Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDR88-17
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. i / ,,i. -�.n..-..-_�.. i.,. .... - .1 ...... -.v..... ..r.,,.a..��...........n...k•.. 1...,. .....�....-.,1.........,.«...rum....�a...v,--,.Ww.n...w.,"...-,l.:A.............n......,..n,.w............. . .14.,-...,......... r.....l,..u..n.....,.........,.ai......,a ,l«.:a�.Jl.N.wl+-.-'...:-A{i..r.r,•.;,A.•...-.w.-:rI...A r...ra _.r.+-.a,+.....,.,.. . ` 1z nar'aZo..�."8 X.� ate, t aa / � .'nw'r 1 ' ;: . WH1 YOU WERE OUT ,:, 1 n,,Z9,1" / -" - i I /1 , TELEPHONED _ !, ' 4. Wll.L CALL AGAIN " i' IRSTU�iND YI�UF {�liLL �!� WANTS TC.8 ( YOU i i SSa g e,..____ _, i --24.,___.___.o.?: --IL,.__,____._...._._._._ '.4°--.... , „..._____ , -- ,. . „ , , ...e.,-, ,., : . i cf3/5-- it...,/ .. ,,,,. ...... , _ ,, ,, , • . , , p d 7 Y" "" p • i y I nn ,' , [ II: • J l ` 1 • io, • a. n �,. .,, �J y 4 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING \'' bi Vu STATE OF OREGON ) of Washington ) ss. ' City of Tigard ) i, _ irS1 1�^ 1i�1 f • t ' , —, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: 'Please Print That I am a rl'.21�GL4/l1t for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for: _ '.'hat �I served NOTICE OF DECISION ,� Nfor. : , ' y of Tigard Planning Director , t Tigard Planning Commission . Tigard Hearings Officer ' ----Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the r attached list marked exhibit "B" on then 1 day of l r ;. 191S said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto attached, was posted, on an p,. appropriate bulletin board on the y �. day of ,. LIVi-' . yl . , 194i16 , , and. deposited in the United States Mail on the , ~!I day of „j t?1A/dat'” ; 19.24* postage prepaid. • A ' ,.,'),1.11/12114 /14/tAl•"T . Person who posted on Bulletin. Board lk �. S � . 'tire , � °, (For Decision Only) '' 4 4 arson who deiivere7 to POST r +ICE I• r "sworn/aff , �. �iyyibsciied and 3 rm to before on the de. of / 1 Y.«� : 41:','. 7 1 ,i+rrt a .Gtl I; n . o-1 ^a' a r p .i J/ NOTARY'PUBLIC ar OREGON ' `v'' My Commission F i es: a 0257P/0006P, t k tl, ,... p. . ' , .t +'G" 1 ,�•..,uf .� S, 414. ' r"'p.� '' .}' CITY OF TIGARD 5 Washington County, Oregon 1 NOTICE OF FINAL, ORDER BY PLANNING COMMISSION \ 1 Case Number(s): BPD 88-04, SDR 88-1.7, & V 88--27 \ . Concerning C s t 2. name of Owner: Florian & Anne Schuetz 3 Name of Applicant: CB Co. � .:. A . 720 34th Place g , Address_ ._. City Ck�y� State Or , 7013 4:' Location of Property: `` . .-P, Address West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection 'w'ith. SW Murdock Street ,, AD Tax lot 8802, WC's 2S1 .10 AC, 'fax lots , , � Tax flap and Lot NoCs� . WCTM 2 a1 10 a , .r 400 & 500 , 5, Nature of Application: Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development F,. ,, Review approval to cons r;uuo a . u.n .par era comp ex on� : " cY tree covered • , . situ. ,A Variance to_ 2 .927 the develo2mer t to be served 12 one 'drivewa n� ' n 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial . r 7. Notre: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and , ,," mailed to: «. XX The applicant & owners ` XX owners of record within the required distance ---R.X The affected 'Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: b, THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL '.)1 December 1 1 '13, 988 SUNLESS'A APPEAL IS FILED. soon, and s T dop a:3:::.d.ings 4t£ fs,et loci to arrant of °Ilditic)n c'an tae obtarne . C�.�om ti'te Planning Bepai tment, Tigard City H,all,, i1125 SW Hall, ,. , 1' ti P.h� Box 2339 T arri,y Oregon; 97223. } � i'-> 9. Appeal: „� 1.r l this s � tanc appeal w Any party to� the �dec�.s�.on mey. �,ppeo. decision�.on.. in accordance • : 1S.32.290(A) and Section X18.52,370 which provides that a written . ' ray be filed Within 10 day s after notice ie given. and' Sent, . eana eat, i 3 The deadline for filing g o' appeal "s I�Fcetn}�er 1988 . P Uestions please call he K; �. � ' � �iest�;ons.' � � � � � � 10. C2 x� Doti have any. q ' P ase t City of Tigard Planning i spit lent, 639-4171. , (0257P) ni 1 • i 44,,i' f t ti U ) 7. °1 v.r TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 88 15 PC • A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION t FOR A. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 88-04) , SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 88-17), AND ;' VARIANCE (V 88-27) REQUESTED BY SCHUETZ (CBH CO.) . ' '. :, The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public :. hearing on November 22, 1988. This review was prompted by an appeal of a • ' Director's decision to approve the request subject to conditions. The Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: ' A. FACTS 1. General Information . CASE: Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review SDR 88-17, Va,,xance 88-27 REQUEST: Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development rt • - - Review approval to construct a 130 unit Spa meet complex on j ' ,' • a 12.66 acre tree covered site, Also requested is a Variance from Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 • which requires apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. The t� •'; applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed ±. to be served by one driveway, )I ... COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) • (Planned Development overlay) APPLICANT: GBH Co. OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuetz k 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close J . . Canby) OR 97013 Red Deer, Alberta • • LOCATION: West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 251 10AD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 251 1OAC, Tax Lots 400 and 500) } .� 2. Background Information In 1981 the Planning Commission approved. a Comprehensive Plan. Revision (CPR, 1-81), which included `lax Lots 400 and 500 of Map 251 J,OAC�, to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units pet acre) with a recommendationr that all development on these lots be brought before the Planning Commission as planned unit developments (PUD) and ' ^ FINAL ORDER NO, 88-� 15 PC - PAGE 'I I h w.. a r 1 0 ..,.._ " ' \ ' ,( t,y that the density in each case be reviewed as a portion of the review 1"r, ,.; Process. The City Council reviewed CPR 1-81 and remanded the issue back ! . . , to the .Planning Commission for further, review after giving the opinion that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation r •� to; properties included in the request. Upon review, . an A-12 (Urban ; Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for the ,,;�' °` Y Y ;: area. The Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone " designation `' Gi° } h ;' , When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Land i ' , Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1983, the majority of Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was redesignated Low , ' ' Density Residential and given a corresponding zoning designation of A4 ,' R-4.5 �; , `; .�� , . ;" PB R�s i nt(Residential, units/acre, Planned Development overlay). ' In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to �,''r'r" ''�.r the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the ' :,' �",, . Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located' at the ,a °e' } y southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway, This proposal. �y requested redesignation of these properties from High Density ' Residential to General Commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400.potential multi.-family housing units from Tigard' s ; ' ' inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Rousing Rule ; ' G ' ; , .: (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing, opportunity for at least 50 percent e,' multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling Y .`, e. units per acre on vacant buildable land Within the City's Urban '!e" Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on, the condition of redesignatiort of sufficient residential land to higher densities to :. make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Tax lots 400 and 500 were included in a 24.9 acre plan/zone redesignation from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 (PD) zone to Medium • Density Residential/R-12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull. :- i . Oountain area that was part of an approximately 50 acre redesignation to higher densities. The redesignatione Caere approved by the City Council in April, 1987 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)) . ,, P ^ 6, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed On September pied the present �;�� �;,� application, in close to its current :`orm. The Commission approved the j:. . conceptual plan. for PD 88=04, SDR 88-17, and V 88-27 subject to certain u conditions, The approval of the Variance to allow one access point where two would normally be required was tied to a condition that the number of dwelling units allowed on the site be limited to 100 `units. r The Commission's decision also required the applicants to submit a : :. development would; 1) reduce detailed plan for the proposed d pinent� which wo � � � �the l '.'' ''&" � �M`� number of units on the site to 1,00°;; `)reduce parking lot s � p 4 n including P ring lopes; 3 3) provide details on site landscaping includin additional perimeter .�:, � � aria s c a buffeting and fencing; 4) provide a detailed tree protections plant; and , 5) correct other deficiencies of the initial site plan. ,,: a 5w FINAL URDBA NO 88- 15 PC PACE 2 N.•I-r 'al, + .+fir, � rl�.ka% '^.Z, r .'➢ f•,. ' ■ s r➢s,�; • q, - v e �� " y The applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to ,, " the City Council on September ;'l, 1988. The applicants appealed 1) the k ' : •. limitation on, the number of dwelling units to 100; 2) the linkage ofr� ' , • •., ' g � � 100; g ,. -'fit the approval of the access variance to the reduced number of dwelling '} U' ,�: 6,,2.--, PP wel ng �� :, units; 3) the requirement of,, submittal of a detailed site plan ,Co` the Commi sion for further review; and 4) the application of fencing and ' Planting conditions' that the applicants asserted exceeded the standards YR' '' established by the Community Development Code. (( ' i,4 The. Council reviewed the decision on appeal on October 110, 1988;, The Council upheld the Commission's s approval of the application subject to �• conditions but amended several of those conditions to: 1) allow ,,;;, development of 130 units on the site; 2) to specify areas' of the F e . + ., A h perimeter that must be fenced; and 3) to direct that the arborist's • ..4it plan for tree protection to include provisions for protecting abuttitng " I r` property owners' trees. In addition, the Council added a design' z guideline directing the applicants and the Commission to save at 'least I,t!. ''I 130 trees of 6 inch caliper or greater within the proposed developed, � portion of the site. The Council. upheld. the requirement that the applicant submit a detailed site pl.an, for Commission review. w p,{ . 3. Vicini Iniotmatiort f; ), i The subject r'op ert is surrounded b rop erties zoned ' R-12I''6• I."I (Residential, 12 units/acre) on all sides except to the west across i 0,'-,; Pacific Highway. Properties to the north and south also are subject to ,01,1,c the PD (Planned Development) overlay det gnatton. Abutting tones on ,I, '_ti, the west side of the highway, from north to south, are C-G .