIC BEARING NOTICEINOTICE OF DECISIONINOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE[S] of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to ea name person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Ex6ib n the 1997, and deposited in the United States Mail on the ./M day of., 1997, postage prepaid. A~z eu - C-~ (Person at Prep N e] Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the _~day of , 19W OFFICIAL SEAL &Z?R DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 NOT Y PUBLIC OF O N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 My COMMIM00 E>QI S: u RLF INF0. 2!!7 CISE r1Iik q1-6010 CiSE YIML l) ~ i EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Skapingll Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HAS CALLED UP FOR REVIEW, A DIRECTOR'S DECISION, TO BE REVIEWED AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION IMLPI 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST ➢ To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,570, 8,040 and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1 S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164. ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. COUNCIL REVIEW OF MLP 97-0010 DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION NOTICE OF 9/9/97 PUBLIC HEARING IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE &UPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFi* AUGUST 20, 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR STAFF PLANNER MARK ROBERTS, AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. N DAKOTA A FA - W COUNCIL REVIEW OF MLP 97-0010 DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION NOTICE OF 9/9/97 PUBLIC HEARING W&nf /Nz~ dl1 ~ 112r-ti~k&l MIJ' yt-oo ro C^6x, < e~a~ 1S135DC-07300 IS1350C-07200 EXR, +~t51~ ~t5-Z~ A ALLEN, ALMA M BELL, CARROLL M & FLORENCE P +~4 11646 SW 91ST 11600 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 _ 1S135DC-02700 1S135DC-07400 BURKS, MARK J & CANTRELL, PATRICIA A & CARROLL SHERI QUAINTANCE 11700 SW GREENBURG 5968 VISTA DE LA LUZ TIGARD,OR 97223 WOODLAND HILLS,CA 91367 1 S135DC-07000 1 S135DB-04900 CEARLEY, MICHAEL D AND CORTESE, ANGELO & ROSINA ANGEL WAGGONER, NADINE 15175 SW SUNRISE LN 11675 SW 91 STAVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S7 3508-03800 1 S135DC-06000 CRAIG, DAVID WAND VICKI R DALTON, LEN F & MARY M 11420 SW 92ND 6906 SW TAYLORS FERRY RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DC-03000 1 S135DC-06900 DEGROOD, AL MMRGINIA E DRENNA, JOHN W & 22730 SW CHAPMAN RD BURNETT, JOHN F & STEPHANIE A SHERWOOD,OR 97140 PO BOX 23603 TIGARD,OR 97281 1 S135DB-03000 1 S135DB-04700 EATON, LINDA L & RICHARD B GAVETT, WESTON C & KERRY L 9625 SW LEWIS LN 11435 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1513508-04600 1 S135DB-00400 GLAUBKE, JOHN A & MARY MARTHA HOFFMAN. MICHAEL J CO TRUSTEES 11475 SW 90TH AVE 11405 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S 135DB-00600 151350B-02900 JACKSON, LINDA J JUNGWIRTH, RANDY PAUL 11545 SW 90TH AVE 1450 SE POWELL BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97202 1 S135DB-05000 1 S135DB-04901 KARBSTEIN, BRUNO TRUSTEE KNAUSS, BARBARA J 11580 SW GREENBURG RD 11495 SW 92ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-03700 1 S135DC-07100 KOLMODIN, NORMAN B LOWRY, MARYLEE A MARY LOU 11595 SW 91ST 11450 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 bowiv I 1v4L ~ 9 ,e(n l/ N I V L u- f--Ml o (A - d o t c~~ 4jCou • 1 S135DC-02600 1 S135DC-06100 LURVEY, DANIEL C MACKEY, DANIEL MORRIS & PATRIC EXHIBIT 11665 SW GREENBURG RD 11690 SW 92ND AVE 1fl TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-01900 1 S135DC-08200 MCHORSE, MICHAEL COME AND MOLITOR, LAWRENCE R/NANCY L MICHELE LYNN 11587 SW 90TH AVE 11440 SW 91 ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-01800 1 S135DB-01600 O'CALLAGHAN, COLLEEN C RAMIREZ, JOSE C/MARIA 17780 OVERLOOK CIRCLE 11560 SW 91ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-06500 1S135DB-02800 SABRE, REMI HECTOR SANDSO, JOHN R AND DONNA M 11885 SW 92ND AVE TRAUBA, DONNA M TIGARO,OR 97223 11475 SW 91ST - TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DC-06700 1 S135DB-02700 SHAW, LLOYD P DOROTHY J SIMONSEN, RORY L & 11600 SW GREENBURG RD ADAMS, CINDY L TIGARD.OR 97223 11435 SW 91ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S135DB-03600 1 S135DB-05100 SMITH, TERRENCE W AND SNEIDEMAN, HARRY E LISA R 11570 SW GREENBURG RD 11480 SW 92ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-02602 1S135DB-04800 SPARTAN HOMES, INC STRONG, THOMAS LAND ROXANN S 2900 BRISTOL ST 98205 11465 SW 92ND AVE COSTA MESA,CA 92626 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DB-05200 1S135DB-04902 TAYLOR, ROLLAND S TIGARD, CITY SHIRLEY L 13125 ALL 25133 MCCLUN RD RD,OR 97223 SWEET HOME.OR 97386 1 S135DC-03002 1 S135DC-06300 TIGARD, CITY VANWORMER, IDA M 13125 -AWIULL 4224 NE 102ND RD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97220 1 S135DB-01700 1 S135DC-06400 WEINSTEIN, KATHLEEN R WEYRAUCH, LORRAINE D AND GLENN 11520 SW 91 ST AVE 11585 SW GREENBURG RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 v lVr NG~ - tai n° q/9 G~ /1.tL? -00 /p (&FS) . L o IS13508-00500 1S135DC-08200 WHITE, PAUL UBARBARAA WHITE, STEVE J r u111Bxx B 11495 SW 90TH AVE 11870 SW 92ND AVE a•~+ i TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DC-08800 WILKINSON, VARIA J MILES DOWNING 11830 SW GREENBURG RD PO BOX 230972 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97281-0972 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 917 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED ❑ Tearsheet Notice SEP 0 2 1997 • City of Tigard ' 13125 SW Hall Blvd. M OE TIGARD • Tigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ' Accounts Payable ' 2ut1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, jss. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising , • , ; Director, or his principal clerk, of th~igard-Tualatin Tames a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti garr7 in the aforesaid county and state that the MLP Downing-92nd Avenue Partition a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 28,1997 ..t z Subscribed and sworn to b re me this 2 8 t-h day n f A t, gu s t , 19 9 7 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS Notary P is for Oregon *COMMISSION NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON My Commission Expires: NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Septem- ber 9, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30., ..n24 Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point-prior to the close of the hearing on.the request, accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings'Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Ap- peals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Compieherisive Plan at which a com- ment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further infor- mation is available at City Hall and may be obtained hom the Community Development Duector or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling ~ (503) 639-4171. • . " _ . • _ PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL REi*W-OF'AIQIRE TOR'SDECISION FOR: MINOR LAND PARTITION [MLP] DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION z`_ The applicant Iis. tequested:appioval to: parfi4on lot a . =v. proximately 26,85 square feet i'Yee 3 Pots o approximately'7,570, 8,040 and 7,771. square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; . WCTM*IS135DC, Tax Lot 06701: APPLICABILE'REVIEW 6;- CRITERIA: Community. Development. Code Chapters: 18.32;. 18..50, 18.88, 18.92 ?18;96;.18.98;' 18;'100;'Y8.102;~'18A06;;18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 19.164.*ZONE: Residential, 4.5_Units P6rAcre •R-4.5:4The purpose of the. R- 4.5 zoning district is,to establish standaid uiliait' low, den- sity resideniii.d,iftes. ' 4' •t ' • r `4'{:;trL~,l,C`..S 1, •w{4 tF}+'~j.+~^•-'M'me i rl~i' TI; C. TR Sy' . "ti 47^'u 1115. y 1.., r•L 1', L s ,n,, 77 r,.l a r 1• :n. TT8917 - Publish August 28, 1997. City of Tigard M E M O R A N D U M Conmrw coymul Slraydo a B saitr fer Conmomlfy CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Jim Hendryx FROM: Mark Roberts, Julia Hujdak DATE: December 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Tract and Area Definitions This memorandum has been prepared to review issues that were raised concerning the Development Code's use of the term "Tract" or "Area". The use of these terms was called into question on the Downing Partition review to determine whether the Downing ownership included one legal building site or two. The neighbors made the argument that the site was one legal building site and by dividing one legal building site into a total of four lots that would dictate the use of the subdivision process. The City Attorney did not agree that the entire property ownership was technically one legal lot. Based on the available evidence a second lot had been created by a previous property owner by deed. Although these two ownership's were always sold together through a succession of owners, the legal descriptions were never revised to describe the entire ownership under one legal description (See Downing Partition Narrative Excerpt). The Development Code currently uses these terms we believe because they are included within ORS 92.010 as part of the definition for "Subdivision" and for "Subdivide Land". The terms tract and area are not defined within either the Oregon Revised Statutes authorizing Comprehensive City Planning requirements or the current/proposed Community Development Code. However, because the Oregon Revised Statutes still use these terms, we feel that they should be left as is in both the current and new Development Code's. Although the neighbors apparently keep raising this issue over objections to the Downing Partition, we do not feel revising the definition to eliminate the use of the terms "Tract" and "Area" is necessary. This is not an issue that has reoccurred elsewhere Citywide with Partitions and Subdivision reviews (See ORS and Development Code Excerpts). 12/3/97 Memo to Jim Hendryx Page 1 of 2 Tract and Area Definitions Issue Also, on the point of what the City's direction to the neighbors has been in the past regarding the definition of area or tract. At the end of the City Council Hearing of the call up of MLP 97-0010, the City Attorney's advised the City Council to leave a request for a Director's Interpretation up to the neighbors (See Council Minutes Excerpt). If the neighbors make such a request the Director can decline to issue an interpretation. In this case that is what we would recommend. Attachments: An excerpt from the Neighboring Property Owners Submittal An excerpt from the Downing Minor Land Partition Submittal An excerpt from the Oregon Revised Statutes An excerpt from the Community Development Code An excerpt from the proposed Community Development Code an excerpt from the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 9, 1997 iAcurplnbna rkr\Trctarea.doc 12/3/97 Memo to Jim Hendryx Page 2 of 2 Tract and Area Definitions Issue --ice owl fn Q;a~ k I~a~s ~tt~o - ~J 0 `'Subdivide iand" - to divide an area or tract of land into four or more iots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year. (Section 18.26.030 of the Code). ■ "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land subdivided (ORS 92.010 (16)). ■ "Tract" means one or more contiguous lots or parcels under the same ownership (ORS The proposal to partition the subject parcel into three new lots while retaining the contiguous parcel as a separate individual lot clearly meets the definition of a "subdivision" or "subdividing land" given above. The two parcels exist as contiguous units of land under single ownership at the beginning of the year in which the application is being made to partition the land. Furthermore. the two parcels have been described under a single decd, have been under single ownership from 1947 to 1997, and have been combined as a single tart lot. Based on these facts. the two parcels have clearly been identified as a single unit of land (if not a single legdlot) for 50 years. 2. THE PROPOSED LXN-D MISIOV WILL CON MAIN "ROADS" OR '-STREETS": The City has approved the creation of flag lots which will contain two private accessways meeting the definition of a private --road" or "street" under both the Code and the Oregon State Statutes. The sole difference between whether or not an application should be considered as a 'Major or Minor Land Partition is whether or not a "street" or "road" is created. The sole difference in submittal requirements is the preparation of a Tree litigation Plan. In the staff report written by Mr. Mark Roberts on May 8. 1997, in response to the appeal of Mr. Downins•s first development application for the subject parcel, NIr. Roberts wrote that if more than one lot is accessed by a flag pole, "in the Director s opinion. this type of access situation would then meet the current definition of street." However. it should be noted that this is an opinion, and is not supported by the Code. In fact, this opinion contradicts the Code which defines a --road" or --street" as a public or private way created to provide ingress or egress to one or more lots, parcels, areas and a "private street' as an accesswav which is under private ownership (Section 18.26.030). 3. THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION SHOULD BE REIVIEWED UNDER THE PLANTNTED DEI'ELOPMEN T PROCESS The Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the Planned Development process to minunize the number of trees removed. However, the City Code does not have a mechanism by which to designate --timbered or tree areas" and therefore is not r: quirina that such areas be developed as Planned Developments. GX %eveM 00 UJW4 585 associated with the project under review does not, by 586 itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety 587 or capacity. 588 589 COMMENT 59o Five feet along the properties SW 92ND street frontage will be given to the city of 591 Tigard for the street right-of-way, the applicant specifically concurs with the 592 dedication being roughly proportional to impacts generated by future construction 593 on the subject parcel as a result of the newly created lots. A non-remonstrance 594 agreement will be given to the City of Tigard in lieu of street improvements, 595 because it is unlikely that SW 92nd(a dead end street) will be improved and the 596 minor partition under review does not by itself provide a significant improvement 597 to street safety or capacity. 598 Properties surrounding the subject parcel have existing residential 599 structures that would prevent the extension of a new street through to SW 91st 600 Avenue, and the proximity to Greenburg Road would make a new road between 6o1 91st and 92nd impractical. Public transportation moves in both directions along 602 SW Greenburg Road. Turnouts and bus stops exist on the northwest and southeast 603 corners of Greenburg Road and 92nd Avenue. Bike lanes exist on both sides of 604 Greenburg Road for travel in either direction. Sidewalks exist on both sides of 605 Greenburg Road for pedestrian use. See the Vicinity map included with this 606 application. 607 608 18.164.040 Blocks 609 COMMENT 610 SW 92nd Avenue is a dead end street that does not, and would not if completed, 611 exceed 1800 feet. Because of existing development surrounding the property a 612 pedestrianlbikeway would not be possible or practical. A sidewalk and a bike lane 613 exist along Greenburg Road less than 135 from the property. 614 615 OTHER 616 There are no noise sources on the property. Noise sources off site are regular 617 traffic noise from SW Greenburg Road. 619 DEED OF RECORD 62o Two separate purchases of two separate parcels of land were made at two separate 621 times and were recorded separately on separate pages in separate books in the 622 records of Washington County. On September 27,1945 the subject parcel was 623 deeded separately to B. W. Robison and lucinda Robison from Mollie B. Dykes. 624 Then in On June 12, 1946 approximately nine months later the Robison 625 purchased another parcel of land from Mrs. Dykes. See Washington County 626 Deeds of Records number 4407 book 249 page 391, and number 3018 book 260 627 page 601 included with this application. The book and page numbers of the 628 recordings are listed on the deeds and on the Dogwood Ridge subdivision map 629 included with this application. Robison then sold both parcels to P. Val Hoge and 63o Enid M. Hoge in 1947(recording number 7068) who sold the two parcels to Lloyd 631 P and Dorothy J. Shaw(recording number 230476 book 426 page 800) who sold 632 the property to Miles Downing in 1997 (doc: 97047536 rect: 186933) who 633 deeded the parcel to himself in 1997 providing the Deed of Record for the subject 634 parcel of this application. The two separate parcels of land remained under 635 single ownership up to now, and were listed under the same deed from 1946 until 636 June 20 of 1997, see the current deed of record included with this application. 637 Copies of the other deeds mentioned are included with this application. Deeds 638 previous to 1945 are not necessary to prove the parcels were separate. The above 639 information proves the subject parcel to be a legal parcel of land separate from 64o any other parcel. 641 642 SW 92ND A VENUE 643 It may be interesting to some people to note that SW 92 Avenue was previously 644 named Robison Avenue. This name appears to come from the owner of the subject 645 parcel, in other words the street in front of the property was named after the owner 646 way back when. / '7 O)Q t7 E:x cep 19~6 SUBDIVISIONS AND P TITIONS 92.016 TENTATIVE AND FINAL APPROVAL (10) "Property line" means the division OF PLANS; PLATS line between two units of land. 92.010 Definitions for ORS 92.010 to (11) "Property line adjustment" means 92.190. As used in ORS 92.010 to 92.190, un- the relocation of a common property line be- less the context requires otherwise: tween two abutting properties. (1) "Declarant" means the person who (12) "Replat" cueans the act of platting files a declaration under ORS 92.075. the lots, parcels and easements in a recorded (2) "Declaration" means the instrument configurat onrofathel existingt subdivision or described in ORS 92.075 by which the subdi- partition plat or to increase or decrease the vision or partition plat was created. number of lots in the subdivision. (3) "Lot" means a single unit of land that (13) "Road" or "street" means a public is created by a subdivision of land. or private way that is created to provide (4) "Negotiate" means any activity pre- ingress or egress for persons to one or more liminary to the execution of a binding agree- lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, exclud- ment for the sale of land in a subdivision or ing a private way that is created to provide partition, including but not limited to adver- ingress or egress to such land in conjunction tising, solicitation and promotion of the sale with the use of such land for forestry, mining of such land. or agricultural purposes. (5) "Parcel" means a single unit of land (14) "Sale" or "sell" includes every dis- that is created by a partitioning of land. position or transfer of land in a subdivision (6) "Partition" means either an act of or partition or an interest or estate therein. partitioning land or an area or tract of land (15) "Subdivide land" means to divide partitioned. land into four or more lots within a calendar (7) "Partition land" means to divide land- year. into two or three parcels of land within a (16) "Subdivision" means either an act of calendar year, but does not include: subdividing land or an area or a tract of land (a) A division of land resulting from a subdivided. lien foreclosure, foreclosure of a recorded ubdivision plat" includes a final contract for the sale of real property or the map and other writing containing all the de- creation of cemetery lots; scriptions, locations, specifications, dedi- (b) An adjustment of a property line by cations, provisions and information the relocation of a common boundary where concerning a subdivision. [Amended by 1955 c.756 an additional unit of land is not created and §1; 1973 c.696 §3; 1977 c.809 §4; 1979 c.46 §1; 1985 c.369 §5; 1985 c.717 §1; 1989 c.772 §1; 1991 c.763 §1: 1993 c.702 where the existing unit of land reduced in §1; 1993 c.704 §4; 1995 c.382 §31 size by the adjustment complies with any 92.012 Compliance with ORS 92.010 to applicable zoning ordinance; 92.190 required. No land may be subdivided (c) The division of land resulting from or partitioned except in accordance with the recording of a subdivision or condomin- ORS 92.010 to 92.190. [1973 c.696 §2; 1975 c.643 §241 ium plat; or 92.014 Approval of city or county re- (d) A sale or grant by a person to a pub- quired before creating street or road to lic agency or public body for state highway, partition land. (1) No person shall create a county road, city street or other right of way street or road for the purpose of partitioning purposes provided that such road or right of an area or tract of land without the approval ' way complies with the applicable compre- of the city or county having jurisdiction over hensive plan and ORS 215.213 (2)(p) to (r) the area or tract of land to be partitioned. and 215.283 (2)(p) to (r). However, any prop- (2) Notwithstanding ORS 92.175. no in- erty divided by the sale or grant of property strument dedicating land to public use shall for state highway, county road, city street or be accepted for recording in this state unless other right of way purposes shall continue to such instrument bears the approval of the be considered a single unit of land until such city or county authorized by law to accept time as the property is further subdivided or such dedication. [1955 c.756 §3; 1973 c.696 §4; 1991 partitioned. c.763 §41 ' (8) "Partition plat" includes a final map 92.016 When sales of lots prohibited and other writing containing all the de- until approval obtained; exception. (1) No scriptions, locations, specifications, pro- person shall sell any lot in any subdivision visions and information concerning a with respect to which approval is required partition. by any ordinance or regulation adopted un- (9) "Plat" includes a final subdivision der ORS 92.044 and 92.048 until such ap- plat, replat or partition plat. proval is obtained. No person shall negotiate Title 10 Pare 47 1199.5 Edition) "Story, half" - a sto under a gable' or gambrel o he wall p ates of which on at least tw pposits exterior walls are nf&more than two feet above the floor of such story. If the finished floor level dirgctly above a basement or unused underfloor space is not more than six feet above grade, as defined in this section, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is not more than 12 feet above grade as defined in this section, at any point, such basement or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a half story. "Street" or "road" - a public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. "Street, private" - an accessway which is under private ownership. "Structure" or "building" - that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. "Subdivide land" - to divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of such year. "Subdivision" - either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land subdivided as defined in this section. "Substantial improvement" - any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to ensure safe living conditions; or 2. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Revised 02/27/89 Page 31 140t A ~ e ~a 128. "Street" - A public or private way at is created to provide ingress or egress for persons to eee-e three or more lots, parcels; afeas or tracts of land, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or agricultural purposes. 129. "Street, public" - An. accessway. ii ~pu6i i~ ownerihip ::AIgo sSee "Right-of-way". 130. "Street, private" - An accessway which is under private ownership. 131. "Structure" or "building" - See "Building". 132. "Subdivide -laed S'ubdiY'ision" - To divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of such year. f '_.s stor' 1 Yiiw teririsulidiviston'' als...o, applies: td- ar. "area or tract: of 1anfish . c~v •.has'been;suld~vided 1:33 "Subdiyi9ien" r:.h„_ „ as$ ei s bdi •a• l a - r i a rwhdi .a a a f4 pAAd 'm Aq if this eetiet} 135. "Substantial improvement" - Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: a. Before the improvement or repair is started; or b. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: (1) Any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to ensure safe living conditions; or (2) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. 136. "Temporary use" - See Seetien 128.23 R.G. Ause.iliat:is::I ;seasonal',or:di ected:towaid a specific•event; 2) occasioned * a unforeseen.event;:or 3)' sales: oi`fices and mode' homes for the• sale of'homes;:as regulated 6y: Chapfer 137. "Tigard-based nonprofit organization" - An organization which has nonprofit status as defined by the state of Oregon which raises funds which are used by the organization which is located in the City. 1► . "Tra " - An. a, part site, o roperty t.cannot, iievetop becaus it. has. b s t e for an her pure e, e.g., ter-qu ty~&O i 4010tt"QK ! 3 9 "Tree" - (~b level. A standing. •woody plant, .or group 'of such, having' a trunk which is two inches or mote in. caliper size when. measured four feet from the ground. 18.120: Definitions (Planning Commission Draft: W S197) 13 allocation of the balance of $267,000 remaining from the elimination of the 129th and Bull Mountain Road site will be decided at a future public'meeting." Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 97-37. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-37, A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE, TRAIL ACQUISITION OR ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the need for speed in purchasing these lands. He stressed that delay cost the City precious resources that they did not have the money to offset. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (IML.P) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92"'a AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,670, 8,040, and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92"d Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 13.33, 13.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164 ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The Purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 8 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilors Moore and Scheclda each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mark Roberts, Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that at the August 12 meeting, the Council moved to review the Director's Decision on MLP 97-00010. He reviewed the location and specifics of the .60 acre property located on SW 92od Avenue. He reported that at the August East CIT meeting, five of the six regularly attending members requested that the Council call this application up. Mr. Roberts reviewed the information developed by the neighborhood property owners as presented in an August 8 letter from the East CIT, and in an additional 23-page letter. He noted the first argument that the minor land partition should be reviewed as a subdivision. He explained that while the property owner did own both the subject site and the property at the corner, they were two legally separate lots, created in 1940 in accordance with the applicable law at the time. Because the applicant did not include the second lot in his application, and was dividing the first. lot into only three parcels, his application did not meet the definition of a subdivision (one or more contiguous units of land that create four or more lots). Mr. Roberts noted the neighbors' argument that the definition in the Code of the pole portion of a flag lot met the Code definition of a street. He said that the Director made the interpretation that the pole portion of a legal lot was not a street, as it was not created for street purposes but rather to provide a separate legal building site. He stated that to interpret the pole portion as a street meant that driveways serving residences would be defined as streets, rendering the lots non-conforming in size because street area was not included in net lot area. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that because the City was considering a revision to the Code requiring minor land partitions to file a tree mitigation plan, the Code did not at this time implement the Comprehensive Plan provision requiring the City to protect large stands of trees through the planned development process and the removal process. He explained that the City has not required tree-mitigation plans for minor land partitions because of the development constraints inherent in these smaller sites that filed for minor land partition. Also the revision was under consideration because the state statutes no longer made a distinction between minor and major land partitions. Mr. Roberts stated that the Code tree-removal section was specifically aimed at large stands of trees found on large acreages proposed for subdivision or commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Roberts noted three other issues raised to support the neighbors' contention that this partition did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. First, the lot sizes were significantly CITY COUNCIL MEETIi iG MD UTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 9 smaller than the Dogwood Ridge subdivision lot sizes of 18,800 square feet. However, the proposed lot sizes did conform to the R-4.5 zone. Second, the application did not address the traffic safety issues of adding three more homes to a narrow 20 foot street. Staff did not find that adding three homes would significantly impact the controlled intersection at SW 92°d and Greenburg. They further concluded that children already had to use safety awareness to traverse the existing driveways along 92d. Third, tree removal would remove a needed buffer for the adjoining trees. Mr. Roberts said that if the City had a requirement that removal of trees would not be allowed where it might affect the character or integrity of trees on adjoining properties, then they would effectively place a moratorium on new development at sites near other wooded properties because nearby trees were usually affected by removal of nearby trees. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that the R-4.5 zoning in the Comprehensive Plan for this area was in error, it should be R-3.5 in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said that this property was not part of the subdivision. He pointed out that this entire area was zoned R-4.5. He reported that staff who worked on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan have stated that property owners in this area were involved. Mr. Roberts noted the argument that the five-foot of right-of-way dedication was inadequate. SW 92"d presently had a 50 foot right-of-way dedication with a 20 foot street. Staff felt that future improvements to widen the street and put in curbs and gutters could be accomplished in 45 feet of right-of-way. He said that the East CIT was asking the Council to find that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not support that finding, and recommended approval subject to the Director's Decision. Councilor Moore asked for clarification regarding the right-of-way dedication. Mr. Roberts said that staff was not requiring half street improvements with this site because there was unimproved right of way between this site and Greenburg Road. They were requiring a five-foot dedication and a waiver of remonstrance against a future LID. Councilor Rohlf asked if the East CIT took a position on this application or asked for Council review. Mr. Roberts said that the CIT asked for Council review. d. Public Testimony APPLICANT > David B. Smith, 6975 SW Sandburg, attorney representing applicant, Miles Downing, stated their agreement with the staff report. He pointed out that the Council needed to focus on the specific review criteria applicable to a minor land partition (Section 8.162.040). These five criteria were conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with state statutes and city ordinances, availability of adequate public facilities, conformity with lot size and dimensions, and compliance with all applicable city and agency standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 10 Mr. Smith discussed the neighbors' contentions that the partition did not comply with Comprehensive Plan polices and implementing criteria regarding trees (Section 3.4.2) and that there was a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan because this area should not have been zoned R- 4.5. Mr. Smith argued that this lot was never designated as a timbered or treed area and therefore was not subject to the planned development process or to the tree removal provisions. Such designations had to be done through the Goal 5 process. Mr. Smith stated that to challenge the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial land use action was an "impermissible collateral attack on the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan." That type of action should occur during periodic review, as supported by the courts. Mr. Smith cited the staff report's conclusion that this application did conform with all statutory, regulatory, and ordinance requirements. He stressed that this was a minor lot partition occurring on one lot. He said the state definition of a "tract" in ORS 215 (cited by the neighbors) applied to rural lands and counties, not to lands within the urban growth boundary. He said that the Code clearly distinguished between accessways and streets, and it defined the pole portion of a flag lot as an accessway, not a street (18.108.070). He argued that to adopt the construction of the CIT for this section would annul the section and make it meaningless. Mr. Smith pointed out the staff conclusion that five foot of right-of-way dedication was more than adequate. He reiterated that the Council could not deal with the question of whether or not the Code properly implemented the Comprehensive Plan within the content of a quasi-judicial application. That took a legislative process, as did identifying significant groves or stands of trees under the Goal 5 process. Mr. Smith emphasized that this was a minor land partition that conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. It had no designated unique stands of trees, and the tree ordinance did not apply to minor partitions. He stated that Mr. Downing has engaged a certified arborist to investigate the site, as the trees were the major issue of concern to the neighbors. He entered into the record the overlay map that indicated which trees could be saved and which could not. He mentioned that the arborist found diseased trees on the site which would have to come out in any case. He explained that Mr. Downing was simply preparing the site for development but was not the actual developer. He said that they would make every reasonable effort to save every tree they could. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the tree map. David Halstead, 4490 Stiff 160t°, Beaverton, Halstead Arborculture Consultants, said that the Douglas fir grove on this site was infected with laminated root rot, though he did not have sufficient time to confirm his diagnosis with lab tests. He reviewed the four trees he hoped to leave as a buffer to the north but pointed out that they would have to remove diseased trees. Councilor Rohlf asked if the removal of trees would impact neighboring trees on adjoining properties. Mr. Halstead said no, and commented that he had not seen many trees on the neighboring lots. CITY COUNCIL MEETING tiffNUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 11 Mayor N'icoli asked if this document was entered into the record at previous hearings. Mr. Snuth said that they created this document by overlaying a site plan showing tree locations with a site plan showing the flag lots. The two site plans were submitted previously as separate documents. Councilor Scheckla commented that if the Douglas firs were dying, then there was little point in preserving the trees. Mr. Halstead concurred. He stated that the Pacific Northwest was experiencing a general infestation of laminated root rot that was doing serious damage to the trees. He cited work he has done in Gresham, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego diagnosing root rot and removing trees. He explained the specifics of how this disease destroyed the trees. He pointed out that within this neighborhood there were no young Douglas firs, despite the large number of seed produced by a single tree. Councilor Scheckla expressed his displeasure that the applicant did not address the tree situation until it was too late to get back lab tests to confirm the presence of the disease prior to this hearing. Mr. Smith explained that the red dots on the tree map indicated trees to be preserved. He said that the remainder of the trees were within the driveway or house footprints or too close to the house to be preserved. He commented that trees identified for preservation would have to be removed for safety reasons if they were infected. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Smith said that they had no objection, that that was Mr. Downing's intent. PROPONENTS OPPONENTS > Carrie Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, thanked the Council for reviewing this application. She said that in response to the Council indications that they wanted to support the neighbors on the tree issue, the neighbors prepared documentation in detail. She presented an aerial photograph of the area to demonstrate that, while this property was not technically part of the Dogwood Ridge subdivision, it was nonetheless within the neighborhood because it was on SW 92°d Avenue. She pointed out that the neighborhood was ringed by Douglas firs, and that the large lots enabled them to preserve that feature. Ms. Gavett stated that they were not trying to stop the development but wanted to minimize the impact to the neighborhood by insuring that his development would be similar in character and quality to the neighborhood. They held that the Code and the Comprehensive Plan provided the means to do so. Ms. Gavett reviewed the interactions between the neighbors and Mr. Downing. She said that Mr. Downing originally told them that he intended to clear cut the lot for profit. During the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, the neighbors rejected his offer to preserve one tree on the entire property and prepared a counteroffer (Appendix B) that he build two homes and preserve more trees. Mr. Downing rejected their proposal, stating that he would remove all CITY COUNCII, MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 12 the trees "just to spite us," and informed them that any more contact with him would have to be through City staff. At that point negotiations broke down. Ms. Gavett reiterated that the neighbors had understood that Mr. Downing intended to clear cut the lot. The information that he intended to preserve any trees at all was news to them. She asked that his intentions for tree preservation be in writing, especially since he would not develop the lot himself. She asked for a tree mitigation plan with testing to confirm the claim that the trees were infected with root rot. Ms. Gavett discussed the issue of the incorrect processing of the application as a minor land partition. She reviewed the neighbors' reasons why they thought it should be processed as a major land partition. She said that the distinction between "majoe' and "minor" did not occur at the state level, and therefore was a Iccal distinction. However the state regulations defined "street" or "road," and the Code adopted that definition verbatim. She pointed out that a major land partition required tree mitigation plans whereas a minor land partition did not. Ms. Gavett argued that in the Code the characterization of the pole portion of a flag lot as an "access drive" met the state definition of a private street (an accessway that was under private ownership). It also met the definition of "street" or "road" (a public or private way that was created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas, or tracts of land.) Ms. Gavett cited Mr. Roberts' statement in the staff report: "If more than one lot is accessed by the flag pole, in the director's opinion this kind of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." She argued that the definition said "one or more" and that the staff interpretation was not supported by the Code. She held that because the definition came from the state, it lay outside the City's jurisdiction to use the interpretation that it had to be going to more than one lot. Ms. Gavett disagreed with Mr. Roberts' contention that defining the pole portion of a flag lot as a "street" meant that all standard driveways in Tigard became roads, making the lots nonconforming in size because roads were not included in lot size calculations. She said that the purpose of a driveway was to provide offstreet parking per the Code requirements. She argued that the street a house was located on provided the ingress and egress to the house, not the driveway. Ms. Gavett noted several differences between driveways and accessways. Accessways cannot be included in the lot size calculations, cannot be used for off street parking, and have to meet emergency vehicle width requirements. None of these provisions applied to driveways. Ms. Gavett reiterated the neighbors' contention that the application should be reviewed as a major land partition requiring the applicant to consider the preservation of trees and a tree mitigation plan. She said that the central issue was whether or not poles to flag lots were streets. Councilor Rohlf asked for the definition of a "street" in the state interpretation. Ms. Gavett said that it was the same as in the Code. CITY COUNCIL MEETNG ?NLINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 13 > Wes Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, said that as a licensed civil engineer practicing for more than 13 years, much of his professional experience dealt with the interpretation and implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and codes. He said that, as he read the statutes, the approval authority had to insure that their decision was based upon proof of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that in approving this application, the Council has failed to do so. Mr. Gavett cited the Comprehensive Plan goal "to maintain an d improve the quality of life for the city residents by retaining natural areas and resources." He mentioned the policy that "the city shall designate by definition features to be protected as natural areas." He pointed out that it was done by definition, not by designation. He cited other provisions relating to protection of natural areas so that the character of the area would not be altered by development. He mentioned the findings of the Tree Task Force adopted in 1995 in which they recommended that the city conduct a significant tree inventory including a review of other communities' work, and that the city require a tree plan with strategies to save existing trees or to mitigate tree removal. He cited the ORS statutes requiring local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to implement their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Gavett cited the more than 50 trees identified in the applicant's site plan as evidence for the existance of a significant stand of trees on the property. He said that the applicant indicated to the neighborhood that he had intended to remove all the tree without any mitigation. He argued that because the Code did not define use based on size or magnitude of development, a 100 acre parcel could be divided in such a way that it was a minor land partition. He said that this was a loophole. He contended that the Code did not implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan because it had no mechanism to establish trees as significant. Yet the Plan stated that stands of trees were designated by definition as significant. Mr. Gavett read from a memo prepared by Dick Bewersdorffto the Council in July 1997. He pointed out that Mr. Bewersdorff said that the intended tree inventory to identify unique trees or stands of tree needing protection was not done due to other work priorities. He quoted Mr. Bewersdorff's statement that the Code was silent on designation of significant trees, lacking a mechanism'or program to so designate them. He reiterated that clearly a major Plan objective was the protection of trees and natural areas. Mr. Gavett contended that this property and the entire neighborhood contained significant trees which were an integral part of the community. He mentioned the argument that an application (with regards to tree mitigation and protection) did not have to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it complied with the Code which complied Nvith the Plan. He held that this argument was in error because the Code was mute on. the topic and clearly contradicted the Plan requirements. Mr. Gavett pointed out that in the tree cutting policies of Forest Grove, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Portland, this property would be subject to a tree mitigation plan. He mentioned that the Council could take judicial notice of ordinances of other planning authorities in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIlVUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 14 Metro area. He held that Tigard should be obligated to use the same high standards to protect natural resources. vtr. Gavett said that he did not expect this property to go undeveloped. He commented that in `vs work as an engineer he found solutions to people's problems that minimized the impact on the local community, protected the environment, and were compatible with local land uses. He said that he believed that that could be accomplished on this property but not with this proposal. Mr. Gavett commented that this neighborhood of mature trees, large lots, well maintained and established homes was unique in Tigard. He asked the Council not to allow it to be diminished by poor planning and the ability to play fast and loose with the Code. He asked the Council to uphold the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Moore asked what results did the neighbors expect to get from a mitigation plan. Ms. Gavett said that if the applicant's numbers were accurate, he had estimated that it would cost him 570,000. She presented a petition signed by all neighbors on SW 92nd Avenue supporting the report. > Tom Strong, 11465 SW 92nd Avenue, reiterated that the neighbors did not believe that this decision was based on proof by the applicant that his applicant fully complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to the issue of maintaining quality of life, which was the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He cited reasons why he believed that his quality of life would be affected by this development. The neighbors have always thought of the subject parcel as part of the neighborhood, regardless of whether or not it was officially in the Dogwood Ridge subdivision. Allowing a development on this parcel that clearly did not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood diminished the quality of life for the neighbors. He cited the aerial photograph as evidence that the neighborhood was ringed by a significant stand of fir trees. Mr. Strong addressed the issue of safety as a part of quality of life. He mentioned that the neighborhood children played on the narrow dead-end street, though not allowed to get too close to Greenburg Road. He said that he thought that the addition of three houses to the existing neighborhood would create a significant increase in traffic for the neighborhood, although it might not appear that way from a city-wide perspective. This would affect the kids walking down to catch the school bus. He held that the Comprehensive Plan provided the umbrella of protection that prohibited development from diminishing the quality of life. > Barbie Knauss, 11495 SW 92"d Avenue, stated that her lot was not part of Dogwood Ridge either but when they built on it 15 years, they were required to line up with the pre-existing access and to dedicate a portion of the frontage to the City. She asked why this property (directly across from her lot) was not required to do so. She asked how the neighborhood could acquire the additional five feet of right-of-way in the future, should this lot be approved with a misaligned right of way and the neighbors decide to form an LID to improve the road to the full 50 feet. She pointed out that the additional five foot of right-of-way could help improve the safety of the entrance which was curved. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 15 Ms. Knauss asked if it was not the normal practice of jurisdictions to clean up right-of-way misalignments as part of the approval process. She asked how it could be construed as fair to the rest of the street to not require consistent dedication. She asked if the City would vacate all the way up the street to align with the new standard for the street. Ms. Knauss read a letter from William Weber, 11285 SW 92°d Avenue, in which Mr. Weber addressed the two conflicting philosophies involved in this proposed development. They were higher density housing units to accommodate growth without causing an expansion of the urban growth boundary, and the dependence of cities on their neighborhoods for quality of life and vitality of the city. He pointed out the City's commitment to its neighborhoods through its mphasis on citizen involvement. He spoke to SW 92n4 Avenue between Greenburg and North Dakota as a neighborhood actively involved in the city. He contended that this new development would change their neighborhood and downgrade it which was not consistent with the City of Tigard's interests in preserving old and established neighborhoods. > Terry Smith, 11480 SW 92"d Avenue, submitted his testimony in writing with accompanying materials. He declared that the City has not processed this application correctly because the City has not applied defined criteria to evaluate whether or not the development qualified as a treed area. He cited two petitions by the neighbors asserting that a large and unique stand of trees has been observed on the subject property. He contended that the City, in processing this application as a minor land partition, was effectively saying that the tree stand did not exist. He argued that this failed as criteria because it did not serve to determine whether the trees existed or whether they were large or unique. Mr. Smith contended that the City promised the state and Tigard citizens that it would designate natural areas by definition, not by location, but it still lacked a definition or an instrument to do so. Therefore the Code failed to implement the Plan, and the City could not legally implement this application until it provided the necessary definition. He said that minor land partition development allowed harvesting of unlimited size parcels of trees without mitigation. Within one year, a subdivision application could be made. Mr. Smith requested in writing that the City provide the defining criteria for large or unique stands of trees. Then the City could process this application using that criteria to demonstrate that development was not occurring in a designated tree area. He contended that the City had to demonstrate that the subject parcel was not a treed area according the defining criteria. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the pole portion of a flag lot meeting the definition of a road or street. He contended that the City has not demonstrated that the definition of a minor land partition excluded or exempted the creation of an accessway under private ownership or that the pole portion of a flag lot did not meet the definition of a street or road. He held that the legal lot area included only the flag, not the pole. If a partition created a road or street, then it was not a minor partition. He said that the purpose of the pole was the same as the purpose of a road or street. He reiterated the different standards for driveways and accessways mentioned by Ms. Gavett. He argued that since a flag lot could not be legally created without creation of an accessway, it meant that flag lots had to be processed as major partitions. CITY COUNCIL 'I'ViEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 16 Mr. Smith requested an interpretation of the phrase "area or tract." He said that the City's actions indicated that the phrase meant only "parcels." He argued that this was contrary to the state definition. He asked if the staff conclusion that one person could own contiguous areas or tracts of land but did not have to include neighboring parcels in an application was a legally correct concept. He spoke to handling the phrase "area or tract" as the state intended in order to avoid unlawful partition. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the R-4.5 zone as an incorrect zoning designation of this area. He cited the large lot sizes, and a previous City Council's denial of an application to partition one of these parcels into a flag lot. He said that none of the neighbors were aware of when they participated in the Comprehensive Plan process, as indicated by staid nor did staff provide a record of that involvement. He noted that the only other lot developed since the subdivision, Ms. Knauss' lot, developed with the same characteristics as the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors were realizing that R-4.5 zoning did not prohibit development from diminishing the character and property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that the zoning did not allow for homesite and substantial tree protection. He held that the City promised to allow only development that accomplished its purposes. Those purposes included insuring development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, promoting and protecting the neighbors' welfare, and prohibiting development that caused a diminishing of the quality of life. He spoke to R-3.5 zoning as allowing an appropriate level of development while preserving the neighborhood. He reiterated that R-4.5 zoning was a mistake, and requested that it be changed to R-3.5. Mr. Smith commented that the overlay drawing submitted by the applicant tonight had not been submitted before because no other document in the application showed the neighboring trees. He said that the neighbors felt that they could not rely on the verbal promises of a developer who would not live in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to make the requested interpretations and definitions, and to find that the application should not be processed as a minor partition. Councilor Rohlf asked if anyone in the neighborhood had approached the City regarding a significant tree designation prior to the discussion of this application. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors had not been aware until now wh.- the impact could be. He explained that he did ask the director about a Council hearing on a significant tree designation after Mr. Downing withdrew his first application. A month and a half later, the director told him that he could submit an application. He pointed out that the neighbors tried to follow the viayor's request to provide specific code and policies in addressing this situation. > Linda Eaton, 9625 SW Lewis Lane, owner of a rental property on SW 92od Avenue, expressed her concern that a large walnut tree in the back yard along the fence would be damaged by this development. She said that she asked Mark Roberts what could be done to preserve her tree, and he told her not to worry at this time; if anything happened, she could sue the developer. She asked that the developer be required to do something to protect her tree. She suggested that the arborist not be employed by the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 17 • i > Jack Frechette, 11300 SW 92nd Avenue, spoke to the neighborhood as a wonderful place to live with rich soil for growing things and a beautiful entrance with the trees along Greenburg. He questioned the diagnosis of the trees as diseased, commenting that he did not see any signs of rot on the roots of trees blown over by the windstorm. He submitted a letter from a gentleman who has lived in the neighborhood for 47 years. THOSE NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR AGAINST > Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Court, East CIT facilitator, stated that while the East CIT did vote to support bringing this application up for review, the CIT did not take a stand the application. REBUTTAL David Smith said that the width of the flag pole for a flag lot was defined by the minimum required frontage on a street, and that the access drive had to fit within the pole. He cited the definition of public street access in CDC 18.108.040 as evidence that the access drive in the pole was not a public street because it connected to a public street. He argued that the purpose of the Code to protect natural areas was implemented in the Code through the procedures for legislative decisions (CDC 18.30). He reiterated that the City could not decide if this was a designated tree area within a quasi-judicial hearing. He argued that the purpose statement in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the diminution of quality of life was not in and of itself an approval criteria. He said that they intended to use Mr. Halstead as their arborist, noting his work for the City and well-established reputation. e. Council Questions Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that their office reviewed this application and was satisfied that it was not a subdivision. He said that the subdivision argument was based upon a definition in the statutes that applied to the county plans. He said that they felt that the applicant had the better argument on the issue of whether or not the flagpole was a street. The pole was counted towards lot area, and the frontage measured based upon where the pole connected to the street. He commented that he knew of no jurisdiction that interpreted the pole portion of a flag lot as a street. Councilor Rohlf asked if it was economically feasible for Mr. Downing to put in two lots instead of three. Mr. Smith said no, and mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for higher density. Councilor Rohlf asked about the suggestion to get a neutral arborist, mutually accepted by both parties, who would devise a tree plan more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Downing was going to pay for the arborist, then Mr. Downing should get to pick the arborist. He reiterated that Mr. Halstead has worked for the City and had well-established credentials. CITY COUNCIL MEETII 1G MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 18 Jim Hendry, Community Development Director, cited the closure of the City's periodic review through the recent adoption of the Goal 5 Safe Harbors element into the Comprehensive Plan as evidence that the state found that the City's implementing ordinances for its Plan were consistent with state wide goals and guidelines, and implemented the Plan. He said that there was no further requirement for the City regarding the preservation or removal of trees other than what was adopted in the Code. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that this has been an exhaustive process for the neighbors, the applicant, and the staff. He said that staff evaluated the numerous issues raised during the process, and verified the process and procedures with the City Attorney's office. He pointed out that the staff report was exhaustive on all issues raised tonight. He stated that the conclusions and findings in the staff report justified the decision made. Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of tree mitigation would be on this partition. Mr. Bewersdorff said that there was no guarantee that the trees would be saved. He explained that the impact depended on the number of trees removed. He mentioned a tree mitigation plan that mitigated for trees removed for disease by payment of fees. Mr. Roberts said that the cost would be in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. He mentioned that mitigation did not refer to diseased trees, and a special requirement would have to be included for this site. Councilor Scheckla asked why there was no requirement to install a sidewalk from Greenburg Road to the development. Mr. Hendryx said that the City's normal practice was not to require sidewalks where it would begin in the middle of a block, as in this case. He mentioned that the applicant would sign a remonstrance for improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that City policy has changed regarding sidewalks. Councilor Scheckla spoke for requiring a sidewalk, since three driveways would be added. He argued that the change of policy created inconsistency in sidewalk installations. He expressed concern that whoever bought the lot from Mr. Downing would pay for a sidewalk through a future LID, not the developer. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval with the findings in the staff report. h. Council Deliberation Councilor Rohlf said that he heard a willingness from the applicant to accept a condition that he make all efforts to preserve the trees to the largest degree possible. Mr. Bewersdorff said that was up to the Council. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:26 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 19 Councilor Rohlf commented that the tree ordinance had been a painful process for the City because of the high emotions on both sides: the rights of private individuals on their property versus the right of a community to have quality of life. He said that he was sympathetic to the neighborhood trying to preserve quality of life, and to the applicant trying to make use of his property. Councilor Rohlf complimented the neighborhood on an outstanding presentation but said that their legal arguments did not convince him. He stated that the best the Council could do was to condition the application to preserve as many trees as possible. He said that he wished they had better "teeth" for preserving the quality of life, citing Bull Mountain as an example. He commented that people defined "quality of life" as different things. He reiterated that he thought that Mr. Downing had the better legal arguments, and that he had no choice but to approve the application and to request a condition to preserve as many trees as possible. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Rohlf s remarks. He said that he had voted "no" on the motion to call this application up for review because he thought that it met all the applicable criteria. He mentioned the excellence of the neighbors' presentation. He said that he still thought that the applicant met the criteria, and that he would approve it. Councilor Scheckla spoke against approving the application. He said that doing so made it more difficult for that neighborhood (or any neighborhood in Tigard) to maintain its quality. He said that he did not think it was attractive to the rest of the area. Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Rohlf s comments. He commended the neighborhood also for an excellent presentation. He complimented the applicant for his willingness to accept a condition regarding the trees. He suggested a condition that the applicant agree to replant a four inch diameter tree somewhere on the site for any of the trees marked to be preserved on the overlay drawing which could not be saved for any reasons, be it disease or damage. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the Council was invited to take judicial notice of other communities' tree ordinances. He said that if they did that, then they broke faith with those who helped the City craft their tree ordinance. If there was an issue with the tree ordinance, then the community needed to go through the same process in order to deal with it. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion for four inch diameter trees to replace those marked for preservation but lost to damage or disease. The Mayor reiterated that he wanted a sizable tree put back in for each of the trees lost. He said that he understood that the applicant has already offered to put fencing around the trees to be saved during construction but he wanted a guarantee to the neighborhood that there would be a certain number of trees left on the site, no matter what happened during construction. Mr. Monahan restated the condition as "after the applicant makes every effort to save the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 20 designated trees, then, if the trees cannot be saved due to damage or disease, and are removed at a later time, then those trees will be replaced." The Council discussed whether this condition would run with the land. The Mayor said that he did not want the condition to run beyond the first property owner. The Council discussed the logistics of crafting the ordinance. Staff said that they had until November 5 under the 120 day-rule. Staff said that they could return in one week with a draft ordinance for Council review at the September workshop. In response to staff questions, Mayor Nicoli said that he did not want the applicant to submit a tree mitigation plan but to stick with the overlay drawing submitted this evening. He said that he was comfortable with Mr. Halstead's analysis on whether or not they could save a tree. He reiterated that he wanted an assurance that the applicant would make every effort to save the trees he has proposed saving, and if he could not, then he would replace them on the site in a location that Mr. Halstead determined allowed the best chance of survival for the tree and that fit in with the future homes. The Council directed staff to craft the condition, send it to the City Attorney's office for review, and to the Council for approval next Tuesday. Councilor Moore expressed concern that the overlay drawing used fictious footprints, and that the trees that could be saved might change with the actual footprints. Mr. Ramis said that he understood the applicant to be volunteering to restrict his building envelope in order to save the trees. Mayor Ncoli said that using the actual footprints as an excuse to cut down one of the trees marked to be saved was unacceptable. > Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Terry Smith said that if the right of way was extended to match the rest of the street, then the City would have control over the significant large tree that stood within that right of way. He spoke to the impact that large tree had on the entrance to the neighborhood. David Smith said that he did not disagree with Mr. Smith's comments. > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to September 16 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Terry Smith has asked that his request for an interpretation of the definition of significant trees and of an area or tract be considered next week. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City had a request mechanism for interpretations of the Code. He asked if it was appropriate to circumvent this process during a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Ramis said no, unless the interpretation was critical to the decision. He stated CITY COUNCU, MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 21 that these definitions were not critical to this decision because by approving the application, Council declared those issues as not relevant to the decision. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: NONE 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CANCELED 9. ADJOUMNMENT: 11:03 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ,,,,I,a'v,orCity of Tigar/d; ate: 1 y/ l 1 q (~7 i:'admbathy1ccm\970909.doc CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 22 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx 1111PJ-L DATE: August 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Terry Smith's Request for a Hearing On June 24, 1997, Terry Smith appeared before Council and submitted a written request for Council to conduct a hearing on two specific issues. Both requests involve properties along SW 92nd Avenue. In separate memos, both of which are attached, are the responses we provided. Outside of formal applications being submitted by Mr. Smith, procedural steps do not exist to "conduct a hearing" to consider the issues. Mr. Smith and his neighbors have the right to take necessary steps, either through a land use appeal process involving a specific application, or through a rezone application to address their concerns. Staff does not find that there is justification for staff to initiate a zone change. Further, staff does not concur with the statement that the tree code provisions need adjustment. Mr. Smith has the opportunity to initiate text or map amendments to address either issue. Mr. Smith has also discussed the idea that the City should purchase properties located at the 92nd/Greenburg Road intersection. The primary reason would be to protect and preserve trees situated on the property. That issue may arise during the Greenspaces hearing on August 12, 1997. Staffs initial evaluation of the site is that it is not substantial enough to warrant consideration for purchase through the Greenspaces program. 0 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx /All DATE: August 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Correspondence from Terry Smith - June 24, 1997 Mr. Smith appeared at the June 24, 1997, City Council meeting requesting consideration of two issues associated with a minor land partition (downing) at SW 92nd and Greenburg Road. Dick Bewersdorff provided a response to one of Mr. Smith's issues associated with a grove of trees located on Mr. Downing's property. Mr. Bewersdorff's response was sent to you, along with Mr. Smith's letter, in the July 11, 1997, weekly newsletter. The second issue raised by Mr. Smith involved the zoning of properties along SW 92nd. Mr. Smith stated: .The possibility that there is mistake in the zoning as the city has applied it to those properties which adjoin SW 92nd Ave. Most of the basis for our finding is the fact that we believe that development as allowed by the zoning the city has applied will cause a diminution in the existing quality of life." I have reviewed the zoning for SW 92nd and determined the following: • The area is designated low density residential (1-5 units/acre) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation was applied to this area with the City's initial comprehensive planning effort that occurred in 1983. • The area's designation did not change with the last periodic review procedure that occurred in 1991. • Four separate zoning designations meet the allowable density of the low density designation. They are R-1 (30,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); R-2 (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); R-3.5 (10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size); and R-4.5 (7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size). • Lots along SW 92nd are zoned R-4.5 (7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size), but the average lot size is approximately 18,800 square feet. Current staff members who paRlipated in the Comprehensive Plane zoning of the area indicate that the City had extensive public involvement throughout the planning process. • Property owners have the right to request the rezoning of their properties. Mr. Smith and his neighbors believe-that there was a mistake and could initiate such an application. In conclusion, I could not determine that any mistake had occurred during the original process for designating the land use and zoning for the area and would not recommend a City initiated rezone for the area. MEMORANDUM City of Tigard Commmtity oewfo mmt CITY OF T16ARD, OREGON TO: City Council 1 17 FROM: Dick Bewersdorff `J DATE: July 2, 1997 SUBJECT: Tree Code Standards BACKGROUND At the June 24, 1997 City Council meeting, Mr. Terry Smith asked for the City to review and designate a specific property located at the comer of SW 92nd Avenue and SW Greenburg Road, as containing significant trees. This memo is intended to clarify and summarize the City of Tigard's current tree code requirements. DEVELOPMENT CODE The Community Development Code was amended in September of 1995 as a result of recommendations of a Tree Task Force convened in an attempt to try to balance property owner's rights with the need for tree removal and preservation. The entire process of code review took over three years. In summary, the new code provisions require tree removal permits in sensitive land areas only. These include wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains. This was based on the desire to protect sensitive areas from erosion and for water quality needs. The new code provisions also recognized the desire to promote tree preservation when. in conjunction with larger scale development. This was done by requiring a tree plan for development including: site development reviews, planned developments, conditional uses, and major land partitions. The new code provisions also intended to allow property owners to remove trees without a permit if their land was not in a sensitive land area. Prohibition of commercial forestry of ten (10) trees per acre for the purpose of sale was intended to apply to timbered properties not involved in the development process. The code also allows the cutting of registered woodlots. Tree plans are intended to promote protection of trees through the identification of trees 12 inches in caliper or greater. The code specifically recognizes that trees will have to be removed to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other improvements. The original tree ordinance provisions allowed tree removal if necessary for a development to take place. The new code establishes standards for tree mitigation based on the i:lcurpln%dick%vecode.mem Page 1 of 2 percentage of tree removal required for development. The more trees removed, the higher the amount of mitigation. Mitigation is accomplished either by planting trees to offset the caliper inches being removed, or payment into a tree replacement fund in an r r., amount that provides for replacement. Much of the testimony received in the draft and adoption phases centered on the fact that most of the trees in Tigard were planted and were not natural old growth. Incentives to save trees were built into the code to provide for density bonuses, lot size averaging, reduced lot width and depth, setback adjustments, and parking and landscaping reductions. We have found through arborist reports that grading needs and structural improvements (including foundations and streets) result in situations where many trees cannot be saved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has general policies to protect vegetation and wildlife. Six (6) areas were suggested in the plan for preservation through purchase, if necessary, due to particular vegetation and wildlife value and relative uniqueness. Included are the forested northeast slopes of Bull Mountain, the Summer Creek Marsh, . the summit of Little Bull Mountain, Willow Brook, the Tualatin River bank between 108th and Cook Park, and the Fanno Creek Marsh. There are no tree areas singled-out for preservation by plan policy. After passage of the new tree ordinance provision, there was an intent to conduct a study to determine if there were unique trees or stands of trees needing protection. This has not been accomplished due to other work priorities, although, there was a study conducted of natural forested areas in 1994. DESIGNATION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES The code is silent on designating specific trees. There is no mechanism or program in place to designate specific trees or stands of trees. Such a designation would require an overlay designation similar to the Historic Overlay District. A planned development overlay can also be placed on a property. This would require a zone change public hearing. Application must be made by the property owner, or initiated by the City. The planned development overlay is not designed specifically for tree preservation. Under the planned development provisions, trees are to be saved with development, wherever possible. This leaves little guidance relative to grading and structural improvements. Designation of a site for tree preservation brings on a number of taking issues for properties that are developable. Purchase or a property owners' willingness to restrict removal are the only means currently available to preserve specific trees or stands of trees. It would be very difficult to evaluate any tree or stands of trees, as to community value and protection without a study of such in relation to all of the possible choices within the city. kturplnWickU eecode.mem Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The residents of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, as well as homeowners of nearby properties are appealing the City of Tigard's approval of the application MLP 97-0010 to partition a parcel of land in Tigard, Oregon into three lots, as a Minor Land Partition. The proposed development will be an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The purpose of our appeal is not to try to prevent the applicant from developing his property, but that any partitioning and construction be compatible with the character of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, and not substantially alter the character of the grove of fir trees on the subject parcel. In accordance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, any development the City approves should not: • create unsafe conditions; • reduce the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the City of Tigard or our neighborhood, • allow the destruction of natural and scenic resources, or • reduce the value of our properties. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to partition a 26,850 sq. ft. parcel located on SW 92"d Ave., north of SW Greenburg Road, into three lots. The lot is presently undeveloped and contains trees which are part of a larger grove of mature Douglas fir trees. Mr. Miles Downing purchased the property, along with an adjacent parcel in May 1997 from Mrs. Dorothy Shaw. Although the two parcels are considered to be separate legal lots, they were under same ownership and the same deed from 1947 to 1997. The parcel which is to be partitioned contains 51 trees. Forty-two of the trees consist of large mature Douglas Fir trees. Eighteen of the fir trees range in diameter from 24 to 42 inches. The fir trees are a significant natural feature of the Greenburg Road area of Tigard. They can be seen from all directions as the area is approached. The lots to be created by the applicant will become an integral part of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood. The neighborhood was developed nearly 50 years ago as a premier development in what was to become a part of Tigard. Dogwood Ridge consists 'of seventeen large lots located off of what is now SW 92"d Ave., north of SW Greenburg -1- Road. This portion of SW 9.2,'d Ave. is presently a quiet dead-end street Much was built solely to provide access to homes in Dogwood Ridge. Fourteen of the 16 lots are 18,900 sq. ft.; two lots are approximately 16,300 sq. ft. and one lot is approximately 10,900 sq. ft. The character and quality of Dogwood Ridge is unique not only to this part of Tigard but to the rest of the City as well. It is rare to fmd an entire street of older well-maintained homes on large lots where in-fill development has not yet destroyed the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is to consist of a single lot located along SW 92"d Ave., with two flag lots located behind the first lot. Each flag lot is proposed to have a strip which will allow access from the flag portion of the lots to SW 92"d Ave. The lots will range in size from 7,750 sq. ft. to 8040 sq. ft. BASIS FOR APPEAL Specifically, we are appealing the City's approval of application MLP 97-0010 on the basis of the following: 1. The application has been incorrectly processed as a Minor Land Partition for the reasons listed below. (Minor Land Partitions are the only type of development proposal which presently do not require the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan.) a. The proposed land division meets the definition of a Subdivision under the Tigard Community Development Code (Section 18.26.030) and the Oregon State Statutes (ORS 92.010 and 215.010). b. The City has approved the creation of flag lots which will contain two private accessways meeting the definition of a private "road" or "street" under both the code and the Oregon State Statutes. The sole difference between whether or not an application should be considered as a Major or Minor Land Partition is whether or not a "street" or "road" is created. c. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas to be reviewed through the Planned Development process to minimize the number of trees removed. However, the City Code does not have a mechanism by which to designate "timbered or tree areas" and therefore is not requiring that such areas be developed as Planned Developments. 2. Pursuant to Section 18.162.040 of the Code, the City has failed to make the applicant prove that the proposed partition conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Part of the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and improve the quality of life for residents by providing for the retention of natural and cultural resources which contribute to the livability of the community. To achieve this, one of the Implementation Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of large or unique stands of trees. The Code is failing to implement this in cases where "large and unique stands of trees" exist on undeveloped land which is to be partitioned as a Minor Land Partition. 3. The introduction to the Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the Plan is to maintain and improve the existing quality of life for the residents. This is accomplished in part by prohibiting development which would cause a diminution in the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard. The proposed partition will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood in several ways: - The new lots are proposed to be much smaller than existing lots which affect the general character and open and spacious feel of the neighborhood. - increased traffic from the proposed partition will create dangerous conditions along the narrow entrance to SW 92"d Ave. Small children have to wall: this dangerous section of road each week to the school-bus stop on SW Greenburg Road. - All trees are to be removed prior to construction, affecting the character of the neighborhood which was built among a large grove of fir trees. Furthermore, the integrity of nearby trees on adjacent properties will be compromised by the complete removal of the buffer offered by the trees on the subject parcel. 4. The applicant has failed to prove that the proposed partitioning complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations as stated in Section 18.162.040 of the Code. We believe that the applicant has not proven that the development proposal will not be harmful to the residents for the following reasons: - The proposed development will increase traffic at the narrow entrance to SW 92°d Ave. by 20 percent. Mr. Downing's application fails to address the dangers and impacts of increased traffic. - The applicant is not required to prepare a Tree Mitigation Plan. Such a plan is critical to evaluate the effects of removing all trees from the subject parcel on trees located on adjacent parcels. - The applicant's proposal is not commensurate with the physical characteristics of the surrounding area (e.g. fir trees will be removed which add to the uniqueness of the neighborhood and serve as a buffer to noise), as stipulated by the Code. 5. An error was made in the Comprehensive Plan which designated the zoning of Dogwood Ridge neighborhood to be R-4.5. The zoning should be R-3.5 so that the character of the neighborhood can be preserved as intended by the original developers of Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood, and so that any new development on undeveloped land will not adversely impact the neighborhood. A zoning designation of R-4.5 for - 3- Dogwood Ridge Neighborhood must be a mistake; because it will allow in-fill development which will destroy the character of the neighborhood. This is in conflict with the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to prevent development which will cause a diminution to the existing quality of life for the residents of Tigard. The Code describes the decision process of the Approval Authority and states that the decision shall be based on proof by the applicant that the application fully complies with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the relevant approval standards in the Code. The Approval Authority in then review of an appeal may adopt the findings and conclusions: • contained in the staff report, • from a lower approval authority, • submitted by any party (in this case the applicant or appellant), or • its own findings and conclusions. The purpose of this report is to present the basis for our appeal and the findings and conclusions developed by our neighborhood to support our appeal. We urge the approval authority io consider our findings and conclusions before issuing a decision regarding this appeal. - 4- allocation of the balance of $267,000 remaining from the elimination of the 129h and Bull Mountain Road site will be decided at a future public meeting." Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 97-37. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-37, A RESOLUTION AMENDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR CERTAIN OPEN SPACE, TRAIL. ACQUISITION OR ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL SHARE COMPONENT OF THE METRO OPEN SPACES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the need for speed in purchasing these lands. He stressed that delay cost the City precious resources that they did not have the money to offset. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION: FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML.P) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92m AVENUE PARTITION APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same PO Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To partition one (1) lot of approximately 26,850 square feet into three (3) lots of approximately 7,670, 8,040, and 7,771 square feet. LOCATION: 11000 SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.150, 18.162 and 18.164 ZONE: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The Purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential sites. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 8 i a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilors Moore and Scheckla each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mark Roberts, Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that at the August 12 meeting, the Council moved to review the Director's Decision on MLP 97-00010. He reviewed the location and specifics of the .60 acre property located on SW 92°d Avenue. He reported that at the August East CIT meeting, five of the six regularly attending members requested that the Council call this application up. Mr. Roberts reviewed the information developed by the neighborhood property owners as presented in an August 8 letter from the East CIT, and in an additional 23-page letter. He noted the first argument that the minor land partition should be reviewed as a subdivision. He explained that while the property owner did own both the subject site and the property at the corner, they were two legally separate lots, created in 1940 in accordance with the applicable law at the time. Because the applicant did not include the second lot in his application, and was dividing the first lot into only three parcels, his application did not meet the definition of a subdivision (one or more contiguous units of land that create four or more lots). Mr. Roberts noted the neighbors' argument that the definition in the Code of the pole portion of a flag lot met the Code definition of a street. He said that the Director made the interpretation that the pole portion of a legal lot was not a street, as it was not created for street purposes but rather to provide a separate legal building site. He stated that to interpret the pole portion as a street meant that driveways serving residences would be defined as streets, rendering the lots non-conforming in size because street area was not included in net lot area. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that because the City was considering a revision to the Code requiring minor land partitions to file a tree mitigation plan, the Code did not at this time implement the Comprehensive Plan provision requiring the City to protect large stands of trees through the planned development process and the removal process. He explained that the City has not required tree-mitigation plans for minor land partitions because of the development constraints inherent in these smaller sites that filed for minor land partition. Also the revision was under consideration because the state statutes no longer made a distinction between minor and major land partitions. Mr. Roberts stated that the Code tree-removal section was specifically aimed at large stands of trees found on large acreages proposed for subdivision or commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Roberts noted three other issues raised to support the neighbors' contention that this partition did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. First, the lot sizes were significantly CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 9 smaller than the Dogwood Ridge subdivision lot sizes of 18,800 square feet. However, the proposed lot sizes did conform to the R-4.5 zone. Second, the application did not address the traffic safety issues of adding three more homes to a narrow 20 foot street. Staff did not find that adding three homes would significantly impact the controlled intersection at SW 92"d and Greenburg. They further concluded that children already had to use safety awareness to traverse the existing driveways along 92"d Third, tree removal would remove a needed buffer for the adjoining trees. Mr. Roberts said that if the City had a requirement that removal of trees would not be allowed where it might affect the character or integrity of trees on adjoining properties, then. they would effectively place a moratorium on new development at sites near other wooded properties because nearby trees were usually affected by removal of nearby trees. Mr. Roberts discussed the neighbors' argument that the R-4.5 zoning in the Comprehensive Plan for this area was in error; it should be R-3.5 in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said that this property was not part of the subdivision. He pointed out that this entire area was zoned R4.5. He reported that staff who worked on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan have stated that property owners in this area were involved. Mr. Roberts noted the argument that the five-foot of right-of-way dedication was inadequate. SW 92nd presently had a 50 foot right-of-way dedication with a 20 foot street. Staff felt that future improvements to widen the street and put in curbs and gutters could be accomplished in 45 feet of right-of-way. He said that the East CIT was asking the Council to find that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not support that finding, and recommended approval subject to the Director's Decision. Councilor Moore asked for clarification regarding the right-of-way dedication. Mr. Roberts said that staff was not requiring half street improvements with this site because there was unimproved right of way between this site and Greenburg Road. They were requiring a five-foot dedication and a waiver of remonstrance against a future LID. Councilor Rohlf asked if the East CIT took a position on this application or asked for Council review. Mr. Roberts said that the CIT asked for Council review. d. Public Testimony APPLICANT > David B. Smith, 6975 SW Sandburg, attorney representing applicant, Miles Downing, stated their agreement with the staff report. He pointed out that the Council needed to focus on the specific review criteria applicable to a minor land partition (Section 8.162.040). These five criteria were conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with state statutes and city ordinances, availability of adequate public facilities, conformity with lot size and dimensions, and compliance with all applicable city and agency standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 10 Mr. Smith discussed the neighbors' contentions that the partition did not comply with Comprehensive Plan polices and implementing criteria regarding trees (Section 3.4.2) and that there was a mistake in the Comprehensive Plan because this area should not have been zoned R- 4.5. Mr. Smith argued that this lot was never designated as a timbered or treed area and therefore was not subject to the planned development process or to the tree removal provisions. Such designations had to be done through the Goal 5 process. Mr. Smith stated that to challenge the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial land use action was an "impermissible collateral attack on the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan." That type of action should occur during periodic review, as supported by the courts. Mr. Smith cited the staff report's conclusion that this application did conform with all statutory, regulatory, and ordinance requirements. He stressed that this was a minor lot partition occurring on one lot. He said the state definition of a "tract" in ORS 215 (cited by the neighbors) applied to rural lands and counties, not to lands within the urban growth boundary. He said that the Code clearly distinguished between accessways and streets, and it defined the pole portion of a flag lot as an accessway, not a street (18.108.070). He argued that to adopt the construction of the CIT for this section would annul the section and make it meaningless. Mr. Smith pointed out the staff conclusion that five foot of right-of-way dedication was more than adequate. He reiterated that the Council could not deal with the question of whether or not the Code properly implemented the Comprehensive Plan within the context of a quasi-judicial application. That took a legislative process, as did identifying significant groves or stands of trees under the Goal 5 process. Mr. Smith emphasized that this was a minor land partition that conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. It had no designated unique stands of trees, and the tree ordinance did not apply to minor partitions. He stated that Mr. Downing has engaged a certified arborist to investigate the site, as the trees were the major issue of concern to the neighbors. He entered into the record the overlay map that indicated which trees could be saved and which could not. He mentioned that the arborist found diseased trees on the site which would have to come out in any case. He explained that Mr. Downing was simply preparing the site for development but was not the actual developer. He said that they would make every reasonable effort to save every tree they could. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the tree map. David Halstead, 4490 SW 160t°, Beaverton, Halstead Arborculture Consultants, said that the Douglas fir grove on this site was infected with laminated root rot, though he did not have sufficient time to confirm his diagnosis with lab tests. He reviewed the four trees he hoped to leave as a buffer to the north but pointed out that they would have to remove diseased trees. Councilor Rohlf asked if the removal of trees would impact neighboring trees on adjoining properties. Mr. Halstead said no, and commented that he had not seen many trees on the neighboring lots. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 11 Mayor Nicoli asked if this document was entered into the record at previous hearings. Mr. Smith said that they created this document by overlaying a site plan showing tree locations with a site plan showing the flag lots. The two site plans were submitted previously as separate documents. Councilor Scheckla commented that if the Douglas firs were dying, then there was little point in preserving the trees. Mr. Halstead concurred. He stated that the Pacific Northwest was experiencing a general infestation of laminated root rot that was doing serious damage to the trees. He cited work he has done in Gresham, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego diagnosing root rot and removing trees. He explained the specifics of how this disease destroyed the trees. He pointed out that within this neighborhood there were no young Douglas firs, despite the large number of seed produced by a single tree. Councilor Scheckla expressed his displeasure that the applicant did not address the tree situation until it was too late to get back lab tests to confirm the presence of the disease prior to this hearing. Mr. Smith explained that the red dots on the tree map indicated trees to be preserved. He said that the remainder of the trees were within the driveway or house footprints or too close to the house to be preserved. He commented that trees identified for preservation would have to be removed for safety reasons if they were infected. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would accept a condition of approval to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Smith said that they had no objection, that that was Mr. Downing's intent. PROPONENTS OPPONENTS > Carrie Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, thanked the Council for reviewing this application. She said that in response to the Council indications that they wanted to support the neighbors on the tree issue, the neighbors prepared documentation in detail. She presented an aerial photograph of the area to demonstrate that, while this property was not technically part of the Dogwood Ridge subdivision, it was nonetheless within the neighborhood because it was on SW 92"d Avenue. She pointed out that the neighborhood was ringed by Douglas firs, and that the large lots enabled them to preserve that feature. Ms. Gavett stated that they were not trying to stop the development but wanted to minimize the impact to the neighborhood by insuring that his development would be similar in character and quality to the neighborhood. They held that the Code and the Comprehensive Plan provided the means to do so. Ms. Gavett reviewed the interactions between the neighbors and Mr. Downing. She said that Mr. Downing originally told them that he intended to clear cut the lot for profit. During the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, the neighbors rejected his offer to preserve one tree on the entire property and prepared a counteroffer (Appendix B) that he build two homes and preserve more trees. Mr. Downing rejected their proposal, stating that he would remove all CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 12 the trees "just to spite us," and informed them that any more contact with him would have to be through City staff. At that point negotiations broke down. Ms. Gavett reiterated that the neighbors had understood that Mr. Downing intended to clear cut the lot. The information that he intended to preserve any trees at all was news to them. She asked that his intentions for tree preservation be in writing, especially since he would not develop the lot himself. She asked for a tree mitigation plan with testing to confirm the claim that the trees were infected with root rot. Ms. Gavett discussed the issue of the incorrect processing of the application as a minor land partition. She reviewed the neighbors' reasons why they thought it should be processed as a major land partition. She said that the distinction between "major" and "minori' did not occur at the state level, and therefore was a local distinction. However the state regulations defined "street" or "road," and the Code adopted that definition verbatim. She pointed out that a major land partition required tree mitigation plans whereas a minor land partition did not. Ms. Gavett argued that in the Code the characterization of the pole portion of a flag lot as an "access drive" met the state definition of a private street (an accessway that was under private ownership). It also met the definition of "street" or "road" (a public or private way that was created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more lots, parcels, areas, or tracts of land.) Ms. Gavett cited Mr. Roberts' statement in the staff report: "If more than one lot is accessed by the flag pole, in the director's opinion this kind of access situation would then meet the current definition of a street." She argued that the definition said "one or more" and that the staff interpretation was not supported by the Code. She held that because the definition came from the state, it lay outside the City's jurisdiction to use the interpretation that it had to be going to more than one lot. Ms. Gavett disagreed with Mr. Roberts' contention that defining the pole portion of a flag lot as a "street" meant that all standard driveways in Tigard became roads, making the lots nonconforming in size because roads were not included in lot size calculations. She said that the purpose of a driveway was to provide offstreet parking per the Code requirements. She argued that the street a house was located on provided the ingress and egress to the house, not the driveway. Ms. Gavett noted several differences between driveways and accessways. Accessways cannot be included in the lot size calculations, cannot be used for off street parking, and have to meet emergency vehicle width requirements. None of these provisions applied to driveways. Ms. Gavett reiterated the neighbors' contention that the application should be reviewed as a major land partition requiring the applicant to consider the preservation of trees and a tree mitigation plan. She said that the central issue was whether or not poles to flag lots were streets. Councilor Rohlf asked for the definition of a "street" in the state interpretation. Ms. Gavett said that it was the same as in the Code. CITY COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE B > Wes Gavett, 11435 SW 92"d, said that as a licensed civil engineer practicing for more than 13 years, much of his professional experience dealt with the interpretation and implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and codes. He said that, as he read the statutes, the approval authority had to insure that their decision was based upon proof of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that in approving this application, the Council has failed to do so. Mr. Gavett cited the Comprehensive Plan goal "to maintain and improve the quality of life for the city residents by retaining natural areas and resources." He mentioned the policy that "the city shall designate by definition features to be protected as natural areas." He pointed out that it was done by definition, not by designation. He cited other provisions relating to protection of natural areas so that the character of the area would not be altered by development. He mentioned the findings of the Tree Task Force adopted in 1995 in which they recommended that the city conduct a significant tree inventory including a review of other communities' work, and that the city require a tree plan with strategies to save existing trees or to mitigate tree removal. He cited the ORS statutes requiring local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to implement their Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Gavett cited the more than 50 trees identified in the applicant's site plan as evidence for the existance of a significant stand of trees on the property. He said that the applicant indicated to the neighborhood that he had intended to remove all the tree without any mitigation. He argued that because the Code did not define use based on size or magnitude of development, a 100 acre parcel could be divided in such a way that it was a minor land partition. He said that this was a loophole. He contended that the Code did not implement the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan because it had no mechanism to establish trees as significant. Yet the Plan stated that stands of trees were designated by definition as significant. Mr. Gavett read from a memo prepared by Dick Bewersdorff to the Council in July 1997. He pointed out that Mr. Bewersdorff said that the intended tree inventory to identify unique trees or stands of tree needing protection was not done due to other work priorities. He quoted Mr. Bewersdorfrs statement that the Code was silent on designation of significant trees, lacking a mechanism or program to so designate them. He reiterated that clearly a major Plan objective was the protection of trees and natural areas. Mr. Gavett contended that this property and the entire neighborhood contained significant trees which were an integral part of the community. He mentioned the argument that an application (with regards to tree mitigation and protection) did not have to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it complied with the Code which complied with the Plan. He held that this argument was in error because the Code was mute on the topic and clearly contradicted the Plan requirements. Mr. Gavett pointed out that in the tree cutting policies of Forest Grove, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Portland, this property would be subject to a tree mitigation plan. He mentioned that the Council could take judicial notice of ordinances of other planning authorities in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MDNUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 14 Metro area. He held that Tigard should be obligated to use the same high standards to protect natural resources. Mr. Gavett said that he did not expect this property to go undeveloped. He commented that in his work as an engineer he found solutions to people's problems that minimized the impact on the local community, protected the environment, and were compatible with local land uses. He said that he believed that that could be accomplished on this property but not with this proposal. Mr. Gavett commented that this neighborhood of mature trees, large lots, well maintained and established homes was unique in Tigard. He asked the Council not to allow it to be diminished by poor planning and the ability to play fast and loose with the Code. He asked the Council to uphold the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Moore asked what results did the neighbors expect to get from a mitigation plan. Ms. Gavett said that if the applicant's numbers were accurate, he had estimated that it would cost him $70,000. She presented a petition signed by all neighbors on SW 92nd Avenue supporting the report. > Tom Strong, 11465 SW 92"d Avenue, reiterated that the neighbors did not believe that this decision was based on proof by the applicant that his applicant fully complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to the issue of maintaining quality of life, which was the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He cited reasons why he believed that his quality of life would be affected by this development. The neighbors have always thought of the subject parcel as part of the neighborhood, regardless of whether or not it was officially in the Dogwood Ridge subdivision. Allowing a development on this parcel that clearly did not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood diminished the quality of life for the neighbors. He cited the aerial photograph as evidence that the neighborhood was ringed by a significant stand of fir trees. Mr. Strong addressed the issue of safety as a part of quality of life. He mentioned that the neighborhood children played on the narrow dead-end street, though not allowed to get too close to Greenburg Road. He said that he thought that the addition of three houses to the existing neighborhood would create a significant increase in traffic for the neighborhood, although it might not appear that way from a city-wide perspective. This would affect the kids walking down to catch the school bus. He held that the Comprehensive Plan provided the umbrella of protection that prohibited development from diminishing the quality of life. > Barbie Knauss, 11495 SW 92"d Avenue, stated that her lot was not part of Dogwood Ridge either but when they built on it 15 years, they were required to line up with the pre-existing access and to dedicate a portion of the frontage to the City. She asked why this property (directly across from her lot) was not required to do so. She asked how the neighborhood could acquire the additional five feet of right-of-way in the future, should this lot be approved with a misaligned right of way and the neighbors decide to form an LID to improve the road to the full 50 feet. She pointed out that the additional five foot of right-of-way could help improve the safety of the entrance which was curved. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 15 Ms. Knauss asked if it was not the normal practice of jurisdictions to clean up right-of-way misalignments as part of the approval process.' She asked how it could be construed as fair to the rest of the street to not require consistent dedication. She asked if the City would vacate all the way up the street to align with the new standard for the street. Ms. Knauss read a letter from William Weber, 11285 SW 92"d Avenue, in which Mr. Weber addressed the two conflicting philosophies involved in this proposed development. They were higher density housing units to accommodate growth without causing an expansion of the urban growth boundary, and the dependence of cities on their neighborhoods for quality of life and vitality of the city. He pointed out the City's commitment to its neighborhoods through its emphasis on citizen involvement. He spoke to SW 92°d Avenue between Greenburg and North Dakota as a neighborhood actively involved in the city. He contended that this new development would change their neighborhood and downgrade it which was not consistent with the City of Tigard's interests in preserving old and established neighborhoods. > Terry Smith, 11480 SW 92"d Avenue, submitted his testimony in writing with accompanying materials. He declared that the City has not processed this application correctly because the City has not applied defined criteria to evaluate whether or not the development qualified as a treed area. He cited two petitions by the neighbors asserting that a large and unique stand of trees has been observed on the subject property. He contended that the City, in processing this application as a minor land partition, was effectively saying that the tree stand did not exist. He argued that this failed as criteria because it did not serve to determine whether the trees existed or whether they were large or unique. Mr. Smith contended that the City promised the state and Tigard citizens that it would designate natural areas by definition, not by location, but it still lacked a definition or an instrument to do so. Therefore the Code failed to implement the Plan, and the City could not legally implement this application until it provided the necessary definition. He said that minor land partition development allowed harvesting of unlimited size parcels of trees without mitigation. Within one year, a subdivision application could be made. Mr. Smith requested in writing that the City provide the defining criteria for large or unique stands of trees. Then the City could process this application using that criteria to demonstrate that development was not occurring in a designated tree area. He contended that the City had to demonstrate that the subject parcel was not a treed area according the defining criteria. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the pole portion of a flag lot meeting the definition of a road or street. He contended that the City has not demonstrated that the definition of a minor land partition excluded or exempted the creation of an accessway under private ownership or that the pole portion of a flag lot did not meet the definition of a street or road. He held that the legal lot area included only the flag, not the pole. If a partition created a road or street, then it was not a minor partition. He said that the purpose of the pole was the same as the purpose of a road or street. He reiterated the different standards for driveways and accessways mentioned by Ms. Gavett. He argued that since a flag lot could not be legally created without creation of an accessway, it meant that flag lots had to be processed as major partitions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 16 Mr. Smith requested an interpretation of the phrase "area or tract." He said that the City's actions indicated that the phrase meant only "parcels." He argued that this was contrary to the state definition. He asked if the staff conclusion that one person could own contiguous areas or tracts of land but did not have to include neighboring parcels in an application was a legally correct concept. He spoke to handling the phrase "area or tract" as the state intended in order to avoid unlawful partition. Mr. Smith spoke to the issue of the R-4.5 zone as an incorrect zoning designation of this area. He cited the large lot sizes, and a previous City Council's denial of an application to partition one of these parcels into a flag lot. He said that none of the neighbors were aware of when they participated in the Comprehensive Plan process, as indicated by staff, nor did staff provide a record of that involvement. He noted that the only other lot developed since the subdivision, Ms. Knauss' lot, developed with the same characteristics as the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors were realizing that R-4.5 zoning did not prohibit development from diminishing the character and property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that the zoning did not allow for homesite and substantial tree protection. He held that the City promised to allow. only development that accomplished its purposes. Those purposes included insuring development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, promoting and protecting the neighbors' welfare, and prohibiting development that caused a diminishing of the quality of life. He spoke to R-3.5 zoning as allowing an appropriate level of development while preserving the neighborhood. He reiterated that R-4.5 zoning was a mistake, and requested that it be changed to R-3.5. Mr. Smith commented that the overlay drawing submitted by the applicant tonight had not been submitted before because no other document in the application showed the neighboring trees. He said that the neighbors felt that they could not rely on the verbal promises of a developer who would not live in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to make the requested interpretations and definitions, and to find that the application should not be processed as a minor partition. Councilor Rohlf asked if anyone in the neighborhood had approached the City regarding a significant tree designation prior to the discussion of this application. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors had not been aware until now what the impact could be. He explained that he did ask the director about a Council hearing on a significant tree designation after Mr. Downing withdrew his first application. A month and a half later, the director told him that he could submit an application. He pointed out that the neighbors tried to follow the Mayor's request to provide specific code and policies in addressing this situation. > Linda Eaton, 9625 SW Lewis Lane, owner of a rental property on SW 92°d Avenue, expressed her concern that a large walnut tree in the back yard along the fence would be damaged by this development. She said that she asked Mark Roberts what could be done to preserve her tree, and he told her not to worry at this time; if anything happened, she could sue the developer. She asked that the developer be required to do something to protect her tree. She suggested that the arborist not be employed by the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 17 > Jack Frechette, 11300 SW 92"d Avenue, spoke to the neighborhood as a wonderful place to live with rich soil for growing things and a beautiful entrance with the trees along Greenburg. He questioned the diagnosis of the trees as diseased, commenting that he did not see any signs of rot on the roots of trees blown over by the windstorm. He submitted a letter from a gentleman who has lived in the neighborhood for 47 years. THOSE NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR AGAINST > Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91'd Court, East CIT facilitator, stated that while the East CTT did vote to support bringing this application up for review, the CIT did not take a stand the application. REBUTTAL David Smith said that the width of the flag pole for a flag lot was defined by the minimum required frontage on a street, and that the access drive had to fit within the pole. He cited the definition of public street access in CDC 18.108.040 as evidence that the access drive in the pole was not a public street because it connected to a public street. He argued that the purpose of the Code to protect natural areas was implemented in the Code through the procedures for legislative decisions (CDC 18.30). He reiterated that the City could not decide if this was a designated tree area within a quasi-judicial hearing. He argued that the purpose statement in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the diminution of quality of life was not in and of itself an approval criteria. He said that they intended to use Mr. Halstead as their arborist, noting his work for the City and well-established reputation. e. Council Questions Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that their office reviewed this application and was satisfied that it was not a subdivision. He said that the subdivision argument was based upon a definition in the statutes that applied to the county plans. He said that they felt that the applicant had the better argument on the issue of whether or not the flag pole was a street. The pole was counted towards lot area, and the frontage measured based upon where the pole connected to the street. He commented that he knew of no jurisdiction that interpreted the pole portion of a flag lot as a street. Councilor Rohlf asked if it was economically feasible for Mr. Downing to put in two lots instead of three. Mr. Smith said no, and mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for higher density. Councilor Rohlf asked about the suggestion to get a neutral arborist, mutually accepted by both parties, who would devise a tree plan more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Downing was going to pay for the arborist, then Mr. Downing should get to pick the arborist. He reiterated that Mr. Halstead has worked for the City and had well-established credentials. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 18 Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, cited the closure of the City's periodic review through the recent adoption of the Goal 5 Safe Harbors element into the Comprehensive Plan as evidence that the state found that the City's implementing ordinances for its Plan were consistent with state wide goals and guidelines, and implemented the Plan. He said that there was no further requirement for the City regarding the preservation or removal of trees other than what was adopted in the Code. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that this has been an exhaustive process for the neighbors, the applicant, and the staff. He said that staff evaluated the numerous issues raised during the process, and verified the process and procedures with the City Attorney's office. He pointed out that the staff report was exhaustive on all issues raised tonight. He stated that the conclusions and findings in the staff report justified the decision made. Councilor Rohlf asked what the impact of tree mitigation would be on this partition. Mr. Bewersdorff said that there was no guarantee that the trees would be saved. He explained that the impact depended on the number of trees removed. He mentioned a tree mitigation plan that mitigated for trees removed for disease by payment of fees. Mr. Roberts said that the cost would be in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. He mentioned that mitigation did not refer to diseased trees, and a special requirement would have to be included for this site. Councilor Scheckla asked why there was no requirement to install a sidewalk from Greenburg Road to the development. Mr. Hendryx said that the City's normal practice was not to require sidewalks where it would begin in the middle of a block, as in this case. He mentioned that the applicant would sign a remonstrance for improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that City policy has changed regarding sidewalks. Councilor Scheckla spoke for requiring a sidewalk, since three driveways would be added. He argued that the change of policy created inconsistency in sidewalk installations. He expressed concern that whoever bought the lot from Mr. Downing would pay for a sidewalk through a future LID, not the developer. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval with the findings in the staff report. h. Council Deliberation Councilor Rohlf said that he heard a willingness from the applicant to accept a condition that he make all efforts to preserve the trees to the largest degree possible. Mr. Bewersdorff said that was up to the Council. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 10:26 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 19 Councilor Rohlf commented that the tree ordinance had been a painful process for the City because of the high emotions on both sides: the rights of private individuals on their property versus the right of a community to have quality of life. He said that he was sympathetic to the neighborhood trying to preserve quality of life, and to the applicant trying to make use of his property. Councilor Rohlf complimented the neighborhood on an outstanding presentation but said that their legal arguments did not convince him. He stated that the best the Council could do was to condition the application to preserve as many trees as possible. He said that he wished they had better "teeth" for preserving the quality of life, citing Bull Mountain as an example. He commented that people defined "quality of life" as different things. He reiterated that he thought that Mr. Downing had the better legal arguments, and that he had no choice but to approve the application and to request a condition to preserve as many trees as possible. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Rohlf's remarks. He said that he had voted "no" on the motion to call this application up for review because he thought that it met all the applicable criteria. He mentioned the excellence of the neighbors' presentation. He said that he still thought that the applicant met the criteria, and that he would approve it. Councilor Scheckla spoke against approving the application. He said that doing so made it more difficult for that neighborhood (or any neighborhood in Tigard) to maintain its quality. He said that he did not think it was attractive to the rest of the area. Mayor Nicoli concurred with Councilor Rohlf's comments. He commended the neighborhood also for an excellent presentation. He complimented the applicant for his willingness to accept a condition regarding the trees. He suggested a condition that the applicant agree to replant a four inch diameter tree somewhere on the site for any of the trees marked to be preserved on the overlay drawing which could not be saved for any reasons, be it disease or damage. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the Council was invited to take judicial notice of other communities' tree ordinances. He said that if they did that, then they broke faith with those who helped the City craft their tree ordinance. If there was an issue with the tree ordinance, then the community needed to go through the same process in order to deal with it. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion for four inch diameter trees to replace those marked for preservation but lost to damage or disease. The Mayor reiterated that he wanted a sizable tree put back in for each of the trees lost. He said that he understood that the applicant has already offered to put fencing around the trees to be saved during construction but he wanted a guarantee to the neighborhood that there would be a certain number of trees left on the site, no matter what happened during construction. Mr. Monahan restated the condition as "after the applicant makes every effort to save the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 20 designated trees, then, if the trees cannot be saved due to damage or disease, and are removed at a later time, then those trees will be replaced." The Council discussed whether this condition would run with the land. The Mayor said that he did not want the condition to run beyond the first property owner. The Council discussed the logistics of crafting the ordinance. Staff said that they had until November 5 under the 120 day-rule. Staff said that they could return in one week with a draft ordinance for Council review at the September workshop. In response to staff questions, Mayor Nicoli said that he did not want the applicant to submit a tree mitigation plan but to stick with the overlay drawing submitted this evening. He said that he was comfortable with Mr. Halstead's analysis on whether or not they could save a tree. He reiterated that he wanted an assurance that the applicant would make every effort to save the trees he has proposed saving, and if he could not, then he would replace them on the site in a location that Mr. Halstead determined allowed the best chance of survival for the tree and that fit in with the future homes. The Council directed staff to craft the condition, send it to the City Attorney's office for review, and to the Council for approval next Tuesday. Councilor Moore expressed concern that the overlay drawing used fictious footprints, and that the trees that could be saved might change with the actual footprints. Mr. Ramis said that he understood the applicant to be volunteering to restrict his building envelope in order to save the trees. Mayor Nicoli said that using the actual footprints as an excuse to cut down one of the trees marked to be saved was unacceptable. > Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Terry Smith said that if the right of way was extended to match the rest of the street, then the City would have control over the significant large tree that stood within that right of way. He spoke to the impact that large tree had on the entrance to the neighborhood. David Smith said that he did not disagree with Mr. Smith's comments. > Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to September 16 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Terry Smith has asked that his request for an interpretation of the definition of significant trees and of an area or tract be considered next week. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City had a request mechanism for interpretations of the Code. He asked if it was appropriate to circumvent this process during a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Ramis said no, unless the interpretation was critical to the decision. He stated CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 21 that these definitions were not critical to this decision because by approving the application, Council declared those issues as not relevant to the decision. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: NONE 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CANCELED 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:03 p.m. a-f,4.e~(Qv Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder yOr, City of Tigallyd ate: ooq OadmlcathylccmV70909.doc CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 22 L 00 12 r • A enda Item N A PAI TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of c1 q lC1`1 MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors aul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Le al Counsel Pam Beery; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Associate PI er Will D'Andrea; Community Development Director Jim Hen ; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Building Official David Scott; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and CiK Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Monopole decision Mayor Nicoli spoke to the call up of the monopole decision. He asked that the planning and legal staff look at the Council's concerns with respect to what the City Code said they could or could not do. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted the public hearing later on this meeting's agenda regarding the wireless communication ordinance. Bill Monahan, City Manager, reviewed his understanding of the Mayor's proposal to call up the monopole decision on a future agenda, and to open the public hearing on the wireless communication ordinance, and continue it until after the public hearing on the monopole. If other issues were raised during the monopole hearing, they could be factored into the standards. Mayor Nicoli said that he had no problem with adopting the ordinance tonight if applications coming in under the old standards were a concern. Mr. Hendryx said that at the public hearing tonight staff would explain how the two recent controversial monopole decisions would have been handled under the proposed standards. Mr. Hendryx reported that staff has looked into the issue of compliance with the Code and development standards raised by the citizens requesting Council call up. He said that staff could not ascertain that there was any violation. Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, referenced the petition distributed by Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, requesting a Council call up of the decision. She advised the Council to reserve discussion of the merits of the application for the Hearings Officer. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff could communicate with the neighbors on what issues the Council saw in this matter prior to the hearing. Ms. Beery said that staff talking with the neighbors was not an ex parte contact. She advised that if the Council did call this up, that they not enter into dialogue with the public about it. However if citizens wanted to testify on the ordinance tonight, the Mayor should direct them to not make comments directed towards a particular TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 1 site. They should make the meeting minutes part of the record of for the hearing so everyone would have the opportunity to rebut any comments. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern about the number of poles required and the spacing between them. Ms. Beery said that the new ordinance addressed the concern quite well. Staff recommended asking the franchise representatives those questions. Ms. Beery reviewed the collocation protocol mandated in the ordinance. She pointed out the additional incentive for the companies in that collocation was cheaper than a new pole. Mr. Hendryx noted the aesthetic concern with more facilities collocated on a pole more visual clutter would be created.. > Request to call up a minor land partition Mayor Nicoli raised the request to call up the minor land partition. Mr. Hendryx said that the neighbors could appeal that land use decision. He commented that with both the monopole and the minor land partition they had entire neighborhoods turning out in opposition to the decisions. He said that the neighborhood issue was tree removal which was not a reason for staff to deny a minor land partition. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff has determined that, based on the current code, the trees were not protected. They have also researched the issue of an error in the original 1984 zoning of that area and determined that the Code was applied correctly. While the property owners of the area could submit a petition to the City requesting a rezoning of the area, it would not affect this application. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff knew in what direction the neighborhood was headed. Mr. Hendryx said that these neighbors were sophisticated and have done their homework. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the applicant would probably be at tonight's meeting. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, explained that Mr. Downing told her he would ask the Council not to call it up and to allow it to go through the approval process. In her conversations with neighbors in the area, she learned that their argument would be that dividing the lot into three partitions meant less opportunity to save trees. Mr. Monahan mentioned that tonight was the Council's last chance to call this up. Ms. Beery reported that her firm has represented AT&T in the past, though not in Tigard or on this issue. She asked if the Council was comfortable with her representing the City on this matter. Mayor Nicoli said it was fine. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he had represented AT&T under their former name of Cellular One. > Erickson property Mr. Monahan mentioned CIT discussions on the Erickson property, a heavily wooded timber lot proposed for harvesting. While there was no land-use application at this time, there was a mobilization of neighborhood concerns about tree removal, erosion control, drainage, etc. Ms. Newton reported that between 70 to 80 people attended the CIT meeting on this issue. Mr. Hendryx said that staff was reviewing the appropriate regulations and contacting the Forest Service about removal of trees on a wood lot. He commented that the neighbors have been told that there would be no action on this matter until staff has thoroughly reviewed the standards, as this was a new issue in Tigard. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 2 Mr. Monahan asked if Council concurred with the staff work to create an environment of communication with those citizens who had concerns while not issuing a permit until they were sure of compliance with all regulations. He said that staff was trying not to make promises that they could save something that they could not save. Councilor Scheckla asked several questions on mitigation in this situation. Mr. Hendryx said that the Code gave specific exemption to removal of trees in a forest tree deferral wood lot. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, explained that the Tree Ordinance Task Force had specifically excluded tax deferred woodlots because of testimony from people who had set them aside to harvest for funds to send their children to college. The owners of this lot intended to harvest the timber before selling the lot to developers. A developer going through the subdivision process would have to mitigate for those trees. Mr. Monahan said that tonight staff expected neighbors at the meeting to report to the Council on the CIT discussion. He reported that neighbors have requested staff to make a commitment to do whatever they could to make sure that neighborhoods were protected from erosion. Staff wanted this situation to have the least impact possible but with the understanding that the trees would be cut down. Councilor Hunt mentioned the erosion problems that resulted from the steep slope of the hill of the Renaissance Summit development. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would have a problem with mudslides on Bull Mountain. Mr. Monahan said that they hoped to avoid that. > City Events: Policy Discussion on City Participation and Contributions Mr. Monahan referenced the memo on the costs to the City for the Balloon Festival, broken down by department detailing costs that would have been incurred anyway and special costs. It also included the Fourth of July costs which were very limited. He pointed out that the Balloon Festival was growing so fast that it was a new event every year. Mr. Monahan suggested requiring special events and social agencies to give the City more advance notice of what their proposals would be prior to the budget process and assigning a staff person as the contact person for the event or agency. This staff person would identify all the potential costs so that staff could include a real cost by department into the budget process. If Council wanted to, they could set an amount for the event, and staff would know that they had to limit expenses to that amount. With sufficient notice, the special event or agencies could make decisions on their programs or try to find alternative funding. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff work at the Festival, agreeing that it did impact his department most of all. He pointed out the positive attitude of staff towards the Festival, despite the extensive overtime required. He mentioned that the soccer fields were scheduled to be shut down after the Festival regardless. He said that staff worked Sunday and Monday to finish cleaning up. He noted the help provided by the carnival and food vendors in making it easy for them to pick up trash. Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator, had arranged for the contractors to retrieve all the rented equipment. Councilor Scheckla asked if there were items that the City could have the Festival pay for, such as extra trash pickups. Mr. Monahan said that was an item for discussion. He explained that last year the Festival did not have any surplus revenue; however, this year it appears that TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3 there was profit. He advised that Mr. Ellis had indicated willingness in the past to help finance any needed post-event field repair. Mr. Wegner commented. that eventually the Festival would "top out" where the City would have to limit the number of balloons. Mayor Nicoli asked about using volunteers to assist City staff. Mr. Wegner said they would have more success asking volunteers (such as the Boy Scouts) to help with the set up than with the clean up. He pointed out that school was still in session during the week prior to the Festival. Councilor Rohlf asked if they would see an adjustment to the budget. Mr. Monahan said no, because all the costs were within last year's budget. Councilor Hunt expressed concern with the extra money being spent without the Council knowing it was being expended. Mr. Monahan said that it had been a surprise to staff who had not realized the crowd the Festival would draw until they "saw the cars coming." He said that the year before had not reflected these dollar amounts but possibly staff was now doing a better job of reporting the costs. Mr. Monahan said that the information this year would help staff in their discussions with the Balloon Festival organizers. He said that there was not an expectation on the Festival's part that the City would support the event to the point where the Festival retained all profits without assisting the City with some of the expenses incurred. Councilor Hunt asked if there was a way to measure the economic value the Festival brought to the business community of Tigard. Mayor Nicoli said that the nonprofits could tell the City how much money they made (which he thought was roughly around $30,000). He said that he was certain that with 10,000 to 15,000 people coming into the town for a three day event, there was money going into the business community. Councilor Hunt asked who authorized the nonprofits that operated at the Festival. Mr. Monahan said that the Festival did. He reported that Mr. Ellis told him that he tried to restrict it to Tigard based non-profits only. The City's only input has been questions about traffic, insurance and neighborhood impact. He said that if the Council felt it was important to know how much money the non-profits made, he thought that Mr. Ellis would be willing to share that information with them. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the non-profits reinvested the money into the community. The Festival fed the social service structure of the City in one way or another. Mr. Monahan reported that he informed Mr. Ellis that the report in the Oregonian regarding the Council discussion on the Festival did not accurately reflect the tone of the Council. The Council was simply curious, not critical. Councilor Moore asked that a discussion on a special events policy include what the intent of the City was in sponsoring events. Was it to showcase the City or to provide an opportunity for non-profits to raise money? Councilor Rohlf suggested a workshop on those issues. Councilor Moore asked for information on what other communities spent on their big events. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4 He expressed concern that the Festival might move elsewhere due to lack of space at Cook Park. The Council discussed when to schedule the discussion. They agreed on the October workshop. Staff would invite Mr. Ellis to the study session prior to the workshop. > National League of Cities Conference - Distribute Information > Agenda Review • Mr. Hendryx reported that the County reached tentative agreement with Jerry Cache today to purchase the properties for the Greenspaces program. • Mr. Monahan explained that staff selected the second lowest bidder on the Menlor Reservoir project because the lowest bidder had difficulties with his subcontractors' bid. The second lowest bidder's offer was within the engineer's estimate. • Mr. Monahan noted an agenda change: the monopole discussion will occur before the business agenda. • Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Rite Center. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan noted the Council discussion on whether or not to call up CUP 97-0004, the AT&T monopole tower, and the Rite Center update. 2. PRESENTATION: APPRECIATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR KATHY DAVIS, LIBRARY DIRECTOR AND CITY EMPLOYEE FOR OVER 21 YEARS On behalf of the Council, Mayor Nicoli thanked Kathy Davis for her excellent work as Library Director and presented her with an Award of Appreciation plaque. Ms. Davis presented the Council with ajar of honey from her business, Mountain Home Apiary, which was moving to LaGrande. 2A. DISCUSSION: CALL-UP CONSIDERATION - AT&T CUP 97-0004 Mr. Monahan mentioned that the appeal deadline date for this land use application was August •18. Mr. Hendryx noted the receipt of a petition today requesting the Council to call up this application. Mayor Nicoli opened up the meeting to public comment. Spencer Vail, AT&T Wireless Services, asked that the Council not call this up application. He argued that the appeal process already in place should be used, rather than the Council initiating appeals on behalf of the people, losing the appeal fee and establishing a precedent. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 5 He commented that the Council should call up applications if they felt that the Hearings Officer had not interpreted the City's policy correctly or if there was some larger public policy matter needing discussion. He mentioned that regardless of the outcome of the wireless communication ordinance on the agenda tonight, this application would be based on the rules in force at the time of the application. He reiterated his request to allow the regular appeal process to run its natural course. Mayor Nicoli said that he did think that there were some policy issues that the Hearings Officer may not have considered. He has learned of some facts regarding the existing land use and possible non-compliance that he believed merited Council discussion. Mr. Vail said that the City tools to enforce non-compliance with zoning regulations were the conditions of approval for that application. These should be handled independently of this application. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he saw several issues which the Council should look at. Motion by Mayor Nicoli, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to call up CUP 97-0004. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Mr. Hendryx announced that staff would schedule a hearing with notice within the next few days. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA . > Tom Strong, East CIT, requested the Council to review the decision of the Director on MEP 97-0100, a subdivision of a vacant lot on SW 92"d off Greenburg Road. He reviewed the reasons for requesting the Council review. These included incorrect processing of the application, failure to prove that the partitioning conformed to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, an error in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the designated zoning for the Dogwood Ridge neighborhood, and an insufficient requirement for dedication of right of way for SW 92nd Avenue. Mr. Strong reviewed the specifics of their reasons for asking for review. They felt that the application met the definition of "subdivision" under both the City Code and the state statutes, as it would contain roads and streets. Therefore, it should be processed under the planned development process. He contended that the application did not conform with Section 18.162.040 of the Comprehensive Plan, development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, protecting natural and other resources, and requiring a review of those resources that might have a detrimental impact on the community. Mr. Strong said that the zoning of Dogwood Ridge should be R-3.5, not R-4.5. The right of way width for 92nd Avenue should be 50 feet; a narrower street would pose a safety hazard if additional homes were built. He noted the provision in the Plan to allow citizens to request Council review of the Director's decisions. He said that they thought that there were some serious policy flaws in the Tigard City Code, noting a loophole that allowed approval of a minor land partition without review of the existing timber or requirement of mitigation. He cited the Plan policy that the City shall insure that the character of large or unique stands of timber would not be substantially altered. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 6 > Miles Downing, applicant, spoke to allowing the process to flow naturally as recommended by staff. He mentioned the careful examination of all issues by the Planning staff. He asked that the Council not call this up for review. > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72"d, spoke to the tree planting program. He asked for discussion on creating mitigation sites in the City where he could mitigate the non-inventoried trees on his property. He said that the 2-3 inches Christmas trees could be transplanted as part of the tree planting program. Mr. Martin entered into the record two letters that he received from Metro regarding the Triangle street standards. He noted in particular the July 28 letter from Mike Hoaglund concerning the definition of "point of local origin" recommended by Metro. Mr. Martin said that he inadvertently contacted one of the potential participants in a Dartmouth LID. The individual was upset and did not want to do anything about it. Mr. Martin commented that a study session with the participants might not accomplish anything. > Mayor Nicoli asked for discussion of the request to call up MLP 97-0010. Mr. Monahan noted the letter from the East CIT that laid out all the issues. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that if the Council did call this .up, they might not be able to do anything anyway because of the legal restrictions. Mr. Hendryx confirmed to the Mayor that there would be no further land use process on this application, as the partitioning process was the land use process. Councilor Rohlf welcomed the citizens speaking to the Council but concurred with the Mayor's concerns that calling this up might be an exercise in frustration for the citizens if the Council could not do anything about the situation. He said that there might be some policy issues in the Code to address in the future. Councilor Moore said that while he understood the neighbors' concerns for the tree grove, the Council had no control over the tree permit process which covered those concerns. He commented that a change would have to occur prior to land use applications. He said that he wasn't sure what they could do either. Councilor Scheckla noted the awkwardness of this situation. He mentioned the staff information that there was no error in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested a compromise from the developer to save some of the trees. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with calling it up but reiterated his concern that the City Attorney might inform the Council that they could not respond to the neighbors as they might want to. He said that he did not want to mislead the neighborhood on what the Council could or could not do. Ms. Beery said that she was very hesitant to allow any detailed discussion of the issues if the Council intended to call it up. It was important to keep the Council as an impartial body. She said that if the Council was concerned that there were policy issues, they could call it up, and have a full discussion of the issues at the hearing. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the staff work on the question of an error in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he could not substantiate that such an error had occurred with the land use designation currently in place. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 7 Mayor Nicoli asked what the ground rules for discussion would be at the hearing. Ms. Beery said that the Council could not limit the discussion but they could identify their areas of concern so that the parties could address those specifically. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to can up MLP 97-0010. Motion was approved by a majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Moore voted "no"; Councilor Hunt abstained) 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Scheckla asked for more information on Item 4.5. Mr. Monahan explained that two months ago a local business owner raised the issue of whether or not all business owners paid their business license fee. The business owner pointed out that those who paid the fee were at a competitive disadvantage to those who did not pay the fee. He presented a proposal to the Finance Director on identifying businesses not paying the tax. Staff asked to handle this issue themselves, rather than hiring a consultant. The budget adjustment of $6000 was to fund temporary help to identify businesses not currently paying the business tax, validate the information against the records, and send out notices for payment. He said that this was an education issue, not an enforcement issue. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohl f, to adopt the Consent agenda. Mayor Nicoli asked exactly what "canopies" were covered under Item 4.7. David Scott, Building Official, explained that the Building Code divided the jurisdiction for membrane structures based on size. He said that he knew that Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue did not regulate the Farmers' Market canopies. He said that this was not a change in the Uniform Fire Code. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 17, 24, and July 8 and 15, 1997 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Amend the City of Tigard's ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust Agreement in Accordance with Internal Revenue Code Amendments - Resolution No. 97-30 4.4 Approve Acquisition of Property Located within the Fanno Creek Right of Way (listed in the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program) and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement 4.5 Approve Budget Adjustment for Business Tax Revenue - Resolution No. 97-31 4.6 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Property Acquisition at the Intersection of Walnut and Tiedeman Avenues and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Agreement 4.7 Adopt Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District Ordinance No. 96-01 - Resolution No. 97-32 4.8 Local Contract Review Board: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 8 a. Award Bid to Ward-Henshaw Construction Company for the Menlor Reservoir Project 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: GREENSPACES PROGRAM - PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY'S OFFICIAL LIST OF GREENSPACE PROJECTS AND TO THE PROCESS USED TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS a. Staff Report Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the provisions of the May 1995 Metro Greenspaces bond. These included commitment to a willing seller approach and a- local share provision that passed through funds to the local jurisdictions. Tigard received $750,000. He reviewed the City's mandated public involvement program that resulted in a list of potential greenspace acquisitions. He reported on the acquisitions completed and not completed in the last 14 months since adoption of that list. The City has purchased land on the northern slope of Bull Mountain but the other two properties under negotiation were abandoned when the owner wanted a higher price than the Council had budgeted for. In addition, a partnership deal with the County for forestland property fell through when the owner backed out and sold the property for development. Metro has purchased one property to the north of Woodward Park in cooperation with the City and was negotiating on three other properties. Another partnership opportunity with the County was purchase of the forested land adjacent to the water district property, a deal that was reached this afternoon. Mayor Nicoli asked how much money the City had left, and what could they spend it on. Mr. Roberts said that they had $663,000 left. It could be used for land acquisition and capital improvements, such as trailway construction, parking areas leading into natural areas, or interpretative centers. He mentioned that the CITs indicated strong interest in acquiring land in preference to building trails. Mr. Roberts said that they needed to identify replacement projects for the three projects dropped from the formal list. This required a public involvement process. The deadline for completing acquisitions was September 1998 with six month extensions possible. On the map he pointed out the properties recommended by staff. two Tualatin River properties (already negotiated on), greenway acquisitions, and a property adjacent to power lines. Mr. Roberts suggested hiring a contractor to assist staff with the negotiations with owners to move the process forward as quickly as possible. Alternatives recommendations in the staff report included revisiting sites dropped from the list, one near Cook Park and the Bond and 82"d Avenue parcel. He noted the letter from the City of Tualatin suggesting that Tigard allocate $50;000 of greenspace funds for the design of the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge. He said that trailway construction was the staff s lowest priority recommendation. b. Public Comment > Sterling Marsh, South CIT facilitator, 4090 SW Court, presented the CIT's request to revisit the Gage property (F-5), the property north of Cook Park (F-2), and the HaWanno Creek greenway east of Hall Blvd. (F-1). There was also discussion of the Bull Mountain parcel (F-3). He said that the CIT did emphasize purchase of land over trail construction. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 9 They asked that one parcel not consume the majority of the available Metro Greenspaces money. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the owner of the properties on Hall was not interested in selling which stopped the City from further action. > Beverly Froude, West/Central CIT, reported the CIT proposal to delay the decision on the Greenspaces proposal in order to coordinate the purchases with the parks master plan. The concern was for placement of greenspaces and parks in all areas of Tigard. They supported hiring someone to coordinate the preparation of the parks master plan as soon as possible. Though overall the CIT supported purchasing land, there was a group that felt that Washington County should share in the cost of parcels outside the city limits, while another group felt that such parcels should be purchased by Tigard when they became available, on the grounds that those areas would come into the City in the future anyhow. > Rick Weejo, 8110 SW Bond Street, requested purchase of the Gage property with the funds provided by the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. He pointed out that the land was now worth $500,000 but the Gage family was willing to sell it for $200,000 less than its fair market value because of their commitment to keeping the property as greenspace. He said that the neighborhood has grown impatient and discouraged with all the delays. He recommended acting now to acquire the property. > Tom Murphy, 8152 SW Ashford Street, asked for purchase of the Gage property for preservation as open space. He pointed out the quality of the forested greenspace and its availability, one of the few forested parcels left available within the city limits. He commented that the other properties under consideration were unknowns. He disagreed with the staff recommendation to spend Greenspaces money to hire someone to help purchase land. Mr. Murphy mentioned the $28,000 raised by the neighborhood to assist in.the purchase of the property with $3000 spent for an option that has now expired. He reported that the Wetlands Conservancy (who held the remaining $25,000 in trust) recently sent a letter to the contributors, indicating its belief that the Gage property would not be purchased and asking what they wanted done with the money. He contended that timing was critical in retaining this money for purchase of the Gage property. He reiterated that the Gage sisters were offering the property at 60% of fair market value. He pointed out the extensive citizen support for the purchase of the Gage property. > Brian Pautz said that he had two properties outside the city limits available for sale which he was more interested in seeing remain as open space than in selling for a lot of money. He noted the existing trail running through his Bull Mountain property which was used on a daily basis by bikers and hikers. He mentioned the development plans to build high density duplexes right in front of his property. He said that he thought this area would annex into Tigard soon. He mentioned the benefit Tigard received from the County's purchase of the Cache property and other properties. He spoke to maintaining greenspace in the area in light of the high density going in, and a greenspace's potential to alleviate the social problems associated with high density. He said that areas on the site were well suited for interpretative centers. > Jim Solier, 14890 SW Sunrise Lane, spoke in support of purchase of the large Bull Mountain property as an opportunity to acquire a piece of property almost the size of Cook TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 10 Park. He spoke to acquiring it prior to annexation before development occurred close to it. He pointed out the year round stream, wildlife habitat, and second growth forest. He commented that with the increasing population base along Scholls Ferry Road and the lack of greenspaces, there was no place for the children to play. The children have found this property and used it daily. He noted the existing trail system and an area ideal for an interpretive center. Mr. Solier said that if something was not done, this area would look like Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. He referenced a 1995 consultant report that documented that 59% of the forested area that the consultants had studied on Bull Mountain disappeared within two years. He commented that a lot of the owners of this land lived on the street right up from it, and would almost be willing to donate the land if they knew it would be maintained as greenspace. He spoke in support of a negotiator. He stated that he canvassed the neighborhood and found momentum to get this property. Mr. Pautz mentioned that two years ago Washington County placed this property as 95 on their list but ran out of money. The interest was still there to purchase this land. > Beverly Fronde, speaking as a private citizen, supported Mr. Solier's and Mr. Pautz's comments. She said that it would be a wise move to purchase this land now. > Diane Jelderks,10045 SW Garrett, South CIT member, concurred that CITs wanted land first and trails second, as connectivity was very important to them. She spoke to making a connection between the residential neighborhood and the pathway currently under construction between Ash and Main Streets. She said that this section was originally in the CIP but was removed when they went through the Metro process. It has fallen through the. cracks but was an important connection for the city. She said that the neighborhood strongly supported this connection. She asked that it be added to the scope of the project on Ash Avenue. > Eric Johanes, 8102 SW Ashford Street, spoke for his and his neighbor's support of purchase of the Gage property. He said that many in their neighborhood also supported it. > Evelyn Beach, ?530 SW 72°d, read a letter from Dayle Beach nominating a strip along both sides of Red Rock Creek from SW 68`h to SW 72"d Streets for the Greenspaces program. She said that Red Rock Creek went through a steep ravine at this point on property owned by the Oregon Education Association. It was a beautiful greenspace and unsuitable for development. She mentioned that there were no greenspace plans for the Triangle. Mr. Roberts said that he knew what area Ms. Beach was referring to but did not remember why it had not been considered. He said that it had not come up during the public process. He said that while he believed that the property was for sale, it was not currently on the market. > Nancy Younger, Sunrise Lane, spoke in support of developing a park or greenspace on the Bull Mountain land, especially in light of the high density development allowed by the County without accompanying parks. She said that her children grew up playing on that land, and that people used to ride horses through there. She noted the native wildlife and flora on the land. She encouraged the Council to take advantage of this opportunity before the land was developed. She said that the Renaissance Homes developer has said that he would not build down to that greenspace; the City could probably expect donation of some land for greenspace. 1IGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 11 Ms. Younger spoke to revisiting City development policy and requiring apartment or housing developments to include a neighborhood park for x number of many houses. She said that without neighborhood parks, the children would have no place to play. > Chris Counts, 9600 Riverwood Lane, South CIT member, spoke to the planning process for parks as a fragmented process that did not build public confidence. He suggested creating an overlay map that clearly showed the location of existing parks and where greenspaces could fit into that distribution. He spoke to parks as "green infrastructure" and noted the values citizens mentioned tonight associated with parks: places to play, wildlife habitat, watershed values. He contended that the fragmentation in planning led to a lack of using professional tools to move forward in a scientific manner in planning greenspaces, parks and ballfields. He spoke to using professional tools to restore public confidence. These tools might include objective ranking criteria. Mr. Counts said that he favored the F-2 site, next to Cook Park, even though he understood that the owner did not want to sell. He supported the recommendations Mr. Marsh presented from the South CIT. He urged the Council to use the scientific tools available for parks and greenspace planning. He mentioned the issue of whether or not to wait for the parks master plan. He held that all they got out of the 1987 parks master plan was the controversial Cook Park expansion. He said that if they were going to wait for the master plan, then the City move forward in a positive and constructive manner once that information was received. If they were not going to wait for the master plan, then the City should apply these tools now. > Susan Vossler, 9500 SW Riverwood Lane, supported reconsideration of opening negotiations with the property owner of the land next to Cook Park. It was a natural extension of Cook Park with wetlands, trees and access for high school student biology field studies. > Tom Strong, 10465 SW 92"d, pointed out that many greenspaces currently available for parks had no access for a lot of people. He cited the Fanno Creek parkway that ran from SW North Dakota across Scholls Ferry to the Greenway Park in Beaverton. He said that he lived half a mile from that pathway but neither he nor his children could not get to it. There were no sidewalks, North Dakota was too dangerous to ride bikes on, and there was no adjacent parking. He spoke for consideration that access to the greenspaces was important. At some point, the City would have to spend money for capital improvements. Mr. Hendryx summarized a letter received today from Oscar & Dolores Clark requesting consideration of the forest site on Fonner Street currently under development review. c. Council Questions/Comments Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think that Council would put together a formal list tonight. He asked staff to return with a report showing the estimated cost for the properties and a map showing the exact location of each property. Councilor Hunt asked that only properties actually for sale be noted on the map. Mayor Nicoli asked what the status was of the parks master plan. Mr. Hendryx said that staff sent out RFPs with a submission deadline at the end of August. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 12 Mayor Nicoli suggested that the parks master plan consultant make some early recommendations on appropriate park locations. Mr. Roberts explained that staff recommended target areas rather than specific properties. Identification of specific properties meant that they had to amend the greenspaces agreement, and often led to more difficulty in purchasing said property. Councilor Scheckla asked how the Tualatin pedestrian bridge fit into the Greenspaces program. Mr. Roberts said that it was an eligible project recommended by the City of Tualatin who has requested matching funds from Tigard towards design of the bridge. This would provide a connection within the Tualatin River trail system. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the importance of moving quickly. The longer the City waited, the more these properties increased in value, and the less the City could purchase for its dollars. Mr. Monahan asked if valuation was of concern to the Council. He mentioned that in the past prices have changed once the City indicated interest. He noted that Mr. Pautz' letter did not indicate prices. Mr. Roberts said that staff did have a letter from Mr. Pautz with prices but it was not part of the public record. Mr. Pautz stated that he was willing to negotiate his stated price. Ms. Jelderks asked about the path she had mentioned. Mayor Nicoli said that staff would include everything mentioned tonight on the list for Council consideration in more depth. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. for a break Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. 6. UPDATE: TREE PLANTING PROGRAM Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented a proposal to meet the Council goal of planting 2000 trees in Tigard by the year 2000. It was a three phase project. The first phase was planting trees in parks, greenways, and wetlands between now and November, including using volunteers on October 25, "Make a Difference Day." Staff would hire a landscape architect to help design and layout where trees were needed, and to work with the parks master plan to coordinate with the tree planting program. Mr. Wegner reviewed the second phase to begin in September or October. Staff would meet with public agencies, such as schools, to develop a tree planting program in conjunction with Arbor Day and Earth Day festivities in April. The third phase was developing a complete street tree program, looking at standards and maintenance responsibilities. He mentioned that while the current ordinance placed the maintenance responsibility for street trees on the homeowner, it was not necessarily economically feasible for the homeowner to do so. He cited a recent case of a homeowner who hired an arborist to look at a street tree with a $500+ bill to take care of the tree. Mr. Wegner noted Mr. Martin's suggestion to create a mitigation site. He said that staff was willing to do that within this process. He said that they had money in the tree mitigation fund for use. In addition the Cook Park CIP projects included trees and landscaping. He reported that staff discovered a need for wetlands mitigation on the Menlor site which would be done at TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 13 Cook Park. He mentioned the offer of a businessman to possibly donate trees. He said that the goal was to plant the last tree on December 31, 1999. The Council agreed by consensus to go with the staff recommendation on this proposal. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER: TMC 18.152 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Will D'Andrea, Associate Planner, explained that the selling of new communication licenses by the FCC as a result of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 led to an increase in the number of requests for cellular towers and to increased concern by local communities about the need to regulate the proliferation of these towers. He said that wireless communication facilities were considered utilities under the existing Code standards. However the Code currently had no specific language directed towards wireless communication facilities. He said that the attached proposed ordinance was modeled on the Oregon City ordinance with input from wireless providers. Mr. D'Andrea reported that the proposed ordinance included minor revisions requested by the Planning Commission who recommended approval of the ordinance on July 21. He mentioned the notice given to the CITs of the Planning Commission and Council hearings on the ordinance. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the purposes of the regulations, including ensuring that wireless communication facilities were regulated in a manner that minimized the visual impact and encouraged collocation. Using overhead graphics, he reviewed the provisions of the proposed ordinance and the constraints of the Telecommunications Act. Mr. D'Andrea said that while the Act preserved the local government's authority to regulate these facilities, it prohibited regulations that would effectively prohibit provision of service or discriminate among providers. The environmental effects of emissions were regulated through the FCC, not the local jurisdictions. Approvals had to be granted in a timely fashion and in writing. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the three tiers of the proposed system. The first tier dealt with uses permitted outright, including collocation in commercial, industrial, and residential zones within certain height criteria. The second tier was the director's decision or staff level review with notice, allowing new towers in commercial and industrial zones and in public open space, and collocation above the height criteria. He noted these setback and spacing between tower requirements. Mr. D'Andrea said that the third tier was the conditional use process requiring a public hearing for towers in residential zones (except for public open spaces). He mentioned the intent to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 14 protect points of visual interest or views, and the requirement to demonstrate that no other alternative was available. He reviewed the setback and spacing requirements for conditional use, and mentioned the requirement to submit three to five photos of the proposed facility and affected residential properties. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the coefficient protocol that required applicants to make a good faith effort to find a collocation site before proposing a new tower. He listed the criteria and documentation for collocation. Mr. D'Andrea recommended approval of the ordinance. d. Public Testimony > Kevin Martin, Sprint PCS, Land Use Coordinator, said that he had only two issues with this ordinance following the Planning Commission hearing. The ordinance structure was similar to that used by other communities in the region. He asked if the noise standards were more restrictive for this use than for other uses. If so, he disagreed, contending that they should be the same. He expressed concern at the extreme difficulty of meeting the variance criteria for a hardship in dealing with setbacks and tower spacing (Section 18.02.24). He advocated using adjustment standards rather than variances to allow greater flexibility in the placement of the towers. He cited the example of siting a tower within a grove of trees inside the setback area as opposed to placing it out in the open in accordance with the setback standards. Mayor Nicoli asked what noise was generated by these facilities. Mr. Martin said that the noise level of the PCS facilities (the size of a traffic control box) was very low because they did not use air conditioners. The larger structures did use air conditioning but the noise level was no different than cooling equipment on top of a building. > Spencer Vail, AT&T Wireless, concurred with Mr. Martin's comments. He said that his primary concern was the variance section of the Code and the need to prove hardship. He cited an example of an application before the Hearings Officer in which the applicant, the neighbors, and the staff all agreed that the facility should be located in the comer of the property but the setback standards did not allow it and he could not prove hardship. He contended that the public would be better served with greater flexibility for innovative design and placement. He suggested developing criteria similar to the criteria developed for the protection of visual points. He supported the ordinance as written with this one change. He concurred that the air conditioning of his facilities were no louder than residential air conditioning. Councilor Scheckla asked what Mr. Vail considered a visual impact. Mr. Vail said that he did not know. He spoke to putting specific language in the Code to govern how that was decided. > Tony Cargill spoke to the issue of the aesthetic impact of the machinery. He said that these towers had the aesthetic appeal of a crowbar and asked that the City encourage the providers to make a serious effort to add some aesthetic appeal to these facilities. e. Council Questions TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 15 s • Councilor Moore asked if landscaping was required for these facilities. Mr. D'Andrea said there were requirements for landscape screening of the accessory structures. Councilor Scheckla commented that a pole suddenly appearing in a neighborhood certainly did have a visual impact. He asked how that was addressed and who determined the visual impact. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the criteria for minimizing the visual impact (page 4), including trying to find other locations on the property to minimize the impact. He said that the Hearings Officer reviewed the question of visual impact. Councilor Scheckla asked if unacceptable visual impact was discovered after the fact, would the providers have to take the tower down. Mr. D'Andrea said no. He commented on the difficulty of protecting visual points of interest and in determining where those were. He reiterated the FCC requirement that local jurisdictions could not create regulations that effectively prohibited provision of service. The balance lay between protecting visual impact and complying with FCC regulations. Councilor Moore commented that, as he understood it, the viewshed was what the view would be with the pole in it. He noted the requirement for three to five photo simulations of the proposed facility for affected residential properties and public rights of way. Councilor Scheckla asked who decided how many facilities were needed and the spacing between the towers. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the spacing requirements in the ordinance. He said that the industry determined the number of poles needed based on their provision of service. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a provision for removal of the towers in the event of more advanced technology that no longer required the towers. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the abandonment provision that required a provider to take down a tower not used for six months. Councilor Scheckla asked if the local governments had any control at all. Mr. D'Andrea said that it was limited but they could regulate some things. Ms. Beery commented that, based on her experience in this field, she found this that ordinance did achieve the regulation allowed to local governments while still complying with the FCC requirements. Councilor Rohlf asked if the ordinance took a conservative or aggressive approach to protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of these facilities. Ms. Beery said that while it was not really conservative, neither was it as aggressive as it could be. She cited the collocation protocol as a factor in reducing the number of facilities. She described the ordinance as a series of concomitant elements which, as a total, were intended to result in locating these facilities where they would have the least impact. Councilor Hunt suggested approving this ordinance tonight and directing staff to return with recommendations on the concerns raised regarding adjustment standards versus. variances. Ms. Beery said doing so would place the City in a good position. She pointed out that the variance criteria was a more aggressive protection for the City by placing more of the burden on the industry. She commented that use of a collapsible design tower could mean lower setback requirements, although it was not included in the ordinance. Mayor Nicoli expressed his concern that the variance criteria might prevent a better placement of a tower on a property if that better placement was within the setback. He spoke for TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 16 flexibility in placement of the towers, especially if they could be hidden in tree groves. He expressed concern also about the 2000 foot spacing in commercial zones and 500 foot spacing in residential zones. He spoke to encouraging placement of more than one tower in the ugly industrial sections of town in a cluster as opposed to a "picket fence line." Councilor Moore suggested directing staff to identify certain locations where the Council would accept spacing less than the required amounts. E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. D'Andrea recommended adoption of the ordinance. h. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-08 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-08. The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 97-08, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, (ZOA 97-0002), BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 152 (18.152), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilor Rohlf commented that there were so many loopholes in these regulations that the providers could put their facilities where ever they wanted to. He said that it was distressing to him that they could not regulate this utility as they could any other utility. He said that he would support the motion because it was the best they could do. Mr. Monahan noted that the ordinance did not include an emergency clause, therefore it would be effective in 30 days. Amendment to the motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to include an emergency clause. Mr. Monahan said that the reason for the emergency clause was the Council's concern that other applications would come in under the old regulations with a potential negative impact on the neighborhoods. Motion was approved by majority roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no:") Councilor Hunt asked that staff return in a reasonable period of time to discuss the concerns raised this evening. Councilor Rohlf asked to add a comment referencing protection of neighborhood livability and impacts to the neighborhoods (Section 18.152.010). 8. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (Approximately 4,172 Square Feet of Public Right of Way abutting SW Pacific Highway (99W), south of Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 17 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing and read the hearing title. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mr. Hendryx reviewed the location of the right of way requested for vacation. He said that staff did discuss this with ODOT and the ordinance reflected ODOT's concern about retaining adequate right of way for a future widening of 99W. Councilor Rohlf asked what the advantage was to vacating this right of way now if in the future they might need it back. Mr. Hendryx said that the advantage was that the property owner would maintain it. It would add a minimal amount to the tax base. Mr. D'Andrea explained that this public street with a wide landscape strip looked like a private driveway. The City owned half of the landscape strip, and the owner of the other half has requested vacation of the landscape strip, but not of the public street. He said that a condition of the vacation was the property owner's agreement to rededicate the right of way if necessary. The street could only be closed 'if the someone went through the vacation procedure to request vacation of the public right of way of the street. Mr. D'Andrea explained that this portion of the right of way was the remnant of an old ODOT frontage road which was vacated on development of the Tigard Marketplace. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearing standards and criteria. > Grace Bean said that her question of whether or not the road would be closed has been answered. > Michael Magus, attorney for the property owner, a Michigan corporation, reviewed the history of this right of way. He said that this little piece was overlooked when the rest of the right of way was transferred to the owner of the property at the time of the Tigard Marketplace development. He said that they were also asking ODOT to sell their piece to them but ODOT's process took longer than a street vacation. He explained that they maintained the entire island, it had an irrigation system in it and easements into the shopping center. Mr. Magus said that they discovered during some research that they did not own the entire island, as they thought they did, and that they were simply trying to rectify the problem. Mr. Magus said that they would enter into a similar agreement with ODOT to rededicate the right of way, should 99W be widened. He asked that the ordinance specifically state that the property will inure to Tax Lot 100 so it would appear that way on the tax rolls. He commented that neither ODOT nor the City Public Works Department wanted to maintain the island. > Tony Cargill asked why $50,000 to $60,000 worth of property was being given away as opposed to selling it at public auction. Ms. Beery explained that a property dedicated for public right of way did not mean the City owned the land. Rather they held it with limitations TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 18 of use as right of way. She said that the only legal way to undo a dedication was through a vacation which meant that the land automatically reverted to the abutting property owner. e. Council Questions E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the ordinance. g. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-09 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance'No. 97-09. The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title. ORDINANCE 97-09, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,172 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ABUTTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY (99W), SOUTH OF SW PARK STREET AND ADJACENT TO TIGARD MARKETPLACE. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC. (MFS) Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that MFS, a subsidiary of WorldCom, was a competitive access provider in telecommunications, running the same type of service as Electric Lightwaves has provided in the Portland/Vancouver area for three to four years. He said that the City entered into a franchise agreement with Electric Lightwaves in 1993 -for which they charged 5% of the gross revenue generated within the city. He said that this franchise agreement was virtually identical to the Electric Lightwaves' agreement. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Ordinance 97- 10. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 97-10, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC., THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND TO PLACE, ERECT, LAY, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN, UPON, OVER, AND UNDER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, ROADS, AND PUBLIC PLACES POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 19 10. UPDATE: TIGARD TRIANGLE Mr. Hendryx reported on the July 22 workshop conducted by staff to test large scale development against the adopted street plan and design standards for the Tigard Triangle. He said that participants included big box retail developers and Triangle property owners. He stated that the five hour workshop generated valuable discussion. Staff would circulate the draft report summary of the information gained at the workshop amongst the participants prior to bringing it to Council. He mentioned that citizens attended the workshop as observers but only those specifically invited participated in the discussions. He said that the draft report summary would include a list of issues and standards that could be changed to allow big box retail development within the Triangle, if Council wanted to allow that type of development. Councilor Moore requested staff to verify that the workshop participants have in fact received the summary report. 11. COUNCIL REVIEW - REQUEST BY STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC SEWER (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) Mr. Hendryx mentioned the intense discussion in the community regarding exactly what the design standards for the Tigard Triangle meant. He cited the provision in the standards that required all new development, including major renovations or remodeling projects that resulted in conversion to a non-single family use, to dedicate and approve public streets, to connect to public facilities such as. sewer, water and storm drainage, and to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Triangle. He said the intent was to prevent haphazard conversion of houses so that the converted houses would be an asset to the community, not a liability. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the current situation in which a property owner wanted to sell a house for conversion to a business use but was more than 1500 feet away from a sewer line. He said that he interpreted the standards to mean that they had to connect to the sewer with no recourse. Mr. Hendryx noted the Tigard programs for providing sewer facilities, including creation of an LID, the neighborhood sewer extension program (applicable only in residential areas), and reimbursement districts. He reviewed the Council's options, including the status quo, getting involved in construction of sewer facilities, changing the standards to allow the neighborhood sewer program to include mixed use or commercial areas, or requiring the property owner to pay estimated engineering costs into a fund for future installment of sewer into the area (a sewer improvement fund). Mr. Monahan said that they could develop a program that allowed single properties converting to business use to remain on septic systems (if certified as functional by the County) for a limited amount of time until the sewer was extended to allow a connection. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that this was a requirement unique to the Triangle and did not exist in other areas of the city. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Craigs had been in the middle of selling their home when this situation arose. Mr. Monahan explained that, while there was still confusion on all the facts TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 20 leading up to this situation, staff met with the buyer's representatives and the property owner to discuss the options available. Mayor Nicoli commented that this situation was not atypical of what would happen in the Triangle where single family homes would convert to business uses house by house. In this case, the people were more than 1500 feet away from a sewer line, and did not have the money to install that amount of sewer line. The City wanted to encourage development in the Triangle, but this requirement would prevent the people with homes on septic systems from selling their homes. Mayor Nicoli spoke to the City being more proactive and allowing use of sewer fund moneys in this zone, as had been done with the project on Tippitt. He commented that the City would have to put in more infrastructure in the Triangle to encourage the kind of development they wanted to see. He said that he did not want to penalize the current small property owners in the Triangle. Mrs. Craig said that there was interest from the other property owners on the street to connect to city sewer. Mayor Nicoli said that another option to go along with Mr. Monahan's suggestion of certified functional septic systems was to ask for a non-remonstrance for when the sewer came in. Mr. Monahan explained that the Craigs could install a sewer pump to connect to a closer line. The City did not promote pumping but would honor that type of connection if the Craigs chose to go in that direction. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that if the Craigs went with the pump, they in effect penalized their neighbors when the sewer line was put in because they would not want to participate in that line. Councilor Hunt asked why storm water was not included in this discussion also. Mr. Hendryx explained that the storm water sewer was easier to connect to in this situation. Mayor Nicoli asked if the Craigs would have to put in curbs, sidewalks, or street lights under the standards. Mr. Hendryx said that they would have to do a half street improvement for their property to convert to commercial. Mayor Nicoli suggested allowing several homes on a street to convert to commercial and then doing the entire street rather than having piecemeal half street improvements. He said that he saw the half street requirement as more applicable to other areas of Tigard that had large existing commercial properties. Mr. Hendryx said that was an option. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that if an LID process was used, subsequent buyers might not realize that they had this obligation. In addition, waivers of remonstrance were typically only good for 10 years. If the City did not move forward with the improvement, the agreement could lapse, leaving the City with no way to get the improvement built. He reviewed the political process needed to assess the properties for the improvements, questioning how did they handle a converted house versus a house still in residential use. He commented that they could get a cash sum for the property owners, based on the engineering estimates, and hold it in an account for the future street improvements. He recommended that action over an LID. Councilor Rohlf asked what the cost was for 1500 foot of sewer line. Mrs. Craig said it was $35,000 to $40,000. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 21 Councilor Rohlf commented that they have worked hard to develop standards for the Triangle, and that he was not willing to trash them. He spoke to the City providing infrastructure as a way to help development move in the direction that they wanted to see it move. Mr. Monahan said that they could use the sewer account funds. Staff could also look into a variety of funds to contribute to building infrastructure to stimulate development, as suggested by Councilor Rohlf. Councilor Hunt said that he would like to resolve the sewer question tonight but discuss the other issues more fully, including the financial side, before making a decision on other infrastructure elements. Councilor Rohlf asked if people from other areas in the Triangle might come and ask for the same thing. Mayor Nicoli said that that was possible. Mr. Monahan commented that they would want to create a program to allow funding of infrastructure. Possibilities included developing a duplicate reimbursement program for commercial areas or a program to provide the sewer line without request by property owners. Councilor Scheckla asked what the time frame was for the Craigs' situation. Mr. Craig said that they were supposed to close on Friday. He said that he would hate to waste the money on a pump if a sewer line would be installed shortly. Mr. Monahan commented that the Craigs did have a County certificate for a sewer system that would function for a commercial property. Perhaps the Council could make an interpretation allowing the use of the septic tank for a short period of time while staff put the sewer program in place. Mayor Nicoli concurred with that suggestion to help the Craigs with their immediate situation. He said that he also favored moving ahead with a program on street infrastructure. Mr. Hendryx said that, based on Council direction, he would interpret the provision to mean that, if sewer was not readily available, an applicant could provide funds that would equal their proportionate share of the cost of installing the sewer line. Tony Cargill asked if this would apply to other transactions coming up in the next few weeks. Mayor Nicoli said yes, if they were converting their use. Mr. Cargill said that most people east of 72"d Avenue were interested in converting houses into individual businesses as opposed to selling to a developer accumulating properties for a large development. He expressed concern that a sewer line of adequate size to serve future development be installed. He asked if a variance was a possibility for the Craigs but supported the Council action. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that the Craigs would not qualify for a variance. Ms. Beery concurred. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Rite Center Update Mr. Monahan reported on his conversation with Kim Brown of Interfaith Outreach Services regarding the Rite Center. They have received their land use approval and expected to break ground in early September, once two small buildings on the property were demolished. They TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 22 intended to operate a shelter this year out of the Methodist church until the Rite Center was completed. The Methodist church postponed remodeling the portion of their building used for the shelter until Interfaith could move into the Rite Center. Interfaith would not operate a severe weather shelter this year. > Councilor Hunt reported that staff informed him that the landscaping approved for the Senior Center should be completed next week. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:58 p.m. '2Q cam/ -01 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: LZ/ - or, City of igard Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 23 "A~ IS RECD 0 C T 27 1997 MILES DOWNING 684-1334 P.O. BOX 230972 968-5798 fax TIGARD OR 97281-0972 TO: CITY OF TIGARD JIM HENDRIX RE: PARTITION 97-0010 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ARBORIST, HALSTEADS ARBORICULTURE CONSULTANTS, I WILL DIRECT THE LOGGERS TO PROTECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE PROTECTED TREES BY FALLING THE LOGGED TREES AWAY FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THE PROTECTED TREES. AND I WILL TELL THEM NOT TO CUT THE PROTECTED TREES. AND I WILL TELL THEM NOT TO HURT THE PROTECTED TREES. Y'V-, V-- ~ MILES Do G %qo ~:O4 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees" CONSULTANTS David Halstead. Consultant B S PC) Box t 182. Tualatin, OR 97062 Phone: 15031 245-1383 September 5, 1997 Mr. Miles Downing 11600 SW Greenberg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Tree assessment Location: 111600 SW Greenberg) Road Subject: Care and Preservation I have inspected all of the trees located on the proposed three lots east side of j 92nd Avenue and north of 11600 SW Greenberg Road, the Site Plan and the Tree Site Plan for the purpose of determining what trees can be preserved and what protection and preservation will be needed. All of the trees that are within the driveways, house foot print, within 10 feet from any excavation of the above and/or utilities and any tree which is not structurally a sound and/or diseased will need to be removed. The following trees have been tagged, identified and visually inspected, from the ground, for health and structure. These trees have never had any formal care and it is possible that there are major flaws, not visible from the ground, that could render the tree hazardous. Once the trees have been climbed and 4 thoroughly inspected from top to bottom and the trunk has been and core y sampled for disease it is possible that the tree could be condemned and would have to be removed. ,I mention the disease because there are signs of 4 different incurable diseases within this small grove which has made several trees structurally unsound. I Further, any tree within 75 feet of a diseased tree is probably infected. PRESERVATION: JK90367: 22 inch at diameter breast height (DBH) Douglas-fir tree, 75 feet tall } with a 22 foot limb spread. Tree is very healthy and structurally strong. Tree will require fence protection only. The fencing needs to be 15 feet from the base of the tree and in the shape of a half circle starting and ending at the north fence. J Page 2 September 5, 1997 Reference: Tree assessment Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject. Care and Preservation JK90368: 48 inch at DBH Douglas-fir tree, 120 feet tall with a limb spread of 40 feet. Tree is very healthy and fair in structure. There are several signs of seam splits and minor flaws throughout the main trunk. In addition there are several limbs throughout the tree which are cracked, broken and/or heavy with excess weight. Tree will require fence protection from north neighbors fence, south, on both sides and 15 feet past the tree. I recommend the tree be pruned for safety and to lessen wind throw and therapeutically fertilized. JK90373: 48 inch at DBH Douglas-fir tree, 120 feet tall with a limb spread of 40 feet. Tree is very healthy and fair in structure. There are a few signs of seam splits and minor flaws throughout the main trunk. In addition there are several limbs throughout the tree which are cracked, broken and/or heavy with excess weight. JK90373 AREA: There are 6 small dogwoods, 3 seedling cherries and several small species of trees within the protection area of the tree numbered JK90373 that needs to be preserved as well. Fencing needs to start approximately 57 feet west and 55 feet south of the northeast comer and then join together to form a triangle around the tree and the preservation area. REMOVALS: I have tagged and inspected the remaining 8 Douglas-fir trees, numbered JK90374 -78, JK90397-99 located between the three lots for the purpose of identifying the trees and their severe defects, both in structure and health. I have made several notes on the obvious structural problems such as boring insect, galls and conks which is a strong indication of "Laminated Root Rot". In addition, the trees have broken tops, codominate stems, less than one third foliage- -all at the top, signs of up rooting and very shallow roots. Page 3 September 5, 1997 Reference: Tree assessment Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Care and Preservation This combination of problems will cause the trees to blow down during normal winter storms. Since the target area will be increased these trees are considered hazardous. If I can be of further assistance or if more technical information is needed please call me immediately. Sincerely, David Hlastead BS CA HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "specialists in the care and CONSULTANTS preservation of trees" David Halstead. Consultant B S PO Box t 182, Tualatin. OR 97062 Phone 1503) 245.1383 October 6, 1997 ` Mr. Miles Downing 11600 SW Greenberg Road Tigard. OR 97223 Reference: Tree Care and Preservation Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Douglas-fir Trees 1 have inspected the three Douglas-fir trees located on.the north side of the property for the purpose of establishing a "Tree Protection and Preservation Program" for their continued survival. The following are my recommendations for the continued survival of the three Douglas-fir trees, numbered JK90367-68 and 73, which have been selected for preservation. I have completed a thorough inspection of the trees including a 16 inch diameter drilling of the trunk and several of the roots and found the trees free of any structural decay. There are 3 seam splits on tree numbered JK90368, but there is no separation of wood. Trees numbered Jk90368 and 73 are heavy with excess limb weight, broken and overcrowded branches, all of which can be { corrected with Class 111 Pruning. Class 111 will thin the frees protecting them from wind throw, reduce weight from heavy limbs, including repair and/or prune off dead and damaged limbs. It is important that this pruning take place before and/or during the lot clearing for economic reasons. In addition there is a 12 inch wild cherry tree located on the west side of JK90373 that needs the top portion pruned to reduce heavy weight. As of this writing the soil around the trees is excellent as far as organic matter and nutrients are concerned. It is important to keep the soil around the trees undisturbed during the lot clearing and the construction phase. Regardless of how careful the construction phase is the trees will still be subjected to construction trauma. Therapeutic fertilizing needs to be completed in order to over stimulate the trees health which will help them adapt to the forthcoming construction. Page 2 October 6, 1997 Reference: Tree Care and Preservation Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Douglas-fir Trees Fencing needs to be either hog wire and/or tree barrier fencing attached to 6 foot tall steel post placed 8 feet apart, 2 feet deep. Two single strand of wire needs to be interwoven through the fencing and attached to each fence post at the top and 2 feet above ground. There are two Douglas-fir trees (number JK90374 and 75) that needs to be removed. Both trees are within the root zone area (proposed tree protection fencing) and will need the stumps removed by grinding rather than being pulled out. If the protective fencing is erected and maintained around the tree's root zone before the lot clearing, and during construction The three trees are pruned and therapeutically fertilized and all work within the fencing is done under the consent and guidance of the consulting arborist the trees. will have an excellent chance of survival. (See fencing diagram and description HAC report dated September 5, 1997 and Tree Preservation Plot Plan). If I can be of further assistance or if more technical information is needed please call me immediately. Sincerely, TZ , CQ~ Da'1vii~d Halstead BS CA YARD YA D N(]USE SHED cytEU avefr+G _ Q JK'A399 '1 C • i , a' r C o ~ u37b ~ u P Z 0 9037 ° O 9037 ° 039 0 0.K O a YARD SHED W ~ '~~,.~..,-„yam •,~i1i:t° a f] Y p a JUNE 26 1997 ,V ML~ if 4 NpR T N SCALC 1-=50' ,1 rspY~! HAZARD PRUNING _ Pruning Standard for Class III Pruning This standard, revised in 1989, is provided by the National Arborist Association to assist tree service companies, utilities, municipalities, governmental agencies, architects, landscape architects, and others in writing contract specifications for tree pruning. It is not intended to be a "how-to" guide but to define the limits and criteria for arboricultural work, recognizing that regional practices may dictate variations in this standard. It was prepared by the Standard Practices Committee of the National Arborist Association, Inc., a professional trade association founded in 1938. Hazard pruning is recommended where safety considerations are paramount. Hazard pruning shall consist of the removal of dead, diseased, decayed, and obviously weak branches, two inches (5 cm) in diameter or greater a. All cuts shall be made as close as possible to the trunk or parent limb, without cutting into the branch collar or leaving a protruding stub (see Diagram A). Bark at the edge of all pruning cuts should remain firmly attached. b. All branches too large to support with one hand shall be precut to avoid splitting or tearing of the bark (see Diagram B). Where necessary, ropes or other equipment should be used to lower large branches or stubs to the ground. c. Treatment of cuts and wounds with wound dressing or paints has not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay, and is not generally recommended for that reason. Wound dressing over infected wood may stimulate the decay process. If wounds are painted for cosmetic or other reasons, then materials non-toxic to the cambium layer of meristematic tissue must be used. Care must be taken to apply a thin coating of the material only to the exposed wood. CUT B , CUTA y ~ CUT t~ / ~~1i !lf{ COLLAR CUT C DIAGRAM A DIAGRAM B i:,ti Hazard Pruning - Continued d. Old injuries are to be inspected. Those not closing properly and where the callus growth is not already completely established should be bark traced if the bark appears loose or damaged. Such tracing shall not penetrate the xylem (sapwood), and margins shall be kept rounded. e. Equipment that will damage the bark and cambium layer should not be used on or in the tree. For example, the use of climbing spurs (hooks, irons) is not an acceptable work practice for pruning operations on live trees. Sharp tools shall be used so that clean cuts will be made at all times. f. All cut limbs shall be removed from the crown upon completion of the pruning. g. Trees susceptible to serious infectious diseases should not be pruned at the time of year during which the pathogens causing the diseases or the insect vectors are most active. Similarly, if pruning wounds may attract harmful insects, pruning should be timed so as to avoid insect infestation. h. All visible girdling roots are to be reported to a supervisor and/or the owner. i. The presence of any disease condition, fungus fruit bodies, decayed trunk or branches, split crotches or branches, cracks, or other structural weakness should be reported in writing to a supervisor and/or the owner, and corrective measures recommended. ® COPYRIGHT,1989 NATIONAL ARBORIST ASSOCIATION, P. 0. Box 1094, Amherst, New Hampshire 03031. (603) 673-3311 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees" CONSULTANTS David Halstead. Consultant B.S PO Box 1182. Tualatin, OR 97062 Phone. (5031245-1383 October 6, 1997 ` Mr. Miles Downing 11600 SW Greenberg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Tree Care and Preservation Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Douglas-fir Trees I have inspected the three Douglas-fir trees located on the north side of the property for the purpose of establishing a "Tree Protection and Preservation ' Program" for their continued survival. The following are my recommendations for the continued survival of the three Douglas-fir trees, numbered JK90367-68 and 73, which have been selected for preservation. I have completed a thorough inspection of the trees including a 16 inch diameter drilling of the trunk and several of the roots and found the trees free of any structural decay. There are 3 seam splits on tree numbered JK90368, but there is no separation of wood. Trees numbered Jk90368 and 73 are heavy with excess limb weight, broken and overcrowded branches, all of which can be corrected with Class 111 Pruning. Class 111 will thin the trees protecting them from wind throw, reduce weight from heavy limbs, including repair and/or prune off dead and damaged limbs. It is important that this pruning take place before and/or during the lot clearing for economic reasons. In addition there is a 12 inch wild cherry tree located on the west side of JK90373 that needs the top portion pruned to reduce heavy weight. As of this writing the soil around the trees is excellent as far as organic matter and nutrients are concerned. It is important to keep the soil around the trees undisturbed during the lot clearing and the construction phase. Regardless of how careful the construction phase is the trees will still be subjected to construction trauma. Therapeutic fertilizing needs to be completed in order to over stimulate the trees health which will help them adapt to the I~ forthcoming constriction. Page 2 October 6, 199 7 Reference: Tree Care and Preservation Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Douglas-fir Trees Fencing needs to be either hog wire and/or tree barrier fencing attached to 6 foot tall steel post placed 8 feet apart, 2 feet deep. Two single strand of wire needs to be interwoven through the fencing and attached to each fence post at the top and 2 feet above ground. There are two Douglas-fir trees (number JK90374 and 75) that needs to be removed. Both trees are within the root zone area (proposed tree protection fencing) and will need the stumps removed by grinding rather than being pulled out. If the protective fencing is erected and maintained around the tree's root zone before the lot clearing, and during construction The three trees are pruned and therapeutically fertilized and all work within the fencing is done under the consent and guidance of the consulting arborist the trees. will have an excellent chance of survival. (See fencing diagram and description HAC report dated September 5, 1997 and Tree Preservation Plot Plan). If I can be of further assistance or if more technical information is needed please call me immediately. Sincerely, David Halstead BS CA ANZARM CITY OF TIGARD October 31, 1997 OREGON Miles Downing 9757 SW McDonald St. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: TREE REMOVAL (MLP 97-00W The City of Tigard has reviewed the tree removal and protection plan that was conditioned by City Council. Furthermore, the fencing identified in the plan has . been field checked. The plan and fencing have been found to meet the conditions imposed. Those trees identified for removal may be removed. ames N.P. Hendryx Mark Roberts Director of Community Deve4ent Associate Planner 1ACDADMUERREEUIMIDOWN ING.APP 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Exhibit B Resolution No. 97- City Council Condition of Approval for Minor Land Partition, Downing, 92nd Avenue - MLP 97-0010: Applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Director for approval, a tree plan that demonstrates how, and assures that, the trees identified for retention on Exhibit 1 shall be protected and retained. After the tree plan is implemented (those identified for removal are removed), should it be determined by an arborist that these specified trees must be removed, due to disease or damage, those trees shall be replaced with fir trees of a minimum of four inches in caliper in a location as close as practical to location of the trees removed. This condition shall apply until occupancy of the individual dwellings. J - vt1 r take e.,. X11 br iAadm\cathy\council\ccdown.doc r.~~bS q~" a VAt R-5~(,.O h s: ~Q 1wev, -Ns~~ ~Qbor~'7or ~es~lP °~Ca"2 C c .c~,~~ I es ,sees t4- os koF& ties a -Z .-I t"10,6441 G~ Gl ` d0I'cr ,i'vastc ~ ~ 1nG~vL,Q `►'~.~s d-~~..r ~K,~ ~-~,Ps t2,e.~tisS Are I'► vb v ~(+I EJ hr .e On ,n e Pct ~-o ct(Sv OJT ► L 1,-I *4.1- 4' e sere UA,-\~( terns K 6.e, clegv'e~ l 7e-:4 U4 ~e s ~ elc, 1s4,~, s J (At CA", . SEF-12-97 FRI 2:16 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.01 '2q 27--[7A) 7 rpL"o ~o~ SE P-12-97 FRI 2:16 MILES DOWNING 9655798 P.02 • 0 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE °speciatiStS in the care and CONSULTANTS preservation or trees" Davla Halstead, Consultant 8 S P.O Box 1182. Tualatin, OR 97082 A& ` Phone (5031245.1383 September 5, 1997 Mr. Miles Downing 11600 S W Greenberg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Reference: Tree assessment Location; 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject: Care and Preservation I have inspected all of the trees located on the proposed three lots east side of 92nd Avenue and north of 11600 SW Greenberg Road, the Site Plan and the Tree Site Plan for the purpose of determining what trees can be preserved and what protection and preservation will be needed. All of the trees that are within the driveways, house foot print, within 10 feet from ~+l4 any excavation of the above and/or utilities and any tree which is not structurally sound and/or diseased will need to be removed. The following trees have been tagged, identified and visually inspected, from i the ground, for health and structure. These trees have never had any formal care and it is possible that there are major flaws, not visible from the ground, that could render the tree hazardous. Once the trees have been climbed and thoroughly inspected from top to bottom and the trunk has been and core sampled for disease it is possible that the tree could be condemned and would have to be removed. I~ I mention the disease because there are signs of 4 different incurable diseases within this small grove which has made several trees structurally unsound. Further, any tree within 75 feet of a diseased tree is probably infected. PRESERVATION: JK90367: 22 inch at diameter breast height (DBH) Douglas-fir tree, 75 feet tall with a 22 foot limb spread. Tree is very healthy and structurally strong, y Tree will require fence protection only. The fencing needs to be 15 feet from the base of the tree and in the shape of a half circle starting and ending at the north fence. SEP-12-97 FRI 2:17 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.03 0 Page 2 September 5, 1997 Reference: Tree assessment Location: 111600 SW Greenberg Road Subject. Cars and Preservotion JK90368: 48 inch at DBN Douglas-fir tree, 120 feet tall with a limb spread of 40 feet. Tree Is very healthy and fair in structure. There are several signs of seam splits and minor flaws throughout the main trunk. In addition there are several limbs throughout the tree which are cracked, broken and/or heavy with excess weight. Tree will require fence protection from north neighbors fence, south, on both sides and 15 feet past the tret . I recommend the tree be pruned for safety and to lessen wind throw and therapeutically fer#ilized, JK90373: 48 inch at DBN Douglas-fir tree, 120 feet tall with a limb spread of 40 feet. Tree is very healthy and flair in structure. There are a few signs of seam splits and minor flaws throughout the main trunk. In addition there are several limbs throughout the tree which are cracked, broken and(or heavy with excess weight. JK9Q373 AREA: There are 6 mall dogwoods, 3 seedling cherries and several small species of trees within tle protection area of the tree numbered JK90373 that needs to be preserved as well Fencing needs to start appmx)mately 57 feet west and 55 feet south of the northeast comer and then join together to form a triangle around the tree and the preservation area. REMOVALS: I have tagged and inspected t~e remaining 8 Douglas-fir trees, numbered JK90374 -78, JK90397-9910c fed between the three lots for the purpose of identifying the trees and their evere defects, both in structure and health. I have made several notes on the obvious structural problems such as boring insect, galls and conks which ~s a strong indication of "Laminated Root Rot" In addition, the trees have broke(' tops, codominate stems, less than one third foliage- -all at the top, signs of up rooting and very shallow roots. SEP-12-97 FRI 2:18 MILES DOWNING 9685798 P.04 Page 3 September 5, 1997 Reference: Tree assessment Location: 111600 SW Gree berg Road Subject: Care and Prese Pion This combination of problems will cause the trees to blow down during normal winter storms. Since the targ4t area will be increased these trees am considered hazardous. If 1 can be of further assistance or if more technical information is needed please call me immediately. II Sincerely, i David Hlastead BS CA i I i i i September 30, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Linda Eaton John C. Scott Real Estate Lincoln Tower 250 10260 SW Greenburg Road, No. 250 Portland, OR 97223 Re: Minor Partition Application MLP 02 Dear Linda: Thank you for your letter regarding MLP 97-002. I have discussed this matter with Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, who has advised me that he has forwarded a copy of your letter to Mark Roberts who is the Planner overseeing this project. Mark will evaluate the tree plan which is required of the applicant. Thank you for your concerns. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager WAM\jh c: Jim Hendryx Mayor Nicoli Mark Roberts iAad m%biIIW93097J.doc 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 - Sept. 25, 1997 To: Mr. Jim Nicoli, City of Tigard From: Linda Eaton Re: Application #MLP 97-002 I am writing this letter in reference to the approval of the minor partition Application MLP 97-002. I currently own a rental at 11555 SW 91st Ave which is directly behind this development. It is my understanding that most of the trees on the approved partition will be removed, and a diagram was provided by the developer to save some of the trees as a buffer. I am very concerned at this point that extra care be taken when removing the trees. I have a large walnut tree at the back property line to this property. My concern is that the root system may be severed, (possibly destroying the tree) by the removal of trees and/or the placement of the homes themselves. I have brought this to your attention on 3 separate occasions. Meeting with Mark Benham at the City of Tigard on approximately June 9, 1997. CIT meeting at the City of Tigard on August 7, 1997. City Council meeting at the City of Tigard on Sept 9, 1997. Your final decision and conditions regarding the removal of the trees and the building of the homes are very vague on how this might affect my property. At this time, you still have the authority to oversee this process (especially the removal of the trees, and the building permit process). Thank you for your time. Linda Eaton SEP 2 ° ~9jij7 , J i ~Vo RECEIVED IN Xity&dm SEP 15 1997 To Mr. William Monahan, City Administrator. Re: 6-24-1997 request to Council by Terry Smith and (NLP)97-0010 COMMUNITY DEVEIq► „ Dear Bill, Knowing that it is your job to investigate complaints and to manage the business of the City, we decided to write to you to point out that the City may be putting itself in a costly position as well as opening the door for a overturned decision. This would be due to mistakes in procedure and violation of law, as residents we want to go on record as presenting you with this possibility. The Council maybe depriving us of our substantial rights by refusing to define or interpret the term and phrase which we requested in writing, this is because we cannot finish or apply our arguments to make a definitive case as to whether laws are being violated. These words are crucial and pivotal, and because this is the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Municipal Code, the City is the only appropriate authority to provide the requested information. If the City ignores our request then we do not have a reasonable opportunity to show that the applicant has not complied with the local and state laws. The correct procedure is for the Council to base its decision on proof that the applicant fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the code. The answers we sought from the council were key as to whether this application was a partition or a subdivision, and whether or not the applicant would be required to prepare a tree mitigation plan. It was not unreasonable to make these request or to expect the Council to grant them. It may go to question later whether the City had some reason to withhold this information. ' LOX Separate from this application and prior to its submission we requested the v. P ac ~`wv~a Council in writing and in person to find whether the trees on lots which are still developable all the way up and down the street are "large or unique" by simply examining and possibly adopting our findings. The Council has not addressed specificallx our request or our findings even while reviewing this application so that it could be established whether or not this is a "tree area" or whether or not the trees exist as "large or unique". This is a procedural error because is says "Where there exist large or unique", the city has made no attempt to first discover if the trees exist as meeting this criteria. According to the strategy the following is a mandatory procedure. 