(General eee ' Commercial), C-P (Professional/ Admini erative Office Commercial • �.4 . i� . . District), and R-40 (Multiple Family Res2�dnntialy 40 units/acre). The ::`3' it M e .1 " ,.':'; city limits of King City are adjacent to the southwest boundary of � these pro'perti_es. ,,. 14, The development pattern around the site consists primarily of eett , ➢; 4.'','r' multi-family residences to the north and east; commercial development "' '•: ' ', ,: across Pacific Highway to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels '�,,r, , covered with tall fir trees and underbrush with one single family e-l�,� �`'4 residence to the south. A single-family residence on a 3.8 acne tree eee, P , i ly ' ' covered site is located immediately north of the site. Four duplexes i'Ase I , •f ,/ are located immediately east, of the southeastern corner of the subject r. site. A l' 7'.';', 'Z'')/4,,,-Y lu, 1,,,.a, SW 109th Avenue and SW Murdock Street in the area of the proposed yet '1 ' 4 ;'a,tihd: development are fully imp ov`ed) 34 foot wide streets functionally �„” ' '�,), A,i '� classified as local streets. SW 109th Avenue currently dead ends j,„,''',,,.1`°' ' �, ,� ➢ �': approximately 200 south of t,hs site : s ibl,e #1.', 1 ,�� a feet sou �� � � e.� Right-of-way for �� peas ' 6 '` ` ;:•, future connection of SW 109th Avenue continues .southward through'' a'i tree t�O,u to +, covered area until it meets the gravel southern segment of `109th Avenue , � ' which is located on the south slope of Little Bull Mountain io r1 ' dt •,., ,„—?.'d"4 N 1 1r b t' t . 88- 15 P C PAGE 3 II„S 1 ' / „i h'➢R ' ��'*i! .l i' ,'J .1' `4'1,"ah yrµ✓'' r•` .'' d 'ti '1 , h i; l I➢ , ',r « ''”+,« +r` •• A., 'N' ' R ._. ,. n ., , •;., ,r`/9 'tilt, .' y � "r,.,.■• ' , a \ . . e ,, f I, .. 4, V1 : ' ' 1 \ - 4. Site Information and Proposal Description • , ' 1 ' ' ' The proposed apartment complex consists of three tax lots. Tax lot 8802 is 0.56 acres in size, has 240 feet of frontage on SW 109th Avenue, and is zoned R-12. Tax lots 400 and 500 combined total 13.1 • acres an , d are toned R-12 (PD). All parcels are undeveloped. The entire site is covered with tall fir trees. The site slopes westward , from 109th Avenue with the western one-third of the site sloping 1 ' . steeply to Pacific Highway. ..k. The applicants propose to develop a 130 unit, 29 building apartment complex on the site All units will include two bedrooms. All .., , • buildings would be two stories except for one single story building to - be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The applicants request Site Development Review approval of the proposed 1 • ,e• ,, . site plan. Because the parcels are designated with the Planned 1 Development overlay zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The site plan currently before the Commission is the detailed site plan which is a refinement of the prior submittal. 1 , The buildings would be arranged around a roughly triangular shaped driveway with 8 buildings and a swimming pool located in the center. . i ,. ,,.• The layout of the buildings and internal roadways has been revised from the initial plan in order to preserve a greater number of trees and to . ' limit the amount of grading. In addition, fewer buildings would be . 1„,,, ' located along the northern site boundary than has been previously ,, ,- cee proposed. Thirty-five garages in 4 buildings, 95 carports, and 95 i, '•' • iq ,-.ee uncovered packing spaces would be located along the driveways. Because ' 41* . .4 the development will for the most part retain the existing slope of the i, . parcel, the internal driveway and parking areas will be steeply sloped e. . ' :1t ; t 1,•.,,,,, in two areas. The development would be served by one 30-foot wide 1 , ,,,e,„ access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. Community Development Code eL '''Ir• Section 18.108.070 requires that an apartment complex with 130 units be served by at least two access driveways. The applicant requests a ' 4e1., It 4:4i ,,, w• -1 Variance from this standard. Pi iN,' -4 • The site plan and landscaping plan show existing trees that will be ,..; 'I retained. The applicants have indicated that the plans attempt to ', , .., , I retain as many trees as possible, including the area at the center of Nr'ri.. % r"'"! the development, The dense forest on approximately the western 1, ' 411' one-third of the site would remain undisturbed. The landscaping plan II:oar:set construction process. . •., ' , ,,,.4,44 patnroaritietolretctemistfrruometiLoitimbweaflfkeeret:TruetelonCartehesubmtreiltedthwriotthghtohuet Ot.hane, i• '',Wiv't provide directions for tree preservation during construction through • li'' „ ,1,% ) fencing trees to be preserved prior to site excavation, aVoiding iiv q ‘ ' • ,, - 461,4.1 , construction activity within the drip lines of the trees, perform site ' . . I 1.../ clearing within the driplines by hand, and having the consulting 1 ' !,0-- e, qi.:4 i •`,;•,,. ".. ,',.: The site plan proposes that sanitary sewer connections for two - , , .,. , buildings in the northwest corner of the site be made to aft existing , .,,.:T.• ,‘„! public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue. Sanitary sewers serving the ,. ,. .#4.: remainder of the buildings would connect to aft existing sewer at the ;1',' '' Y.t It ,■ ; ...4 '' ''‘, ,,,.' • ..,,: rINAL °WAR NO. 88- 15 PO - PAGE 4 , ......................... I . r, - .'" )4 ,, . , --* ' n ' ., ' F :7''' ,:e.4 ' C ' ' • 'e• . . 'A' . ,.. V.,4 . ; .1 , , t . . 1 4''I , u •••. ,,•, , ., .,, , , . II, . . ' ' . ' • intersection of Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane. A main line extension would be constructed by the developer from the existing sewer to the site's Pacific Highway frontage. An eight-inch private sewer . , line would connect the proposed development's collection system with the main line extension. \ ' Storm drainage would be provided through catch basins located in the driveway and parking areas, draining to the westernmost portion of the developed area of the site, with surface discharge through four storm water outfalls equipped with velocity dissipators. i' .\-,* Water service to the site will connect to an existing supply line in SW ,,,, 109th Avenue. An existing pump system will be used to provide water P' .. circulation. Four fire hydrants will be provided within the development so that no portion of any of the proposed buildings will. be i located more than 250 feet from a hydrant. .1 . 5. Agency and NPO Comments ' . ' The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: 4 . , 1. The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex ,', west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous trees. The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Highway. 2. The apartment complex is proposed to have one access to 109th Avenue opposite Murdock Street. The Community Development Code requires one access for each 100 parking spaces., therefore, 2 accesses are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a - , . varianee to this requirement. One access is requested in order to . •, ,, limit the impact to the trees on the site and due to the restricted .7e frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue. •' ? 3. 109th Avenue is a 34-foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on both , sides of the street except along the site' s frontage. Street lights also exist on the west side •of the street. 109th Avenue . e street improvements currently end south of the site, Existing • right-of-way allows for possible future ewtension of 109th Avenue• ' -'m to Naeve Street. ,,,, ,,. 4. A Transportation impact Analysis for the apartment complex was submitted with this application. The analysis evaluated the impact of the proposed development on 109th Avenue an1 also on the 109th Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane. The analysis toncluded •- that the traffic generated from the site will not signiEicantly ' '. ,'I ' • impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operattons of the 109th Avenue arid Canterbury Lane intersection. 4, : , ,", , '' , . The report recommends that curb returns be utilized for the site' s _I ' ' 4„,,. driveway to improve accessibility into and out of the site. . . I. ■.,, • .,, :14" , -• ::.,,•• . . ,,,,. . -• ,, , , • ■ I, FINAL ORDPIk NO. $8.. 15 PC - PAGE 5 ,., f.,`,1,,, , ,,, , , • •. ' •t- • , ' ,:,, '.' ,, , 1 ; 4 , ,,, . - . ", .• ' ' ' . - - ,, '. • '.,-4- , ', ,, 4, , -4, Pr . . .- . • • y . ,, , , .,„ , ' ‘ ., . . ', . • • , f A• h. •�u F'.1 a nx i 1 '• n �r ,,,• 1, J! .n4, t+ 'i' 'r ,n f f,T ''r I" P' '''''''\:'1- '' :' 4 q.n ,u.,. .....«......,., .,....•.. a,,....1}....h ,....., .,:1, ......i ..,.',._., ..w,. .,!'........•.,.. .«+.•...._..«.w,..._M... .....A .r u.r.,...,LH-,+..,,N ..d.,r... n•..,r.r .,,n,•..........•a Aw.,._.....,A.Jw.».. u,..............,,.1-.,.M,....1 0+ H..Jw.,.r+ ,u.+.,w_.r;t u. - �R • AIL •; 4 ; .`"f 1=? 5. Storm drainage is shown as being collected on site from the roof ..,M,. , and paved areas and discharged into the forested area at 5 , locations, Each discharge is noted to 'consist of a velocity i.:,1.': dissipator. r :�,-,, The velocity dissipators will slow the discharge of storm water but will not diffuse the storm water. The storm water discharge will still be concentrated in a channel. Discharging the storm water into a diffuser will spread the flow of'water out A trench filled with clean drain rock would best provide the necessary diffusion of the storm water. • 6. Sanitary sewer service is available at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway. A main line extension will be ..e, required from this existing sewer southward to the proposed development. The extension is proposed to, be installed along Pacific Highway to the site's frontage and then up through the forested area to the development. I: The Building Division reviewed the proposal and G�ffered no comments. `' Tigard, School District 23J reviewed the proposal and offered the ,.1• . . following, comments� . 4 , •'- 0 At the current time, this proposed development is in the • A. Templeton Elementary and Twality Junior High School ; . attendance areas. Both schools are experiencing enrollment ' pressures and would have difficulty housing the children ; -= expected to come from this development" especially if the ' project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before . n • September, 19$9. Because the school district:, anticipates the need to make significant changes in its elementary and junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1989-90 • school year, the developer of this project, if it is . approved, should make no commitments regarding where the children living in the proposed development will attend school until those decisions are made. Washington County Fire District #1. provided the following comments regarding, the proposal: " h 1. The Fire Diskrict would prefer two well-spaced access drives 1 , rather than the single access drive proposed. • ' 2. Driveway rades shall not exceed 15 percent. 8. Fire hydrants shall be located no furthet than 250 feet from ail • portions of the proposed buildings This distance: may 1.�e `" r inC W 1 incased to 500 feet if automatic .fi»�e, �sP Icrs are installed '. in the proposed buildings. • •i• FINAL ORDER,, � R NClw 88- 15 PC -,.PAGE o , r s 1 • 11 v r P , M v T n 1 41 ,1 1 w 4 I. r A, •, ,., ,11 . • +fir f M f n . 4 i.,..w. x•... ... .......A. -..,...,,.U..,,,.w.,,....,-1.-a e.,,:..U... ........,..• t .i:...,..,.......ww•,.,.. ...,..,... ...,.. .. .�.F,:,.M L-, ..-4.. ..,J:,'.t..,.,..., _..»....... .,.._. y lj a • ' The Tigard Water District reviewed the roposal and commented that a • Tg p ,� t .., , ' , • proposed development will need to be served by �a pumped water system. A pumped system is already in place and is adequate to serve the proposed water system. The Water District provided additional technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect. pr, key • The Oregon State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and commented that no adverse impacts on Pacific Highway were anticipated other than temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary sewer extension. Intersection improvements itzcludin,g installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury Dane and Paci,fic, Highway are scheduled for completion next year. With the improvements • in, place, the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated without impacting traffic on Pacific Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a permit must be obtained prior to any work within the right-of-way ;nor installation of the sewer intersections No other comments regarding the detailed plan were received. f„ w C. ANALYSIS The proposal for construction of the proposed 130 unit apar.,tment complex conforms with Community Development Code R-12 zoning district requirements for type of use and permitted density, setbacks ', from` property boundaries, maxinmum site coverage (80%), and minimum cite area landscaping (20%). The proposal complies with Site Development Review it standards for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or A " balconies) , shared outdoor recreation areas, vision clearance at the driveway/road intersection and site lighting. The site plan generally . complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although # modifications to the plan will be necessary. The site plan, also must ' be revised to comply with requirements for drainage as noted in �;`: Comment 5 from the Engineering Division. These deficiertcies and the requested access variance are addressed below. Parking .•., The required number of parking spaces for this development is 195 (1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit), 207 parking spaces would be provided ' thereby satisfying this standard. 130 of the parking spaces ate required to be covered (1 per dwell' � site plan pr •. ,, - re dwelling unit), The p provides for 35 garage parking spaces. The original site plan also proposed l, ' • • 95 carport parktng spaces, No carport spaces are p ro P osed under the current plan. the plan must be re'v'ised to provide for 'a minimum of 130 • covered parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106 020(n) requires a minimum of „ r one h',atdioappe parking space for every required, ar p spaces, °r portion t hereof. the site plan p rovides for four handic apped parking spaces. This standard is satisfi.ed. •t I •. i • L'J.Nt11.r OaUER NO, 88 15 PG, PAGE •• I �r ,.� a e` a e I � � A �F i r 4• h �. t . 6 • • r.• :, . , tom•' . i p. ., 'o-i r c,, (- t ''‘. ',,, . The site plan and grading plan have been redesigned since the .-.., so Commission's initial review of this proposal in order to reduce cross .4) ' • ' slopes in the parking areas. Two 100-foot long areas of the internal access road will, however, have grades of approximately 15 percent. No parking will be provided in these areas. The grades in these areas . will satisfy. the Fire District's request' that no road grades of�'great�er ;,;-' ; '• than 15 percent be permitted. Landscaping L ' ,• .' A landscaping plan is a required element of a Site Development Review application. No landscaping plan was submitted with the original conceptual site plan reviewed by the Commission. The applicants have submitted a landscaping plan with the detailed site plan currently s g under review. The landscaping plan provides for eight pin oak trees to 'I L ' be located along the site's 109th Avenue frontage. This satisfies the Code requirement for street trees. The landscaping plan also provides for a variety of trees and shrubs within the development to serve as y fi parking .^rea trees and landscaping for the outdoor living ' spaces .. �.` surrounding the dwelling units. The site plan and landscaping plan also designate 146 existing trees with a caliper of 6 inches or greater v; within the area of the site to be retained. Sixteen of these existing / trees are noted as "type II" trees which have conditions such as proximity to buildings or paving which may, result in the need to remove', these trees. The retention of at least 130 trees satisfies the �. '. . Council's direction to attempt to save at least 130 trees in the , developed area of the site. The landscaping plan calls for protection . . of the trees to be retained as directed by the arborist's letter, ■ primarily y through fencing the driplines of trees to be retained to keep �1 rimarib construction effects to a minimum,, That and the other tree 'protections , measures should provide sufficient protection. The site plan and landscaping plan do not provide for fencing of the site as directed by the City Council's final order A letter to the • . City from the applicants' attorney, however, indicates that the ° applicants will be providing fencing as approved by adjoining property owners (November 4, 1988 letter from William Monahan).. Detail's regarding the fencing to be provided should be submitted to the City :'•�''„. prior to the issuance of building permits. � � '• In a6dit.ion, the site plan' and landscaping plans do not provide information oft fencing around the swimming pool. Code Section' s , ' 18. 100.100(c) requires that swimming pools be enclosed with a minimum 4 foot tall fence with a self-latching gate. Details regarding . regard iyng the fence . to t provided shall be submitted tor staff review prior t o issuance of r - • building permits. j)), j The site plan proposes one 30 foot wide access o aWCesseS Avenue. • �e�t�,on 1 p p foot 109th � �: O Beres tl ' ss� o 8 b70 of t = • X3.1 � he Code re� �� � 1re � for a �(� multi fartdty development serving 100 to 200 residential, units the • • r FINAL• ORDER - 15 PC C r.. • '' 1 r ` 1 i , _ . ,. A . h ?G 1, Y ,,, , . Na . Q,TM -, , A 0 . n • • ., - - �,,.,... ..,..:...«,r,.rw....»:...L-•,....w.+........,a '. n,„, d.,''„'y.'....,....,w.,,..1.....-. I . ..n.A.,.. .....„.....,....J r.,_.....r.. a.. •«.,w.Ji,x... uW.....a ',1. r,�� ''' ,l applicant requests a variance from this standard due to 1) the limited ' fl a access opportunities resulting from the limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue and 2) the steep slope on the western �third of the site making '; access from Pacific Highway difficult to develop. Code Section' 18.108.1.50 provides for the Commission to allow a variance to access . requirements if it is found that: 1. It is not possible to share access; ''� ' 2a There are not other alternative access points on the street in r '' a` ':,° question or from another street; vrte.: t- ,r ..4 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate z!p'' ° access; y 5. The approved access or access approved wi'h conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. ' A• .. There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent parcels.. Other . p parcels which, front on SW 109th Avenue east of the site ' are already developed. Development of another access on. tax lot 8802 ,"t would provide little if any congestion relief on SW 109th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections. Another access in this •..�' area would also require relocation of at least one q proposed building thereby necessitating removal of additional trees elsewhere on the site. Derelopment of an access from Pacific Highway is impractical' because of the expense of constructing a road u? the steep slope on the western one-third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and 'aesthetic values that would result from removing trees in that area, and berau se of the potential adverse traffic impacts of an access entering Pacific Highway. proposed , The 30-foot width of the driveway (24 feet is the required width) and the utilization of curb returns and development of � « j the driveway at the same grad as the ,;treet should provide adequate and safe access. r. ' D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS p, , , The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.54k, 18.80) 18.96, 18.100, 18.162, 18.1,060 . 18.108. , ' 18.110, 18.120, 18. 150, and 18.164. ', The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal, with .r L. 'I is: modifications, s consistent with relevant portions of the Community dr' i Development Code based upon the following fin:dingts •', . . a. Chapter 18:54 (R-12 zone) i$ satisfied because the proposal f , conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional al •• d� � ap ably �• i..�, FINAL ORDER NO. 88 . 15 PC PAGE • . � � te Y" r f' r i. a , t :� I � r eb 1a. • .', \'' . .: ..,.„, • U: 1a' F, :. fir, requirements of the R--12 zone. Multi-family residential ' . development i, a permitted use in the R-12 zone. The site plan , ,,,. 1' proposes devei Dprnent of 130 dwelling units whereas, the R-12 zone ..i`;.;"; ; would allow development of 152 units on the parcel. All setback ';':,"`' `' and building height standards are satisfied 4.'`' ment is satisfied because the l?' b. Chapter 1.8.80 (Planned Development) r : .. ;., detailed site plan is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission tr,' ri as required by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay q`"\ ,', • ' ' • zone. The conceptual plan has previously been reviewed by the . "` Cocnmiss�:on. .• V' c. Chapter 18.96 is satisfied because the site plan provides for '`' ��' r „b..,,.;w,' ''� appropriate distances between mmulti--fklmily' residential' buildings ,' to assure privacy to residents and adequate light to all units on the site. ' d. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening's 'dill, be satisfied upon ;°r;`3 resubmittal of Lhe landscaping plan providing for perimeter fencing in accordance with the Co'uncil's direction and fencing around the swimming pool in accordance with, Code standards., ', ;'�' e,, Chapter 18.102 (Vision Clearance Areas) is satisfied because the j`• ;� revised site plan and landscaping plan have appropriately limited f .', ,:•;, landscaping and other site improvements within the vision clearance triangle at the dri 'e1*ay/road intersee:tion to heights , 8 � ` . I. which satisfy Code standards. f, Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that provides 1 '1'', • for a minimum of at least 130 covered parking spaces. The site ? . • i •, plan satisfies jade requirements for number of total parking ' ' " spaces provided and provision of appropriately located designated ,tit W handicapped parking spaces. . , • g. Chapter 18,108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied ,ate• �� because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access and • egress for the proposed use and for general. circulation on the ' ,. • site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW7 109th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one ! ' access to serve the site, whereas thr Cade would normally require two accesses for �a developlent of this size, is justified as I' previously discussed. ;!•.'. 