1. Find whether the trees exist as large or unique. 2. If they do exist, ensure by either the planned development process or the tree cutting code that the "CHARACTER of the vegetation AREAS" will not be substantially altered. At LUBA or any possible litigation settings regarding damages to our neighborhood, we will not have any problem demonstrating by the "substantial evidence" in the record that our findings were correct and that the City did not address the findings specific to the existence of these trees or make any efforts to make its own findings. The City will not be able to demonstrate the tree ordinance is reliable to define "large or unique" by its applicability because it does not require or question maximum lot size for minor partitions, also because there is no evaluation for uniqueness in the review for minor partitions and the tree ordinance does not discuss the "vegetation area", only the application . Therefore 6 0 the City has not followed either step in the strategy and as such is violating law and has not ensured that the character of this area will not be substantially altered. We will not have any trouble showing that the character was substantially altered with substantial supporting evidence. The position that this is not a tree area with large or unique trees is not supported by substantial evidence that a reasonable person could rely on. While the neighborhood is very thankful to the Council for calling this up for review and knows the Council has the right of opinion, it feels that regardless of whatever decision with conditions the council may render, that the lawful procedure has not been followed. We know that the staff has worked hard, we know that we are tired and we know that the applicant wants to get going. However as important as a speedy process is, the correct process is also important and required. The priority is not to hurry up so that the applicant can start his development or so that the City can be done with this application. The priority is that the decision be made in a lawful manner. The City has until Nov. 5th with this application. When this is all said and done the City should not get itself in a position whereby any party can show that the character of this area was substantially altered by development approved by the City, especially with no evidence in the record of the City ensuring against that. Keep in mind that the applicant in this case does not need to remove very many trees to prepare the actual development for builders as the houses drawn are fictitious, so he should not have to suffer that much in the way of mitigation. He is not planning on building the houses, however he is anxiously anticipating the harvest of the timber even though few trees need to be removed for the road. If the City does not want an appeal then they should find a legal way to discourage removal and to encourage protection as much as possible. Perhaps trying to save the one at the front and more along the accessway by allowing him the option to combine the accessways if in return he plans around some of those. The City should only allow removal of those trees necessary for the Lots to be developed and sold. Then let the builders attempt to design.around the trees. We find it ironic that the City wants to buy greenspaces yet wont even review and address our findings. Please understand that the CIT has asked us to report on this review, we have not decided if we will also-request to speak to the other CIT groups to inform them about these issues. For now we have refrained from writing letters to the editor or inviting local television neighborhood spots to cover this manner of review. These should not be viewed as threats but rather reasonable options open to citizens that the City should consider. Thank you for your time. The residents on SW 92nd Ave, Tigard OR RECEIVED SEP 15 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Revised 9/11/97 m. g v.}:< .::>}v:..::,.}.,,}.;~.t{,:::.,}.:.}, :+,,+.>,'.:<•:.tt+`<:r4.t:::<:;,}:.>::}:::>:: CITY OF TIGARD 'N xx-k t:. 1 + t:. `:k•S\titiv;+?S:};:{,' ~\i:\ yk'O,:ti''•,}','r',}.^:•,+i,,\:i ' ti•`.Fi;:;•:;N.<~:G`,..;: : rr..\::" {•\;::}}•$.t:,:•6;r: }}ti£w`~:,;4 k}ti:\4wy }2?i+:•:\;;ft\',, +,5}:.~Q\X+} :t:' ~:ty~•'r, .•`•:°•``3 tk4..::n: r;.'••n{9{ ~"•a$i:`'.£•n 4?:v .:?4:?: •t;.:' t: »•r:tt. a+..\~ V::, . a,',r>t+`}: r:•.: M1k •a ~?4wti tt:$:w <::?ti.•'.::::}~:#`:~t:, ?f2R:;\::S:~rt9w:•};+••'Y:::•i• V:kaw\>::r•.a••}:•>;:o~>,:}:•:•2•:t:.••;<%2:::},:•:R:.Sr~:v:^;a:sy.#~:+? .k • •.~y~„t • wf:4ti :R:G' \4}}S:.Si'j:{2£+t, ~.r~\~f;S:S::`•;ir•.';'~#A :}••.~'.~'kA`..• f,.t\`' k.l, p, }4:,:C.}tr £,'~,•,4~~•,.•'.:\~.\•{/: riY'. } 44i. %k• j.?t: •.,:k,v $;;r }{it:•rr/{ ,,{~],Gt }}°fX':.{t}ofr3,`,~2a' ^4ti\'w' '2:''u `:'.i3L;:: 2:+ :?r. `toy{~#.~+~;>,.:.2.4{::•x>,~rr ts;::\ it;::.:}{• r . J::rfi\`.:I {t2:}ir\}. t{? :.tii }}.\`}~\..}\tiM:;::;;:•:~:.,i': ti•4:r PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 6:30 p.m. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 81 Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communicadons/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 p.m. 2. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER: COUNCIL REVIEW OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION - FILE NO: MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 FILE TITLE: DOWNING - 92ND AVENUE PARTITION a. Staff Report Community Development Department b. Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 97- 6:45 p.m. 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM WORKSHOP • Introduction - Assistant to the City Manager • Reports/Discussion - CIT Facilitators, CIT Members, Staff Resource Team Members 7:45 p.m. 4. METRO UPDATE: TRAFFIC RELIEF OPTIONS • Metro Representative 8:00 p.m. 5. VISIONING UPDATE • Report - Assistant to the City Manager and Management Analyst/Risk 8:10 p.m. 6. SW NORTH DAKOTA TASK FORCE UPDATE • Councilor Rohlf and Assistant to the City Manager 8:20 p.m. 7. TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE • Community Development Director COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 2 9:00 P.M. 8. LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY ISSUES UPDATE • Introduction - Public Works Director • Report Murray Smith 8t Associates (Consultant Representative) 9:45 p.m. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 P.M. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8t (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:20 p.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT hadm\cathy\cca\970916.doc COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/16/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE City Council Consideration of Final Decision of Minor Land Partition (MLP) 97- 0010 - 972nd Avenue Site PREPARED BY: C. Wheatle" DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council review of proposed resolution rendering the Final Decision for MLP 97-0010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council conducted a public hearing on September 9, 1997 on this matter. After hearing testimony, receiving the staff report and conducting Council discussion, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Attached is a proposed resolution that was amended to reflect that the Council added a condition to the conditions contained in the Director's Decision. The attached Exhibit B will become part of the resolution. This exhibit was prepared by Legal Counsel Ramis to reflect the Council's direction for a tree plan and its implementation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Amend the Council condition if needed. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact. i:\adm\cathy\Wu ncil\mIp9702.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A) WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL (EXHIBIT B) CONCERNING MINOR LAND PARTITION 97- 0010 FILED BY MR. MILES DOWNING TO PARTITION ONE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS. WHEREAS, on June 25, 1997 the application Mr. Miles Downing did file an application for Minor Land Partition 97-0010 to partition an existing .60 acre parcel into three parcels of approximately 7,750 , 7,771 and 8,040 square feet. WHEREAS, on August 7, 1997 the Director issued a decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 subject to Conditions of Approval. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1997 the City Council called up the Director's decision to approve Minor Land Partition 97-0010 for further review. WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997 the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which Public Testimony was taken and the applicable approval standards were reviewed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard, Oregon hereby determines that Minor Land Partition 97-0010 complies with the applicable approval standards and approves the request subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval issued by the Director (Exhibit A attached) and a Condition of Approval issued by the City Council (Exhibit B). PASSED: This day of 1997. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard is \citywid e\res\ccdown. res RESOLUTION NO. 97-_ Page 1 Exhibit A - olution No.97- NOTICE OF DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 97-0010 cmro'nG"D DOWNING-.92ND AVENUE PARTITION SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION Minor Land Partition MLP 97-0010 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested to partition one (1) parcel of approximately .61 acres into three (3) parcels of 7,570 square feet, 8,040 square feet and 7,771 square feet. APPLICANT: Miles Downing OWNER: Same P.O. Box 230972 Tigard, OR 97281- 0972 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre; R-4.5. The R-4.5 Zoning District Allows Low Density Detached, Single-Family Residences. LOCATION: 11000 Block of SW 92nd Avenue; WCTM 1S135DC, Tax Lot 06701. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.162 and 18.164. SECTION II: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the'staff contact shall be Brian Ragec in. the Engineering Department (503) 639-4171. 1. A Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary and storm sewer lateral connections and any other work in the public right-of-way (ROW). The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. This permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to approval of the final plat. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to construction. 4. Additional right-of-way (ROW) shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW 92nd Avenue to increase the (ROW) to 25 feet from the centerline. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the final plat. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owners right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to improve SW 92nd Avenue. 6. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 7. The applicant's proposed storm drainage design shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 92nd Avenue underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, it shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Three (3) mylar copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 • DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 2 B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The right-of-way (ROW) dedication for SW 92nd Avenue shall be made on the partition plat. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS;:THE FOLLOWING:.'.":;:; CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED:. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits on this site' the applicant shall obtain a Site Permit from the Building Department to cover all grading for the lots, all on-site private utility installation (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and all driveway construction. NOTE: this permit is separate from any permit issued by the Engineering Department for work in the public right-of-way (ROW). 11. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the partition plat. 12 Prior to issuance of the building permits for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, the applicant shall pay the standard water quality fee of $180.00 per lot. 13. The applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 14. Flag lot access screening shall be provided along the affected portions of the access easement in accordance with the approved flag lot screening plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL~SHALL BE VALID FOR::18 MONTHS:.::;:'':``:`;"" FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION: SECTION II1• BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The subject property is presently undeveloped. The site has approximately a five (5) percent slope towards SW Greenburg Road. The property presently contains approximately 51 trees of varying sizes. Many of these trees are larger fir trees of over 20 caliper inches each. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97.0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 3 On March 27, 1997, the Cty issued a decision to conditionally approve Minor Land Partition 97-0002 that included the property that is the subject of the current partition proposal. On April 4, 1997, the City issued an amended decision for MLP 97-0002. The amended decision was issued because a street was created through the previous approval. The March 27, 1997 decision should have been issued as a Major Land Partition or have required a revision for an access easement type of accessway or other acceptable method for the lots that are being created. The applicant requested that the Minor Land Partition be re-issued with revised Conditions of Approval reflecting the limitations of a Minor Land Partition. On April 23, 1997, neighboring property owners filed an appeal of this decision. At the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to June 16, 1997, to allow the applicant and neighboring property owners to try to resolve issues related to the appeal. The applicant withdrew Minor Land Partition 97-0002 before the continued hearing was held by the Planning Commission. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant now proposes to partition a portion of the original MLP 97-0002 site. This area is a separate legal lot that was created by deed in 1945. The applicant proposes to create three (3) new sites to develop new single-family residences. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Impact Studv: Section 18.32.050 states the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development Alternatively, an applicant may specifically concur with the requirement for dedication of right-of-way to the public and waive the impact study analysis by dedicating the right-of-way and completion of a waiver statement An impact study waiver was provided. The applicant proposes to develop under existing required system development fees and has agreed to dedicate an additional five (5) feet of right-of-way (ROW) along the property frontage on SW 92nd Avenue. The applicant has also agreed to provide a waiver of non-remonstrance against any future formation of a Local Improvement District for any future street improvements that are constructed on SW 92nd Avenue. Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by David Larson for the A-Boy ExpansionlDolan II (Resolution 95-61), TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 4 Street system. Presently*e TIF for each trip that is generat*s $169.00 The total TIF for a detached, single-family dwelling is $1,690. .Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $5,070.00 ($1,690 x 3 dwelling units). Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of the project traffic impact on major streets is $15,840.00 ($5,280 x 3 dwelling units). Because additional local street right-of-way (ROW) width does not add to.either area or regional roadway capacity, no traffic impact fee credit has been provided in the past in relationship to required (ROW) dedication. For . this reason, the development of this project will result in an unmitigated traffic impact of $10,770. For this reason, the project's traffic impact and the proposed local street right-of-way (ROW) dedication (as discussed within this report), are less than the impact and, therefore meet the rough proportionality test. Minor Land Partition - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and S. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-02). The proposed lot size and type of development conforms with the type of density range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan as required by Criteria 1. The applicable development standards that implement the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property are reviewed elsewhere within this report. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the 7,500 square foot minimum after deduction of proposed right-of-way (ROW) and areas shown for access. The proposed parcels would also exceed the 50-foot average width requirement, as required by Section 18.50. The development, as proposed, does not exceed the maximum residential density allowed under Chapter 18.92 for a .61 acre parcel within-the R-4.5 Zoning District. The site has gross square footage of 26,850 square feet, after subtraction of areas to be dedication for public right-of-way (ROW) purposes, a net area of 26,400 square feet remains. By dividing the net area by 7,500 square feet, this site yields the opportunity to develop up to three (3) dwelling units. The applicant has proposed to develop three dwelling units in compliance with this standard. Because the site has less than 100 feet of frontage on SW 92nd Avenue Section 18.100 does not require the planting of street trees. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate NOTICE OF DECISION NILP 97.0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 5 f street trees into the projeValong the site's SW 92nd Avenueontage. Where possible, existing trees that are to be preserved may serve as the required street tree plantings. The applicant has not proposed to construct new property improvements within the proposed clear vision areas next to driveways in compliance with Section 18.102. Through the Conditions of Approval the applicant is required to provide paved driveways with a minimum of ten (10) feet of paved width to each new dwelling in compliance with Section 18.108. Upon completion of the appeal period, the development will have complied with the statutory requirements of the City of Tigard for development review, as required by Criteria 2. Adequate public facilities are available or have been required to be provided to serve this site, as set forth in Sections 18.164.030 (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drain), as required by Criteria 3. These requirements are reviewed by the Engineering Department in this report. The new parcels do not exceed a two and one-half to one, length to depth ratio. The 50-foot average width requirement is also met by these parcels. For these reasons, the proposed parcel configurations conform with size and dimensional requirements of the R-4.5 Zoning District, as required by Criteria 4. As proposed, the improvements will comply with City and applicable agency standards in satisfaction with Criteria 5, as reviewed through the Building Permit Plan Check process. As proposed, none of the three (3) parcels comply with the Basic Solar Access requirements because the north to south lot dimension of these parcels would be less than 90 feet in length. The Solar Access standards allow an exemption from compliance with the Basic Standard due to loss of project density that would occur through compliance with the lot size standard. Section 18.88.040(E) provides for this type of adjustment to the solar access standards. Future development of structures on the new parcels requires compliance with Solar Balance Point Standards of the Solar Accessibility provisions. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15- foot-wide access easement 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 6 Screening may Also be required to maintain privacy or abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement that will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. 10. Fioodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian and or bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian and or bicycle pathway plan. Criterion's 1, 2, 3 and 4 are satisfied. The parcels will exceed the area requirement of 7,500 square feet required for properties zoned R-4.5. The newly created parcels would have a minimum of 15 feet of direct frontage on a public street The standards for setbacks and clear vision requirements will be reviewed for new structures prior to the issuance of Building Permits, in satisfaction with Criteria 4. Criterion's 5 and 6 have been addressed. Lots 2 and 3, as proposed, meet the definition of a flag lot. Shared access has not been proposed as part of this development. Because SW 92nd Avenue is a Local Street, direct individual access can occur from each new proposed development site to SW 92nd Avenue. A flag lot setback determination will be necessary for Lots 2 and 3. The driveway screening plan that was provided complies with the screening standard as stated in Criteria 6. Flag lot setback standards that address necessary screening requirements will be applied for these sites through the Building Permit Plan Check process. Through the Building Permit review, fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8, requiring a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement, is not applicable to this request because the applicant has provided direct frontage from each newly created parcel to SW 92nd Avenue. Criteria 9 will be satisfied through the requirement for a 10-foot-wide minimum paved driveway to serve each new building site. Criteria 10 has been met because the property is not located within the 100-year flood plain or in areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent. Because the site does not adjoin the 100-year flood plain, dedication of areas for pathway purposes is not applicable. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 7 PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Section's 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. Development Code provisions related to Storm Water Quantity, Storm Water Quality, Existing Utility Line Undergrounding, Water Service, Grading, Erosion Control and Site Permits are also addressed below: STREETS: This site lies adjacent to SW Greenburg Road and SW 92nd Avenue. SW Greenburg Road is classified as a major collector street and is fully improved adjacent for this site. No additional right-of-way (ROW) dedications or street improvements are necessary: SW 92nd Avenue SW 92nd Avenue is a local residential street that is paved, but not improved to City standards. The existing ROW width is approximately 40 feet. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional five (5) feet to provide 25 feet from centerline. This ROW dedication will be adequate. The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 18.164.030(A)(1)(a) states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030(A)(1)(c) states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. Although this development will incrementally increase the amount of traffic on the roadway, the increase will not substantially degrade the level of service on the street. A street improvement adjacent to this site, therefore, will not significantly improve the safety or capacity of the street. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement with the City, whereby, the owner agrees to participate in any future widening projects for the street carried out through a Local Improvement District. This agreement must be executed prior to approval of the final plat. WATER: This site lies within Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan indicates that there is an existing public water line in SW 92nd Avenue. Any proposed connections to, or extensions of, the public water line shall be reviewed and approved by TVWD. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing eight (8)-inch public sewer line in SW 92nd Avenue that can adequately serve this site. The location of the sewer taps shall be approved by the City prior to construction. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 8 STORM DRAINAGE: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW Greenburg Road that collects street runoff, including the catch basin at the northeast comer of the 92nd Avenue intersection. The applicant proposes to direct the storm drain lines from the three (3) lots across the adjacent property (also owned by the applicant), directly south and tie into the existing storm pipe in Greenburg Road. STORM WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. However, the R&O includes a provision that would exclude small projects such as residential land partitions. It would be impractical to require an on-site water quality facility to accommodate treatment of the storm water from Parcel 2. Rather, the R&O provides that applicants should pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a facility if deemed appropriate. Staff recommends payment of the fee in-lieu on this application. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates 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 that accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: There are existing overhead utility lines adjacent to SW 92nd Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. SITE PERMIT REQUIRED: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on- site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 9 SECTION V: OTHR STAFF COMMENTS The Building Division reviewed this application and had the following comment: Private storm sewer improvements shall be constructed in the proposed utility easement to accommodate all roof and underfloor drains for all three (3) proposed lots. A site permit shall be obtained for these improvements prior to recording. The Police Department reviewed this application and had the following comment: Addresses are needed to be marked for each home on SW 92nd Avenue, so the homes can be located easily. No other staff comments or objections have been received. SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Sanitary Sewer_ Each lot within the development shall be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. Storm Sewer Each lot within the development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to up-hill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream conveyance does not have capacity to convey the volume during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. The Tualatin Valley Water District reviewed this proposal and provided the following comments: Water meters shall be located out of traffic areas and or out of any sidewalk areas, if applicable. No other agency comments or objections have been received. NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 10 SECTION VII: PRO SQUIRE AND APPEAL INFORM TION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X_ The applicant and owners -X_ Owner of record within the required distance _X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST.18,1997' UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Sections 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after notice has been given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is specked below. The appeal fee schedule and appeal form are available from the Community Development Department or Planning Division at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE: FOR. FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30.P.:M: ON::'AUGUST>18, 1997:"-.-,- Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or Community Development Department of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. August 7. 1997 PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DATE Associate Planner, AICP /1 31,, , August 7. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdo DATE Planning Manager 1ACURPLNWARK RWLP97-10.0EC NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 97-0010 - DOWNING 92ND AVENUE PARTITION PAGE 11 saw Jbr~ y 4 ~ Z MQUSE o ~AaO w 99.44 p a 106.57 u 1 LOT 2 LOT `x222 C~ d ~ n.. ttwr totes ~ ~ Q wtit! tv Uv,tt w e 19~ .n.M•~ 06 'A CA . ; LOTa Ai r~° kq~ Q21403 _ 214 i r 1-4qd All, ,41 IA 04/ S, S vAt(tt CAIC14 3 • „tom tv pttMtlO F IRE DR ANT ~ 91Cc, 1 ~~(q t y l ) jOpN DRA1tG TQ CURB VNER APPI.ICANS /Q MILES OQVNItNG sTOa,t vAtER CAtCN'BASiN p.0• BQX 230972 11G~~R0 QR 97291-0972 LOCATION MAP IS1j 567 1 SAX l.Q C t-.c ~ KCJ. OWNiNG 92ND AVENUE PART1T10~' ~ PLAN s D PLO 9?-0010 v $ } 1 MAP j MLP DAK,pTA , . • E..OMrT ~i 1'~~~~ FtTI?l~N ` N : M,lp 9 ~ AvEIy~E pA ~O~NG 92N v~~;n~t~ Mau Exhibit B Resolution No. 97- City Council Condition of Approval for Minor Land Partition, Downing, 92nd Avenue - MLP 97-0010: Applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Director for approval, a tree plan that demonstrates how, and assures that, the trees identified for retention on Exhibit 1 shall be protected and retained. After the tree plan is implemented (those identified for removal are removed), should it be determined by an arborist that these specified trees must be removed, due to disease or damage, those trees shall be replaced with fir trees of a minimum of four inches in caliper in a location as close as practical to location of the trees removed. This condition shall apply until occupancy of.the individual dwellings. iAadm\cathy\cou ncil\ccdown. doc Revised 9/11/97 :$':.»':.a}}'t: :4~\\ ',<< CITY OF TIGARD x}:3:}t,<s•'5.:44ek:..i3::':}•>:,•:t3,t JLvt. •w„•kt},.x• k}R.s}.''•:.44fi.:}} 1' } :t:} ' ' • r}+^i\•;{"}:3 } i.an4•:;+.44:iant i.\: :•'.y ~4v ::v~ •,~i:::S ~{.ti}};..•:~t}:. ' }i;. 4 1}}4.::i: '•~ti.4:}}:>.};:}iii::;::: ~?;}::ti; i} {\:.:Y•4+ ' • . ;v. ~ :4..~4:;}:}•}:•}'r: J::~`+it;~C {.:a,~4+~\y •}~4: i~4~1.:4x.,..ti. J•. \0n:.t..:2•:'.aJ..:•li::.r?>txx}xti't:}s:s;s}'•.`•}),~ }w; 14 }::}?i.. Y{.' ~ :~?,:ti4+~}:Qi':j':'i'}t}}i{:;'•:i:•'f,.;F ~•:}ti ••+:5}:.•}~;xyw~cS:x:}..R•}•.: }r`: •}..?.rJ:. \:.;.:+:•:;;:L•J.:}:::,';•t}4'.'•:;:w'.•S,:J}••::•::::•r .?•.S.n Jl, }:.Ji:: +}+%}+\}v.\t~'^.t:.++n•\i•}h. i'::4::\: 4•,+'~4v.; •{+•.•:..nq....;.::::.{+•:: /t tr:;i:;'•i;•: >+i+•'}. .}:i..•J'i.~•+•4+..JI~S iS't}+'14iY 'i:+•':+.i:}i:::>iti ,}.{;}.GR•`.:::i J: ;^v::}.. ;6}4a:.t`w•.yt}•:}.}:'.}:;rk}.},: .M1rw.:,••t+.}t~t; , •:.y~a'a.. 4.;}.;.,.t.}j~,4,. ty.;4, ~ t}::.t;:.,\ x; ` h' k:~k\4}.}v;~•} {:}::::•::;}}}.1 M14:>};::::t::~ki;•;t>.ti}}:k.'•:i :"ten rr; r•, t},~'} •+ii{,:+{. +,.4'•~,ti•:•:,;:: a,y+:;:~$~:;:;,.•}t:;i'}t~'.: :%;S;t:4'iSv}} • ,t' Y'}44 J ; c?•'•}.J`.:.,+i: 4 ;.•'{>,}:j\ti J;^,:i .a•,.•+•,,:`•:S.::?: t}ti~aK'^,~S`,:y,.:. ~S~S4C~akE'+5~~+'tii`t:.t•''«:y:::i:'•• `'ti •i'x?i;:i:: n}: '}:t::tiki:$''~.}•:ri:\: ~ ti •.;:::;,tii t: o~;t::fc:R:::?:?•:::.~,,:4,4.~~~~'•.:`;;a\4~:ik•+.+`'t•.•;??~:':\:~u•.~:t~f••~i?,3;;:kr;` t`k\~\:'k`~k';r.';;S':''•'i?#:k:2" PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language Interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual Interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639- 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 1