1,. Chapter 1.8.1.20 (Site Development Review, is satisfied because the . ' detailed plate i'il prrwide for the pro'posed building. and other ;f • site improvements to be located ,so as to preserve existing ttrees as practicable and to minimize alterations to the site's 0 The site plan also situates the • � topography and drainage systems. -1•,;d buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and compatibility between the proposed development 1 and adjacent uses. VENAL ORDER 140.11 PC PAGE to 8 l �A. • ' "r.7 ,.. I _,_ '. d,{h, ti .M' _.‘ •�. ` ltiiiiyY %,;,•: , If' r ,„H"1 1 7- ` - '.4,.,,_ i , n hen.,1•. , ' o F, 1^ . 3 t , t 1 ' 1 , ti+ to J ? ' a'i...+ q.' 4 'r i h . .1 ., "•-'�• r' ..,h+ ; •1# d 1 /m t • 0 ' l...r,,.k....1.......,.+....n.,_...w..,.w....»..a... W ....r .,,....,. .r...r..rk..,.emu.•T r..d...r.«. ...+,.•........ .. ,s11e,,,:.✓.Y..x..•..v+gym .»..,.•nu,.v..r...v...,.,....r..yr w....r..,...... . I....m,•v. ........... .fir....»it'ar,.. v..y,.e .a.<. -. .,. i. - i � , At FBI i. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the. • applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in p reparation for development. The site. plan (: and landscaping plan designate an adequate number of trees to be retained in the area of development as directed by the `City ,' Council. The plans alsc provide for appropriate measures to be employed during construction in order to protect the trees to be �~ retained and the neighbors trees. Perimeter fencing and fencing around trees to be retained �' will be required to be installed prior to the issuance of site work permits for the development. I The site plan also provides for all trees in the western one-third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate mod.ate the .proposes' sewer. j. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for. and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection! to the existing sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and � • installation of the sidewalk and driveway apptoach on ' SW 109th Avenue. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development. E. DECISION The Planning Commission approves the detailed plan for Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88=17, and Variance 87-27 subject to the following conditions: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE WORK AND BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: ' KEITH LIDEN, PLANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 4; GARY ALFSON, , ENGINEERING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 5 'THROUGH 11. 1. A revised landscaping p plan or addendum to the present plan Shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval. The plan shall provide specific information on proposed perimeter buffering along the northern and e astern bor der of the site Said perimeter buffering Shall consist of a 6 foot tall chain link fence and greening or a 6 foot tall site obsouring' fence t I G vegetative screening a the option of adjoining property owners. the fencing shall be installed prior to commencement of any site work, construction, or . tree cutting, The revised landscaping plan shal l also p rovide details on a minimum 4-foot tall fence enclosing the swimming pool area. A 2. Fencing with a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be installed around the dripline of all trees proposed'; for retention prior to M1" approved coast ticthenci on the consulting site, �. + rang shall. be, inspected and The fen,, to pproved y g arorist and Planning Division ,prior to permit issuance. Any later 'lad clearing wore Within the driplines • FINAL ORDER NO 88- 15 PO DACS 11 Dm ,......,,... .,. s...,....+._.�1 ,,. ,. _. eW.......uar._,x,i ......., ... ..n.....+.. .,...M. .,. ✓I . .,.o.. x..a.... 6.i. .. - .•..._,._ • 1 ,w performed by shall be erformed b hand. A nualified arborist shall inspect the r„ ,' . , ' r' site 'at, a minimum of two timeb per week during construction to �' ensure that the tree preservation David '' '. e p sereation , program outlined by Davz . #° ' McConnell, dated October 31, 1988 (Exhibit "A") is followed. , . . ..A ` 3. A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to any tree removal on the site. Removal permits will not be issued for trees L ' designated as type I trees by the landscaping plan. 1a, ' , 4:, A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for a minimum " • of one hundred and thirty (130) covered parking spaces. 5.' The single driveway connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed J' in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic ; ' report. 6. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil t ngineer, detailing all proposed 1 public' .improvements shall be submitted to , the Engineering Section r >ans shall be ' for approval. Two (2) sets of plan and profile. �; � submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final , plans. Said plans shale, include installat'ion of a 5-foot wide i concrete sidewalk along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. J. Ii, 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commences ' P P ! until after the Engineering Division' has approved public '' r,,,, 9-�. improvement plans. The section will require a 100% Performance ' , • Assurance or Letter of Commitment, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer , agreement. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans., 8. The applicant shall provide for roof and parking lob- rain drainage Pt ' to the public stormwatet drainage system or by an approved on-site . system designed to prevent increased runoff onto Pacific Highway. -' Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part 9. S Y p p g Calculations and a topographic i o°f the Public Improvement C ._ r, map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable ' �• area, i'.' 1 10. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon, Highway Division to perform work within the y s� �' . ric be provided to the �� �t-lig Y �� n � t � right-of-way of � � 1 Pacific Highway, A copy of the permit shall p r e City Engineering Office prior to issuance of a Public Improvement �) Permit, ' 41 i . "11,1 The proposed privately operated and maintain parking lot and roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans, fi. FINAL ORDER N0. ,88-' .w 15 PC ��PACE .12 1 f A • • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION, (STAFF CONTACT: KEITH LIDEN) 12. All landscaping materials, permanent fencing, and other proposed site improvecl.tents shall be installed as per the landscaping and ;�.-- site plans. . 13. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the erection of an r. . identification signs Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development y p Code, , THE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this final order. PASSED: This �� _ day of ei01h ' .., by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. .�".�.. ,., A. Donald Moen, President l ig 7d Pla,nning. Commission ■ brl 6765D � k I I I ' zi FINAL ORDER NO. 88 - 15 PC PACE 13 • " • • { 'k,.., Ta ifk,,,,,\„, sii j, , , . .,,,,, ., ,,, i. , , y. . .. . 54,,,, ,,,,,,.., . ,,,i( . . . , ''fir ,, , ,..._..., "12159 4.4 f&, t r ",259 49 . /0, " fit,\ 44 ) • 44.11h.:kr.,N;A.,:tr\°NI.... ' 110 44t1 $1 S 1 • •I . MEMBER NATIONAL I' �►RSOR��rlf" '�" dam, ' . I.im ASSOCIATION • ! .'t,�» `% .g8OR1c ` . ." , 10335 SW. 85th Avenue Portland,Oregon 97223-8806 244-8975 31st oF October 1988 , CBH Company 8315 South West Stark Street Portland, Oregon 97816 , Attention: Carl Nase Dear' Sir, At your request I have reviewed the trees located at the , ., proposed building site on 109th Avenue . This visit was donor . to give a letter oF opinion as to the trees present condition F and their chances For survival duririg and' Following . construction . SpeciFically I ' wes asked ,i6 it was possible to . I save no less than 130 of the existing trees, and what criteria should be Followed to, •accomplish this . In response •. to your y questions I can report the Following: ( I I 1 . The existing trees and Flora on this lot seem to be in f '/ �' generall ood health . N , ..Gr,'•f y g Aside from what appears to be �;'q�;; ,?i minor storm damage, they seem to have no outward signs '', DE disease or insect problems at this time . In my '',,'04 • •; opinion you should be able to save no less the 130 �t trees in question . ; , , y`- ' 2 . It would be my recommendation that no construction oF any kind come closer than the dripline of any trees , marked on the blueprint to retain , Moreover, a cyclone Fence or equivalent should be installed along �• V` the dripline of the trees to be saved by proFessionals, on a semi- permanent basis, eight Feet (8 ' ) in height, with no gate, well ahead oF any . constructions The Fence should remain there until the r • construction is completely Finished, and the A ,I landscaping completed . IF in some instances you must ,t come closer to the tree than the dripline it would be • ' prudent' c�perationoto give e� trees the Arborist oversee this � � ��;• �thGonsultznhe best chance see t17 have } survival . This person should also inspect the Fences as they 're installed to make sure the proper- distances . are observed at all times , . 464113iT h.1.. ..... ,,.,.✓.u•ru,n.a...,.,.,,.:e .,.�". .. ..�.. .. a ..a».✓... s, ......n..„. .... ..•„...... " .•, •,",.n.•.. i, ..... .. A•..0...,i.,. ... ... .r .�.v ., ....",,.r..„ ,., .n .r......., . r II • •, .• , __......ie.,. ,.. _.. .i... .]u..r•,«,h.a ,. _i.-:««. r...a.......e,NJ.,..,.....,-,.uw,.'_.. i..,. r_....., .r,_, _.. .•. ....,....I.w A ♦al n«. .. .,.i1„. ...r_, .. i 1 A ' 1 v 3 'kN • L • TE' E ,,. , lic , e .� j• 1.4.4 4'2,..'ory yy,• ^ MEMBER NATIONAL � � � ' � � � � m ASSOCIATION �. 1 0335 S.W. 85th Avenue ,, Portland,Oregon 97223-8806 244-8975 l . , • • , , CBH Company 31st of October 1998 ., ,Page Two 3 When the land clearing segment oF this project begins care must be taken not to compromise the Fenced oFF areas . It would be prudent tp create, a main road into ' � the �area t© localize traFFic as� rnuc}�� as p ossible . When V it comes time to do the clearing g with in ,the dripline of the trees to be saved it must be, done by hand as to not disturb the grade v �t de ,orcomact the s©�1 : 9 compact , a L . As with all construction there will be some 1 microenvironmental changes with respect to sunlight', wind exposure, and general ,-air 'movement, which will , 4 cause some stress on these trees . However, IF the iv distances above are observed and the trees are given proper pre-and-post construction supervision by the Consulting Arborist and his advice is Followed, the ' prognosis should be very good . The construction work should be monitored by the Arborist and the post construction maintenance program set up by that person as well . I trust the above is suFFic&ent For your needs as a preliminary overview letter oF opinion with respect to the . subject trees , 4 Please let me know IF you need Further inFormation relative r Ito this report ” 1 i Thank you very much . . Yours For The Care OF Trees, , .2 c-_-_--*-- 1,5,4.13, . Cs6,,,,,,,,,a,6(2,(1 'I. David F , McConnell , Arborist DF M/dim y • '''Q " �• . .y., r �', 1 , 6.. n o , f . RT , BOX 2 B SEE • OOP, 0 97140 " .ALAN ARt .I OREGO a.'��N ,CORD: PO B0X' '' 527 PORTL r Oil 97242' i I GREG e v TRX I I i , 11995 'S . PACIFIC HWY TIG R 97 223 L'm'L'mso BIS 7.'1' 200 11W 112 NO • .. PORLAND, 0 97209 , ■ • WILLIAM M©NAHAN �1- X41 r 12290 SW MAIN ST ~- ' o 1.. :r U'w ' . ' 1 TIGARD, OR 97223 w. 1 ;�a, 1 ' A-ei,1,4 • ' BRAD SCI LEINING, P.E ' W.B. WELLS 4230 NE FREMONT; � ST 97213 T. � 0 POR .� i ' STEVE SHAPIRO C/0 MUJRASE ASSOCIATES ,, 1410 NW JOHNSON i. ''' 1 P0RPI AND, OR 97209 1 . i' '° bAitS MCCONNELL C/o L1ME3 W ALFtER c AVE S 10335 SW 85TH RORITIAND,, ,OR 97223 1 BB C C 0 Xww 8315 SGT STAP.IC ST \Ad r t,'"11,\Ik - I' PORTL, ` b, 'OR 9721 ppct x 9 \ c ' / ( n. , ...,_„ .., ,.-4a.. �,..,r»,W.�i,. a.a ....•, ....,,..,..._..•.... ............._�_,. .,, ..�.: ,.u..,.d,..x,..�r.x...,..ix..,....�M�+.r.._:-.........+.m,a„w.. ..,....:,....,....,...�..r..,.. , ., ... .,_,..:,. ..........w.<.�.,:;:c.::-ari.+.7.+..-.. ,.._ ., . ,4� ,4 1 II '�,l r; f AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ) ass. 1 ` City of Tigard ) .. n A■ 1, 0.,-k-herine a first being duly sworn, on oath h . ` ' depose and say: (?1 ase Print) That I am a Y"` for the City of Tigard, Ore on. . That I. served notice of the Tigard City. Council, r .{ Order' ' E -16/ , CD i"g-l'? el--) g' ---(,) JLELS:Lia:21,_'Sc,hctei--4 - De kctri -,er . . of which the attached is a copy, (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the --day of I1� , �1'9 :_ by mailing to each of them at the, address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), . said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United Statue mail on the , 5 ± day of , 1.9 ,, postage prepaid. . � Prepared Notice �at st.,0,, ,o ' Mailed Notice/Delivered To Post Office df' ,,St bsc�.bac;'°avid 'sworn x to before me this 5 ' day of �.... _____ , 19 r� r a1 d' ti� 1. y, r lr.4 r is a :e1,::' {i a 1 ,• ,'r' u , i ai i t u�' Y,,, rt,' P' 4�pCyl4 yP ro'w r_, 7 I' ',P +L ,,. \`,V t LM/ (..„4 C›, �. 1. .Notary`Public Of Oregon My Commission Expires: ✓ -47,6, ...: 1 IVA V \ ; � u A .r1 ...ry r..• t/• ..• ., -. , .r,y.ua�.wxn.ay...._., ., rt..r ., i ./ ..s.. ..,.. _. ,,..it ,;,.'.u...,./•_...i,:.., w.w., ..,w,.. r• .,u: . r.i•-. ...,. ... ' . I i CITY OF •TIGAR.D, OREGON NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION -- BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18.32.380) 1. Concerning Case Numbers) SDR 88-17, PD 88-041 V 88-27 _ I, 2. Nam e of Owner: F& A Schuetz ,, 3. Name of Applicant: Tod DeKanter, Arch. . � , P Address_ N.B. 34th Place Citya . r..t t e OR Zip 97013 r• of • 4. L ocation �� • Address_ Bet ween SW 109th Avenue and SW pacifis__Hi hw ay I i e Legal ne^c ription WCT M 251 10 AD lot 8802 and 231 lQAC lots 400 and 500 5. Nature of Application: For ap royal of a 130, unit apartment com.lex on 12.66 acres zones R12 (PDT (Medium density residenaiali_ X2 unit acre; w a Planned Development) Also, a request. for 'a Variance to City regulations ' __that re 4;,. s t'wo _access woini:s on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. 6. Action: . . .re A f 8 After lose �� � Public Hearing before City Council on Oct. 10, 193 W� Public Hearing, unanimous direction of Council was for staff to prepare Final Order modifying Planning Commission's decision. Resolution No. . was submitted Council was amended , F38�-10'� s s �.`�tec. fa:r ('oizne� review' and s ',emend as proposed by ' � 1 Resolution No. 88-101 was adopted (as amended) : 1. Cotinse��fox, the applicant , � � � � � ,� ,by� a unanimous� vote�of Council� present and is attached. f 7, Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Ha]_]: : and mailed to: (, X _ The applicant & owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization . i , X Affected governmental agencies 1 V d 8. Final .Decision: }ti . • S SIGNED ON '0 24488 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 10/24/88 ta: �, DECISION WAS I 1 r• The adopt d� findings oe fact,' decision, and .statement of condition can., be ( . .• obtained from the Planning Department f; Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall i Blvd. , B.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 n notice of intent L, b. filing a ;•• �. �. ,�review ,af this decision may be obtained Y g with the Oregon . Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures t ( 9 i guestaons t if you l;tale any questions, please call the Tigard City a tecorder� at' 639--4171:x, . M ^ . i , i ,n 4 ' , . : . ,!t r ,..,, ...F ,,,...u.a iv..,..-......,,... a,,,,,.,n.r,..�.... w,.,_....,_ .. 1. , A, ...,,.,. ...1I.,.".....r..t,. ... .,,.mow,- . „, . RESOLUTION N0, 88-- it)/ ` .. ti: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE BOTH TF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; CONCEPTUAL PLAN (PD 88--04) AND A VARIANCE (V 88-27) AND ALSO TO /' �' . , REMAND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ” ( • .� DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (SDR .88-17) THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WAS .APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL'S ACTION AMENDS ' ' . CERTAIN OF " THOSE APPEALED CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES THE DETAILED PLANNECl DEVELOPMENT CLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Tod DeKanter, repr-esenting CGH Company, applied for Site Development) I Review approval, Planned Development approval, and a Vrince to the Community Development Code standard for number of driveways required for a multd. -family development of greater than 100 unit:,, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissioh reviewed the proposal on `'September 6, 1988, and approved the proposal subject t0 sQ w'eral conditions including a" condition that the number of dwelling units be limited to 100 units rather than the 180 1;t units proposed 'and also including a condition that required the applicants to F submit a revised site plan for detailed Planned Development Review; and • WHEREAS, the planning 'Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by the CBH Company one grounds that 1) The Planning Commission did not properly ; u , apply the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code - `.,, Chapter 18,80; 2) that the number ; of units allowed by the ' Commission is inconsistent with the intent of the Plan l for land zoned R-12 (PD); 3) that f ; ,i the imposition of certain planting and fencing requirements by the Commission - r� : 1 1,) exceeded the standards`, established by the Community Development Code; and 4) .i. that the findings contained in the Commission's Final ;Order do riot support)° the 1 � ) s tisfied,a11 applicable "sections of the l `1 �� �" i � decision as �"'the applicant has fully a pp Plan and Code; and 1: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on October 10, 1981, to 4 • . '� , review the commission' s order,relative to the proposal; r , ' NOW THEREFORE, BE XT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that "," Planning Commission Final Order �No. 88--10 PC is modified as Section 16 follows at D, Decision on Page 10,, DECISION ° The City Council grants conceptual approval of Punned Deveirapooht PO 88--04, Site Development Review 88-88-17y and' . . Variance V 88-w27. A detailed plan' shall be submitted within one year, for Plartr ing Cofirtission review, that includes the following:g 1 1, A grading plan for the developed portion of the it Cross slopes ih parking areas ;hall be reduced to approximately imately 6 1 pwcen , whre possiile,� 4: 2, The single driveway , onre N ioh to SW 109th h Avenue shall be x . ,- • designed i i conformance with the r+ecolrilt►et datiohs of the applicant's traffic report , RESOLUTION NO, 881- 10 I I Page 1 �" I k. , ,sera <., ,�,...... ,..,,., ., ,,.. .. .� ., , ,6$ 1} .,. S , Y , .. , - _:,. a....,,,....«...» '.,a.,...,... _a.x-,. :., ., .,. ...:.>,,,s,....M...,..,..w..,,:._,.c.,.u...,:. .,+....,-+i,,,,::.-,. •.,c,,.c..t._-:'tu:.m:::M.c.,Sw:.. d ,' 3. A 1d rd s" a x r� plan shall al l b� submitted for Planning nin Commission�a s 1 " review and approval.' The plan shall provide location and ' '•�ecies specific formation on proposed� ,�' :, .�pecifi; information p p d larTdscaraing mater^xal' As a guideline, of, this plan should preserve a minimum of 1,3,6 '4 that are 6-•inches in diameter or '.''; �, r ,� - ..ii ..,..,i.. ..�. ..... ..., ., .'�..- ......,A'.....0 .a..',+„nt-..a....n a.. e„...,�:F,..,.w,,x. _.-�.._.,r_.«,..._.-.-...,.»I...,:-0.-A.i.,.,,r..ao-.lN�. .Ib,.,M4.-W..:.......vwi-F.�..,-d�I..�.r,w.�.iG..r.ra.s.�.x..,ar,.uw,n, wN.....,..r.«uwv3.a.r•r .n...�,.-..4..v4....n ,w F:i�t..,�u.0 r., ... � ,.....w IN..u.j., A M r �M, r( i • Too De.antex Arc i-1. 7PC! ilE 34th Place y � � r f, , � .x, Y c Canby, OR 970x 3 w 1 ;�., .: •Cad ease l''''''''''''' i" eBB Companies 1 r.µ�.r ..8315 SE Stark � Portland, OR 97216 ';�,., r/h;,r Brad Schleining W g I �.;. 4230 >.VEFremoa'ct St. x•11,•� ' '' Portland, OR 97213 tip"' 1, j l ; Marge Davenport . 15100 SW 109th ;; Tigard, OR 97224 �' '. t‘.,,....,,,, •(L�.. f a Roger Rauch „/:, , u4 fi•,. I � 5800 �] Macadam „'. am I , Portland, OR 97201 '` � ,,�p1r ,, . �-� 1; v 1 . I Edna Annand $ o.,i J r..,, 4600 SW Pacific io {5 " Y r T� f aid OR .� Tigard, R 97224 � � ' ,r/1 � i W 1 ( I 4. t H4t�merl .,. .�.. �14807� SW 109th L,.,,,„,:,,,,ig', t '- ; , tigard, OR 97224 Jack Forell ;'�� �t , ., 14815 SW 109th J Tigard, OR 97224 (,4,-„c:,,'''. (��� r ", , t V ��,� 4 j{ h�f � "mil � I f , Jon Peterson `' to SW j � Kent Place 10510 ','.i"`...:11:..' ,..�� Tigat'd, O . 97224 } ., ,� try Bill Monaliars . •, Attorney at Law ,r . r 1229 0 S.W. Main. Street', W Tigard,' OR 97224 r r �E4 , t,. Y 9 1 J) 1 r P i h� is w y I �' Y *4 4 w, r ,, A ,.,. i.....au.., »....J. r..r.of..r.w..i. r f w•.A. n ..... :.fa_ .. L' i ..'4 ., 'W-. ..,-.. -. _, ''Y' A r • , . p • Y T OF MAX1LJ G STATE OF OREGON 1,", . County of Washington ) ss. ?. i I, jf• I ) /. . , ) , -being first duly swore on oath die e 4 and says Please Print : . � That I � a f l! � �.5'�' for The City of Tigard, Oregon. IL ' That I served NOTICE OF POrE tC BEARING tor: i 4 t T served l�c}I'L F DECISION fog'. I „ City of Tigard Piaw ing Director T —M/MYe— Tigard. Plaoniug Commission o 1 1 Tigard Hearings Officer • . I Ti ate.City +C+tatineii '' o A. copy (Public Hearitg tOtice/$0,zice of si ) of wbic is a att ed (Harked H'-'7. Exhihit "A'") was mailed .to �h na d e at the addresa shown on the• .ttached. et marker a ibit "B� 'on t e da áe,) 1.98 , . . said notice laZICE OF DE CZCD7N— as jereto &tacbed d vas posted on a ., 19 . r � � I s,�►proPrlate bu]�.etin board on the �; .1�1_ 'a�ay of ��..�.���, , �,�.,�..�,). a� ,,,�d s.nd deposited in the United States mil. on the day of . ✓ 44,„,,,,/ _' 1 e I9$2poslagerepaidb • • / p 4 I Th.gvite Person who posted on Bulletin ' ih Board �` , (For De.eision Only) � Pt:soti o �'d'a iv red to.FOS 0 F�CCE w . Subscribed and svo �, { MY to before ode on 9,( A f . t• 4 . I I I I t Y I . i 1 t t, 44,4./ ' . ' /,_:,12,„..,,, x NO't Y PU OL]C •F ''V a r f. ' MY COM1d SLon Expires q, i ;. O2�EP/O021P �� f A tl. d"y f . . . ' / 1 ..\l ...IJI ,•b,V'A II',•A): O ... , •' 'I J r • ! IA•� • • , ' :: I w •i a IH.....,.._ i . . 'i!>t'.i..r.. ..ice. .. .._ ..,,... ..._.....1.„............... .._.._ v.-......,r..,-.._.h ....n-- ... ,+......, .. r.n,.a..-... .a,...) ...,...... ,. . .. ..a r -., !.. i, .. ....-,,.. \ ,, ." ' CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon • _ I �. NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY PLANNING COMMI iSIO , , W,qty _ ' 1 Concerning Case Number(s) : SDR 88-17, PD _88-04, V 88-27 2. Name of Owner: F & 'A Schuetz h 3: Name of Applicant:___ Tod DeKanter., Arch. , J Address 720 •N.E. 34th Place City Ce,nby sta'-e OR zip 197013 MI 4. Location) of Property; Address Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Elighway ., I ..�,........�,r. ' it M T, a and. Lot Nos WCTi1 251 1OAD _lot 8802 and 2S1 1OAC lots 400 & 500 . Tax Map No(s) .�._._.r. /., 4 I 5. Nature of Application:_IFor approval of a 130 units apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium density residential, 12 units acre, PlanrTid Development): Also, a request foVariance to Ci.t regulItions that rewires • two access pointS on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. r 6. Action: Approval as requested: Approval with conditions ..,..... Denial 1 do I '�.,< Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper,p posted at City Hall and �7, Ntl p , V mailed to: • xx The applicant & owners ...., � . �� Owners of record within the required dis tance ; . I xx The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization ,'. xx Affected gov�ernmtental agencies ' � 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL FINAL. . ..:�.�._...•. 8,._:pNLE , FILED.,• r. , I H�l.L� B�� F�;,� � ON ��tob�i�, 3 r 19.8 ss �AN APPEAL �'S �° The. ado ted �.odzngs of .fact, decision, Tigard n City 13125 SW p : lion, a statement `on be obtained from the Planning Department, y • •� P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. � I y,• 9. L: a , 4 N 7 is decision i- Ariy party to the decision may appeal t'l�." : in accordance With 18.3 2.2 p •,• .. . Section �:8:��:37l7�which- ro�►ides I that a written, I and • is, t • 90(A� ,�.� appeal f may be filed within 10 days after notice i given and sent. i The deadlifte for ,filing of an appeal. is Qctober 198 _ . • < o, ��i Questions; Is you have and questions, please call the City of T x gaCd Department, , lla�tin 639-4171. � ` I , r (0257r) , I I I • i 1 . • .. ...�...,.�. .._.»+a...,...,......,.,L:...a._.,.1....i. .:......_.«u.,.._..,.,..._...,,.,f,I.-..:..I=.ix.................0.. M.,a�.II,H� ....i...',, �. ..«, ,J,....i...w.r..,_.n.......,..,.....x......,.,...:...o-k.�.. w .. lo o TIGARD PLANNING IG COMMISSION i'-:ENA Y. ORDER NO 88 10 PC I.:1 17!« ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS �l CONCLUSIONS� WHICH APPROVES E. AN APPLICATION i EOR h PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, S:ti"E DEVELOPMENT '''ISMV EW, AND VARIANCE (PD 88-04/$DR ' ea--17/V 8t-Y27) REQUESTED BY FLORIAN At',... ANNE SCHuE«IW,Z i ww•w.« Ir..W.««rwY«.«.wa.«RMw«,Y«.WUwfw..Hw.««Hwru11««MUUY«w«•M.««.«««ywlur.Y1W«W«M«««i4..w•w«x««.Nw•r««..H«�rrwuWU.w.M.Hli•rNM«w u «.«Iwu1Y••««u«uMwwWw.Y.Y.HN«u.HWrI IIw«•«xlwrMr.rY««r{«.w11u.n««xNN.Mliw••w.0 , "i'hht "Ii.ga.r'd Pi iini:rtg ConatilissLot7 r°:)vi o,lcl .1-...1.1 k'?. atla0v a r,)ID 1.11cati.con at a k�a1b7f:ixc: • • , hearing tt .tng Ott September 6, 1908 The Commission based its,decision on, th e l ac.ts, findings,:�, at•td conclusions noted below; 1 FACTS . I :f.. G r.1.92�rt:1. X111:c�rlmsa t;,fl�a rt wH.«,rwuH.w...Y f...«.ri,«.xMHH«Y««H«IMlH.wHw..H•i.Wf«Iw CASE: Planned Der. opment 88-04, Site Development Review SDl,' 00,4..17, Vari,a, ...e 00-27 , 1 , 7 I REQUEST: Si°te. Dc.vc lopment Review and Planned Development Review 1, . approval to 'c/onst construct w� :�30 urr!{1it.�:fM apartment ycon plea on al, 12,66 acre tree covered sit*, Also requested is � { •f{�tir`IWlil i,lcc 1 from Community Development Code Section 18,:!.08,070 whaicia , requires apartment ar"t men!: C,oml:)tf xea with greater?r thatrl 100 'ciltvelling least units to have at two access driveways . The � ; 'a requests that the proposed development be allowed to be 1' ,dx seI"k/e(i by one drRi.■tewtay. ' ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ION: Meta ,um Density Residential , ZONING DESIGNATION: 1 -��12 (Residential,t•t��.ial, 12 unit7p/ze„tr�c ) n Ir,;w,12 (Pt)) r' • (Planned Development overlay) APPLICANT: Tod De Kanter r OWNER: i'�lor�r�n grad Anne Sc:htt,tt t: � ,; . 720 NE 84th Place 0 Ne ,$Jt''' `hr $.' i. . It �, Canby, OR 970118 Rod °G,04', AI ,',,,I Wa i,. . N fi 1 LOCATION: West side of SW 109t: Avenue at the intersection with SW i' '1. ) Murdock Street (WC"l"M 2$1 10AD, Tax Lot 8002, WUTM 2S1 10AC, r Tax Lots 400 and !,00) I 11,." I„ ; [ . 2, Background :i.for ,t�t�t a HWMM««wIW MiI!(NIWHfWMMMNaMNHM•wf. WiruNrYrf.w., ,P I In 1981 the Planning Commission approved as Comprehensive Pl.. n Pevi, ion , l (CPR, 1-01), which included Tax Lois 400 and 500 of Map 2 :t 10AC, to , ' allow a zoning designation o f A, 20 (High Density, 20 units pr a c r e) ; with a recommendation that all developmen t on those lots be brought 0 ' , before the Planning Commission a$ Planned Unit Developments (PUD), ant;! �i' t • I FINAL ORDER NO era.- 10 'PC « Pt 80.NY04/ShR 80-17/V 08-27 ($CHU TZ) - PACE 1 ' i i t • y ' P ,, ,••' t , n , ' ,/ R A • 1 , on . • • t that the dens ity ( t acct b 1,1'0 i yaw CI c"..,1;$ c ' ion c5f the re if ' process,,' The City 'Council reviewed iewed'l Cl)i 1-81 {rid ir'E fl isitllclec1 the issue back 1, to the Planning Comm:. sioh for further review after giving the opinion , that a ckrnsity of twenty (20) units per aar'ca was excessive in relation to y)t'"O1;34'„trities included . in. the request, Upon review, an A-12 (Urban Medi,t;im Dens 12 units per acre) district was dc)si:i.c torte, for the " area, A Planned Oerra iopiiient (PD) overlay was attached to the zorto designation, • , I When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged bt by tiic., Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 983, the majority of I Little Bull, Mountain, ins this site i$ known, was redesignated Low Density Residential al. .arid girtrrri a corresponding zoning designation of R-4,5 (PD) (Residential, 4,5 units/acre, Planned Dealt` lopmrlrit' overlay) , • ' In Drcc a , 19 tC the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval Hµ r: the ^ J7e islt s Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing t is , Comprenensive Pan designation of several properties located at the • southeast ast cort1 r of Durham Road and Pacific l'•liighwaty This proposal requested redosignation of these properties from High' Density • to General 1 1 1 "j �. Residential t �i�,.iiC..f�,1. Ct..riitti�.t t..7.�,1.i C�lic, result of this decision was the removal al of about 400 potential multi-family housing units From M i a inventory of vacant,ant, bbui.:c:ftab,le land, The Metropolitan l•'iOlt>,iriTJ pule " ^ (Oregon Administrative Rules,s, Chapter 660,' Division 7) requires that Tigard r,)roiti,d Gs. hOUS:1 n5,4 or,)por tot 11 'l::y- for at irrr?ASt 50 pereent„ multi-family units and a net miniiiillm housing density of 10 dwelling ' units per acre on vacant buildable land within t h City's Urban Planning Area. The A11 aritson's CPA was granted on the ,condition of t era sigri6tti.ori of sufficient residential lard to higher densities to make up for this housing opportunity shortfall created by the decis':iota, Tax wrrr9 included i � i r ; . rcn:tc s Geyria�t;..lri from Low Density s;i;c;entilaa1/R-4.5 (PO) zone to Medi.urrt A , • 1�� �a1 � Residential/R-12 ( ��� zone for � parcels in the Little Bull i. Mouffl i,n area {;ilia{ was part of an approximately 50 acre tr e C ?s ;gn ati. n *' to higher densities, The redesignations were approved a by the City y Council in Aprii,:l. 1987 (CPA 07-01(h), "C; 07-02(A)) , 3, V • 'Thy subject;: property is surrounded by properties zoned c;l l -i.' (Residential, 12 units/acre) on all sides eycc;riat to the west across Pacific Highway, Abutting zones on the west side of this highway, from north to south, are C-G (General Commercial), - Administrative is Office Commercial District), and R-40 (Multiple Family Residential, 40 units/acre) , The city li,mi,trs, of king City faro adjacent to the southwest boundary of these properties, The development pattern around the site consists of multi-family ily residences to the north and east; commercial development across Pacific Highway to tho west; and mostly undeveloped' ,parcels covered with tall fir s a . tic .� to , ` �,'� It,;r���rx and underbrush with one �ii,tryc,���l�., ���r�rxi,i'l.y �rr�.�cl� x ���. south.', F, llbAL ORMM'.i I\0 08�W t »I� PC — Pq E38-O4/80k 88-17/V 88-27 ($CHUE"l ) - PACE' I I X40 ,fir ,A •. i, F,,'+.N.... - .....,,.',.'.:.ul. .•_...•-...,... «. ,... - -.......•,........'..w., 1- ...,..r., .•..x., +,,. .........«....r...•..a....•Na .,a•:...-, •„ .. .........k.«4,♦..+.,.. 1. } .•..A. ..--.......«- .• _ .. ... n- ..-..,.,-_._.,.a...•.,.. .,,.:-ten a l•..w. l.. U :L.' ..«L,Iv«1',..L.»+.+l..:a I ' • • I SW 109th Avenue SW Murdock Street in the f .a of the popused ". development are fully improved, 3 4 foot wide Streets fu :tiura: ly r R C1 3$ifi.ec;1 as local $treets1 SW 109th Avenue cui"rrently dead end approximately 200 feet south of the site Right-of-way for a possible future connection of SW 109th Avenue continuos $outhwar d through a tree • • • • covered a ta until it Yd e t, the gravel s .0 l d 7 segment of 109th n Avenue nue which is located on the sout1/! $lop)e of Little Bull Mountain, 4, Site Information and I�>i�,oposz1, De $cript;i,un w... .JI.."w.",..I".r"...,"...""1"..».,..,._... ..,.,1".. ..w.".........,1 ,.�, 1•. ,. M ' The proposed apartment complex co n s t$t s of th i e e tax lots, Ta lot , 8802. is .66 acre is size, has 240 Peet of frontage on SW '109th Avenue, and i$ zoned R-12,., Trax :tot; 400 and 50(0 la.i ii d total 18 .1 cre> and afo zoned R-12 ( D) . All parcels are u na c te: e a ec : T te entire e site is ' covered with tall fir trio . The site $iopo$ 'westward frio'n 109th • :�. Avenue with the western one-third of the site sloping steeply ply, to Pacific Highway, . The applicant proposes to develop a 180 unit, 29 building apartment complex on the s ite, ft11 t,lriitts will irtc:lude two bedrooms, All. ,• , building would be two �;tori $ excepts for one single story b�ii.;l.cliiij to • I be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The' - applicant ue 1 "' "$ Si e e e l t Ky en t Review J /ro al of the proposed `♦ eit e plan, Because the parcels are r d,lcazaigitat:ect ', with the Planned , • + r, . 4 reviewed , • Development ment� over l.aay zone, the !elan must; be lay the �Planning I r roughly , with; •. The I,�cii:l.d;I:ilnc,j$ would be arranged around �a rc.�t.t�.jltl:y square driveway w,i:i.lt . i 1 I 1 1 swimming 1 1 p4 ! " �Thirty-five � ' Ir 6 butidili!c 3 and a � pool located in the center.er. . II ,! I rig $ 1+n i A 4�I 4.• 1'/ ri'11.Y. t r'' i •4 ri 1 �,. + A 4 i 1 . t:�aa rt •� 1 i. 4 111.i 1 l dll.�i C. ,� ��.� dI< acs . r t i C, i t.�v'� ed. ,Sat { it �.s� .t�,3 tea c.,r �, tt t .t ,... ► , aar t t .. �anl 9 ua,t c.r I� � � l x �c would be ioeated along the driveways, Because the development will retain i' parcel, .1 driveway. 1 1 IM M 4 t e`tla in the existing ii slope of then the aanda' parking t'areas will be steeply sloped. The development would be served d ,by one a()-foot wide access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. Ccny a ni t y Development Code, Section 131 ,108 070 requires that an apartment complex with 180 urdi;s be 4 1 V ♦ driveways, I 1 V I 1 4 a . • � ��:!il verl by i�1� least two �dre��!ss "1"hte applicant �.ed�jt.tcas��.�.t Variance ianc e from this standard. The site plan shows all exli,tatty trees that will be ,retained. ikits+' ' • , applicant ts indicated ufit�te� t t�t the plan to retain as many trees as possible, including the area at the center; of' the development. The dense fc) $e$t: on the western approximately roxiiti trel.y t riel.-trhi,tl•'d of the site wcat,t1d;f • remain undisturbed, The site plan proposes opuses thta t eaanii�t a ry sewer connections for three buildings in the northwest coi"ner of the site be made to an existing public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue. Sanitary sewers serving, the H remainder of the lutil:dii.nd, s would connect~ to an existing sewer at the i,nterseetilon of Pacific H19hwey and Canterbury Lane, A main line • extension would be constructed by the developer Flom' the existing a er, to the site's Pacific Highway frontage. An eight-inch pri bate sewers line would Connect the proposed development's c ollootion system with } the main lino extension; • • • FINAL ✓ R NO. C�� . PC " D 08-r '�" R 88-17/V U 3 8"27 (S C ftwA Z - �� G 3 } a ,un«W.1WIIfw+N k� ... +' n ' ,• - t• A ■ • 1 • �>. . 1,-'' i, , Storm drainage w4 l I . r rr ov,r.ct cl through catch . r tri ,, �� (7 1 a r7 located in the driveway and t;)iar"1c .�nt, areas draining to <"•,a' storm Water detention pipe '' ,,, - ' sy;at kafl located d uru.( irr• • the westernmost rnmost: portion of the driveway, with '' „/' surface disc a e through G single pipe to the forested a r e ; on the 1 „• western n port; •on of the site. Water service' to the site w a, l connect to an existing St ) l! lino •" SW • • 1•09tli Avenue., An existing 1ad,rmia) system wi,:1„i be us(41 , to provide i at:e rr, 1 • i c: Mctarlatic7, Three. fa, r'e hydrants will be p cv7,ee(; wi. ta, t the cie.a/e`,:t,b) me.ntr, • r . • a I"l7o Engineering Di.vi.siOn rOVi•Owr+d tht0 prOPO8a1 and c rfer ed the ' following comments: , 1 The submitted' site play a hoW s C proposed 130 unit apartment ue1 plex ,i' , west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous trees s. 11)o 8 i t o s 1c!no 5 to the west toward$ P a o I-I i,cjh)way, i , The apartment complex is proposed to have one access Ito 100th .a, Avenue opposite Murdock Street, The Conlin pity Development Cod requires 3 Ofl access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore,erc fore, 2 f, required r h .1 1 t. 1. accesses err 7 w , by the t� ire c.(�,. The applicant�,•r,e~ rt has requested:r'L ec.lt T to this r ecltaii' ttre ttt:, One access Is requested in Ord' r t: limit trhre impact to the trees s O 1 the site and ,due, to the restricted r , ; • frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue, • , 8, 109th Avenue is iaa 84.H•wfcroty de curbed street with sidewalks on both sides of the street except ll: 1on the site's frontage, Street lights also exist or the west side of the stre et 109th Avenue i . street improvements ct i t'rtty end south of the site, Existing ;' 3' . right-of-way allows for possible future extension of 109th Avenue 1.:, to NCaeve Street, 4 A Transportation Impact Analysis for the apmr*t merit: coml;t:t x was . submitted with this application. The analysis s eIva:lti tc c:l the impact of the I:)1Oh)t led development on 105th Avenue and also on t1' 10 tii Avenue intersection with :e rhu y Lana, The analysis cotc1uc < i ( .0. ' 1 that the traffic generated from tl ; site will not significantly I • impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the 1. I . ' 109th Avenue and Canterbury La ne intersection, i The report `tc1ntialts t:h1at curb returns 1'4)0� utilized for t'ie site's . driveway t( iYhn ve accessibility into and out of the site, r I I�torm drainage i$ shown as being collected on-site into a detention 4J pipe and discharged th rou,lh ;;a flow control device e Irt'to 0 10 inch outlet pipe clay:1ighttueiti into the ,forested y area, This method of j ., discharging the storm drainage is' not approved,d sit?~e � detention o , st:c)r~m uiir'airtage water' is riot p r�mi.t:t� d and hi x sirtelea cii,$Chati 1 point i create erosion o the steep s to c area.w a I ! • EINAL ORDER NO i,8-, 10 PC PO OS-04/SO1 88-17/V 8o- 7 ( CHUETZ) -, PAGE 4 ' r '' • I • r ' I 1 i' : ' , 'r�l YY".Ct. h . . ' V .a , a AAn tite rvnaat'.:i,1'r, . � Joul.d be to discharge g ;hie stoi, ' it ai.na:r;e at several r . a �, t ,roc:c ��i.apt"��irc at '�:Y7;. end or tY�c� locations and to insta'tl;l, an energy di >a, i' , pipe to prevent erosion, 61 Sanitary isewer service is available at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway. A main lino extension will be - ro<:fi.ii,red from this existing sower southward to the proposed , I development, The extension Is proposed to be 1 nstalled along lt,. F>&cl,:ll'Pic• Highway to the site's frontage and then up through the t • forested area to the development. The t r �r 1 L'hc� proposed � parking lot a.�. shown with cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent for approximately 100 stalls . Normal design practices • r limit the cr'o$$ slopes on parking stalls to 5 to 6 percent. ' Cross ' slopes t:>f'' 10 to 12 percent will make getting into and out of vehicle very` difficult, The steeper r than normal anal s:i pes have been , proposed to reportedly limi,,t the impact to the site and the • existing trees . It 1,:t staff's recommendation that ' the parking • difficulty y cr rated by the cross slopes bo reduced, ' N 1 1 i 1 Y V reviewed 1 I r1 { The Building ing i :1 i:i, i.on r etvt:i owed tIlc� proposal and offered no comments._._ Tigard School District 2'� ' reviewed they proposal and offered ed thia following comments: ' , At the current time, this proposed Cl ti tio;l.ol,pent is In the , Templeton Il.l.etltont arrly and i &1 .ty junior High School. • attendance areas , Bo : 1 schools are experiencing enrollment k pressures and would have difficulty housing the children . expected to come from this development, especially if the project is to be complete and/or largely occupied before �,, \ ,1 school r ' rl ' 1' I . September, 1. Because�Q (✓Ilc� �l y. l✓t a.o1r anticipates:3 ' the need to make significant ch anges i n it elementary and 1 junior � I I boundaries beginning � i f i t,tt'l;i.t~1a high attendance . w�l'Li�i the 1, �J.,,..i7 school year, the developer this project,t, if it is ,,.• approved, should make no commitments tments regarding where 't;li children r 1 1 ! proposed I l 1 � ' � �.I1i. .t.lir't111 l.a.v:�t'1!� in the i.rir'c�I,�el;�t;�tl development will �attclrlt.l school until those decisions are r11at"1l ,° 1 Washington County Fire District #1 provided thct following collltt:Srity r • regarding t e proposal: • 1, The Fire District would prefer two well-spaced access dr .t.+tes h- i 2 Driveway grades shall not exceed rid 15 percent, I q { 8 , Eire hydrants shall be located no further than 2$0 feet from all " portions of t!le proposed buildings, This distance may be ? 1, increased' to k0 C foot i f automatic c fi o spi ±1k1 s ar in,s tall d l;. in third proposed buildings, P " {e Tigard Water Dist District reviewed the proposal and commented titt , proposed development will need to be served by a pumped d watewrr, system, 7 ,. Ar pumped system' is already �in p,l��.c c and �i.s adequate 0r serve the r, • . proposed water system, The District also commented that it appears,' r PO r J s, {il J !1 \ �`.�Illtllw. ORDER 111K. 1 80- ;:I.O ,."." � r�'.{(✓i f a 1. /� � " ( ) ,a r t 1f • a` 0 r. V . r that a ri arl cl: ti•� .1 fire h/cr'art will be nee+ ,,ar y ,' to ad0(Tu+a1:eiy service tic c ettlaaielr. The Water D i strict - "ov c �c additional t;ech°'iical comments which have been forwarded to 'the project architect. The c)r°tac,Jon ::itka•t;� l•Ii:c�jhw�aly Divi,si.on r vi3OW0.d •bh propc)sa 1. and cc nlmeit�' rl . • that no adverse st impacts �P Pacific i cHig Highway were anticipated other than , • ,. temporary ccrs : tct : cr impacts during the installation of the sanitary' I sewer extension, intersection improvements Includi ng i nst allati on of a • . traffic signal' t't°, •l::i'iol intersection of Canterbury Lane and pacific Highway are scheduled for completion et: .on rii xt: year''. With thie improvements . in place, the additional traffic generated by thie 1:)r,OPcasal, c<ari 1:)t= accommodated without impacting traffic on Pacific Highway, The Highway . Division also commented that a permit iiiit litust ik)ci cl:)tai.11ecl prior to any work within in •t he right-of-way for installation 11 of the sewer intersection, • No other ccalttrtients were r e rc ce i.vc cl, , - c4 ANALYSIS' "I"ho proposal for construction cif the proposed 130 unit apartment . , complex coriforrliis with Community Development Code CZ:,,-12 zoning district ' Q requirements for typo t of use and p ermirt ed density, setbacks from property boundaries, site coverage (80%), and site area landscaping i , - (20%) . The i:)rt:.tl:)ta;iral, complies with Site Development Review ;il:aridalyds Yr {l for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), shared outdoor recreation areas, and site lighting. The site plan generally complies withi Coracle standards for landscaping ard parking, , al trllc�t.ic 11 modifications to the plan l,tairi will 1.:I, be 11t�tM�!:asarry.. The site plan . r •` also s c mus t be revised to comply with requirements for drainage and vision clearance at the driveway-road 1rt rc } i N , The deficiencies , , . tof this proposal and the requested access variance i�tt'''w addressed below, 1. I�,<a rr'i.i r"i 1"hire rrc�c:jta:i.r'ed ritYlm lrr of° palrrkin spaces f orr th 1,:s c:itavelopmtarit" i;a 9 1 (i, 1�+ spaces per 2 bedroom Unit) , 225 parking spaces would I;)e "' r r r s.. provided,r :l 30 of these spaces are required to be covered,ul, The site ,• � plan provides cva c +s for 35 garage parking spaces and 95 carport )a '<irc ., spaces for a total of 180 spaces, The plan satisfies t h so 0 requirements, ;. I . • , The site alarcc ~s r : �, hi r, a i rat aa )raari t l ii: rc ! t located, 1r c signed handicapped parking spaces. Ce mun i t y Development 1 Code Section I H r 1C� , 20(') requires a minimum of one handicapped tr` iaar'king space for every 50 parking spaces provided, The site plan must i be revised to provide at least five appropriatel4 sized rid located designated handicapped parking spaces, These s pacts should he ; .` constructed in tar manner that minimizes the' slope. The grade of thilt proposed posed lent; is steep and problems 'will be experienced ; • " getting in and out of vehicles parked on cross slopes of 111;) to 12 it !" percent, The slope or these parking inn spaces should ould be stulc:l e 't"u rrther° r Yrr Y w �, Y '� i t " r �1 and the effort made to reduce tht cjrrath p1 oblt�m as much ras 1r)otssIbl,oY' FINAL ORDLR NO, 88- 10 PC - PD 88Mo4/SDI 88«47/V 08µ27 (SCHUTZ) PAl : 6 I {. i I 0 . , I , 2T C' .,e , ,.,,. .....« ...... ... ..._._,...w ......a..........•... .-....,..,.w,.y-r..,..•,•..„...,•.w,,. .•TI.,,.. +,.a. _.�„,,..�:u�.d f....I..H.»., ....««.•...r�...,«.u4 r,.�.�.......J.:1,-.._. ,...,.....,....F.a...r'��r.:.....- • o e' • A landscaping plain is a requir~ed element of a Site Development Review application, No larrcl; capIrtcj plan was submi,ttead with this application, , Nevertheless, the scIJ)mr.t•t::Ed e .te plan provides adequate information to determine that the minimum site area l.artd oar)1tir requirements m nts (20%) ; will satisfied through the retention of . retention of these trees wi.:I.i also serve to satisfy perimeter buffering requirements, with ' the exception of a 180 foot long stretch etch along the site' s southern boundary, Only one existing tree would be retained along' this Stretch. Six apartment unite would be located in this area. A landscaping plain will need to be submitted for Director approval prVier, to the 1 issuance of bu: idirc permits that provides adequate vegetative buffering ' btfferi rg nth this area, Whore possible, additioral treee should be preserved along the oast, south north property boundaries, In addition, the landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site l,r �rrisC,ri�a: i.ng i� , s �, �, site `ir I� .,� sY�k'�a�) i,�"��. for '���i�:. entire «��f.t including lawn or igrr:aitr`td cover materials, k, a . .Section i 8:100 035 of the Community,h1 Development Code requires that , street t tr ees be provided along a site'e street frontage* The suiarrla,tt:ecl `� ei t::c:i plan clods not-. show �a any trees that will be 'located along the sate r r . SW 100th venue A frontage, Street trees need to be J,ait.ludh!t,I in the required landscaping&pang plan,f Yi;)i7 �i C � I Y c» 0 r c..a s .�i i c. r e„ Community Development Cock Section 18, 102,030 requires t i; . a • triangular vision clearance area be maintained either direction f of the intersection of an access drive, and a non-arterial street, Objects within this area must be less than three feet t, trap., Trees .are allowed within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight .o feet are removed, The site plan proposes ui sign that would intrude upon► •t li required al 1,`: i»n clearance area. No t:E ,Y s provided are y, I r o regarding the � t� 7 � height, C r� sign will need to comply with the v i e ior'r' clearance area height requirement or 1,s be relocated.. A t ic„jn • N , permit i ” s { „l.' r �1 prior i �r 4 IK.' 4 i 1^. , the y�1 F y i tr irr a a must be �ohaR.a:l r't ,� o I I � orl o� t.ltC„ ��,�,jli� D r;1..i t;�1 ! • •x b The 1981 Maet r Drainage Plan fl',rrr the City of Tigard c i s Cc c u ag«tia the development rte l:olarrrartt . of stor mwat<orr detention f�ac�i.l i i,es. The Plait aleo p'• di t ourFj e the concentration of storm disch&r e i onto undeveloped • , e t ?woo drainage areas. The site plan taropoaee c oI1 cti.00 of parking f ; into a 7 A nt ei iy :c.a with n rj1 ci oher�� �c t~o r • area c .. ., , ) ) . i c :. ��� surrfaci o P the wee tern one-third��: of , The �rr�opi: IQd �drainage ,r I . the :� r.to a system .ohfiicte with tio r ecor .e rdati on s of the Master Drainage Plan, ` The appli nt will be required to redesign the $.t r drainage system in +, ' ' , conformance with the (Master Dinai na jo Plan and submit the drainage ystrm design for Engineering er .rrcg Di.vi,sion review and approval, ., ;a FXNAL ORDER R INNO 8 O PC - ;,; N , tl A7;."' r• �' # • , i ii , . ACCOS8 • �i The site proposes one 30 foot wide on SW 100th Avenue, r Section 18. 108,070 of the Code requires • Inreao accesses for a r, multi—family dove 1cnpinerit st!rtiiii:i 100 to 200 residential units, The 1 e . applicant requests as variance from tinlis starie:larrd duo to 1),. the lintitiee:l access opportunities 1 { ; from the limited frontage on S W 109ii 1uc rit.tc and 2) the steep slope on tho western third of the site making ' , access fron �aoifjc Highway difficult: to develop, Coos Section ' 18. 108 .150' provides for the Comm i ss iobi to allow a variance to access requirements if it is found that; 1, :ii It is n o t possible to share access; , street j i . 2 There � not other alternative access points on � i� tr t from t question or street; . 3, The access separation requirements art•G:s cannot be met; �e, 4 The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 11 5, NI"Mica approved AccOss or i:aoc.Mnss approved with coindi•t:ison; will result :i ii fit safe atcctaas i and ) • 1 6, ie visual clearance requirements of Chapter 1$, 102 will be mat , I . r There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent , • . parcels, Other parcels wh i,c:lii front on SW 109th Avenue east of the site ' ' 1 arealready . i , r I I .N' r art 1c plsanlit e ad developed.dy 1:�e'ucalopt�en Doi another access on tax lot 38'0 , I, .. :, w tr11(: ro �iie1e little i1 n congestion relief ;� S t.•N : ' Aik �r � i .7 any � J , •t�itl K,In c rt ..-�W 1:C��!.:In 'Avenue 'due�, 't:c� the necessary proximity of the intersections, Anot heatrr access in this MF area would also require relocation of at least :one building thereby P, necessitating removal O1 additional trees elsewhe e on the site . I , Development of an access from Pacific Highway is :trnpratctIcal because of the expense of ct:)n$l l:rruotiiriej , road up the steep slope or the western i one—third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic values • 0 that would result from removing trees in that areal, and because of the ,' h }po retta l adverse traffic impacts of an access entering Pacific • Hi ghway r " i proposed 30 foot width of the driveway ( � foot .! the 1'c. required ee wid th) and the utilization o1 curb r et urns and detcicaiant of driveway r N Mi i 4 { should 1 r the d ;iiveway at the same grade as the st re�c ty :hould provide adequate r ir sa fe acK w K${ Removal of t n i ir from the required vision clearance ar a will l improitt the safety of gist intersection. ,, •i1ii d C wtiimi.:ssaior is e;Gencmq)cid about the number of residences served by ��� only ono access and mine fire district's preference n se for' two driveways. It appears that unless the number of units i$ reduced, adequate e ainGl' t , l sat=e access catri�ittt be provided by only one access. ; d ot C FINDING AND ca\c 1ao\ � "''f The rrel.eii,;;►nt: itrrili.erri,a in this case are Tigard Community Development '� Code Cln ,Ptr rrs :0,54, 18,,>;1Q, ;t'3996) 1811OO,1 18, 162, 1.8 a 1,Q6, is joa, , i , 18,:11110, 18,120, 18, 150, and 18,164, ANY .r ry i«N d J r� iti� �w�M �'.�.. rl'�i I , � r,.. FINAL Oi�DER No, 88 lip i C„ I D 78.0 F/$Dt li 17/V 88-27 (8CHUl�i Z) �i» iti i_ 8 ,� m 1•INWNi•IMNIi NYi4 I.. th r.,.• ,..,....,. .ire' .., ..., : ...., .,nn,.. .,.,...I, •,_ 5 .... ...,.,r.. ,,,. „•,,,.•.. .•.., .,, r,e.., r. u...w...... !' ,.:,ti.,,,. .. ,....+ ,i , , ( .,. 1 . . . , 1 , q "Ii Planning Cotil fission ha$ determined that the proposal, with modifications that will be submitted with the detailed plan, is consistent with relevant portions of the Community pity , Development Code , . ♦ . based upon the .'fe:)l:1.owii'lg findings I a, Chapter 1(3I�54 (R-1„2 zone)„ is satisfied because the proposal r � Y J� ♦ use, � 1 ;♦ , 1 ,, I `;. conforms with US , density, (and a1JpIiciable dimensional , ,(a' requirements tt,l:cre ment:t of the R-12 zone ID, Chapter 18,80 (Planned l:) 1e�1cpresri ) is satisfied because? thin i , w proposal is to be reviewed by they Planning Commission as required , by the provisions of the Planned Development me fit over Tray zone, To protect the crt ,� r `iy if the steep,, eeec r parcel, :h� i " , Development s t. shall ac limited to 1 ) U units, , . c. Chapter 10,96 is satisfied because the site Ilan provides for 1 appropriate distances s b :weer multi—family residential i.ai buildings to assure privacy to residents nts and adequate light to all units on thie > .1; , Chapter 18,100 1 rcrcapit and Screening) will be satisfied t oer i,� submittal of a landscaping plan and approval or that plan by the I. • . Planning Conmti:>'ta:1on The plan must detail all proposed site . landscaping including ground covers, street t ti ees along SW 109th Avenue, and site perimete r buffering. 1' ,I Chapter 18, 102 (Visual Clearance Arrows) will be satisfied upon " Planning Commission approval of revised situ plant that j relocates the proposed s'igr outside of the �required vision y . , clearance area', 1, 4' I 4 ft, Chapter 18,106 (�Off�,.r"�t.rreet; parkin,,) will be satisfied upon Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan that t provides , 1 1 rf 1 ♦ sized, � 1 � and � . t , for at minimum c;�,f at least: one apps opr i ate ly loc pate d, aitel ` signed handicapped parking space, The site plan satisfies Cod* ,, • requirements for number of total parking spaces provided d artd so, . number of covered parking spaces, I r1 e ti , + r« r 1 Y , satisfied c1. Cllalas:c � :1 f3, 101 ( c.csn�, fi ens,>, ai�r�e,1 Ci,rcealat�i.cail) is ,, . because the site a 1at provide for safe a7d efficient ac ec s s and f for rr , r« general. egress P despite It��ly+�� yhai a.�rl�y�:�`a�r�►,yI urytiy�ewy�yait�c�lly �{�:.ti�i' cfre�it�r«r,•ah� �circulation limited the E��-. f J site eel ea'+?p,Y,tr\:: tr l'1 er� site's tr `s e:o n h7�rra74.{.rt t �7 AS stoop ',slope and 1 ed 1k i(11.{.i d , ( . frontage e earl SW 109th Avenue, The requested variance to allow one { access to serve the site, who rreas the Code would normally ly rrequ i r I two accesses ss s for a development of this size, is j ei ' ,%firs ! ; Iprovided development. Y �N . . thl+ i.s limited tro 100 units, , h I Chapter tear 10,:120 (site Development Review) is satisfied because the et,ai Mle ► plan will provide for the proposed buildings and other . site improvements to h�a located so as to pre set u existing ti et andN 11 , r1 r1 , Y Y ' , ailed to minimize alterations to the s�.c 's topography aphy and drainage systems, The site plan also situates the buildings " so Il as to d provide for privacy artd light. for the proposed dwelling urri.ty;e and compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses r I , 1 , r FINAL ORDER l NO 88�— 10 PC — PO 88-04/SOR 88-17/V 08-27 (8CHUtWTZ) -, PACE 9' , . iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIMIMINiriiieu . . ,,, . . . , . , . . . . , . . . ), ' ,, , • 1, Chaptor 10,1.60 (Tree Removal) will be satisfled bocause th aPplicant will be roquired to obtain a troe rem9val permit prior ), . . to romoving trees in preparation for development, Pormits will .. . 1)( grantod only if it is found nocossary to remove the trees to 1 , . accommodato structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposod . site improvements , The 8ite plan illustratos trees within the L ' art a of actual devolopment that will be rotainod, An arborist's i '' , report outlining methods of protection o.'0 the trees to oe . * ., re tai nod must be submitted prior to 'bhi issuance of a Sit0 I . grading pormit or a treo rOmoval pormit, The site plan also (,, , 4. provides for all trees in tho western ono—third of the property , ) to be rotained except whore necossary to accommodate the proposod ',2..,, 4 • .• . , . . • . j Chapter 10,164 (Streot and Utility standards) will b satisfiod , .. , upon approval or public improvomont plans for and construction of . ,. i , _ the proposed extonsion of the public sower along Pacific Highway, ) , • a connection to the oxisting sower in SW 109th Avonuo, and I" . . • . installation of the sidewalk and driveway aPPI"oaoh on SW 109th , , i 4 4 m k t 0 nue.. vipprovitAl of public .mpro li 0 MO 11't plans i,s required prior, , • 1 to that issuance of building pormits and tieo removal permits for '.. . the proposed dovolopmont, , . ‘. , D DEctsxoN . . .., . ,, . , rho Pl a 11 11 in9.1 Corimli ssior) (Ili-ants concer,)tual ap p ro 4/6%1 or Plianned ,, . . Dovolopment Pt) 08• 04, Site Development Roview 08-88-17, and Variance V 1 . 1 . 8027, A detailed plan shall be submittod within Oh0 year, for . . , . Commission roview, tht includos the following: ' . . , 1 ,.. . . 4, 1, The proposod privately—oporated and maintained parking lot and : ,' . roadway plan—profilo and cross soction details . Cross slopos in parking areas shall bo reducod to approximatoly 6 percent, whore , . possible, ) , L %, . . , 2, Tho single driveway connection tc SW 109th AVOrlUe shall bo designed _ •.,.. % in conformanco with tho rocommondations Of tho applicant's traffic , • ' . report, , 1 ' .,., a, A landscaping plan shall bo submittod for Planning Commission , I review and approval. Tho plan shall provido location and Spocies specific information on proposed landscaping matorial, Tho plan , _ . shall provido for street L1'008 along tho site $ SW 100th Avenue frontage and for additional porimeter bufforir,“ along all but the wostern bordor of the site, Said porimetor buffering shall consist ' ',' of a 6 foot chain link fence and vogotativo screening or a 6 foot , . .1 site obscuring fonco at tho option of adjoining proporty 0(09rs, , Said fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of building . • . • , p( rillit-fg. 4, A rovigc)d gi 1;0 plan shall b klt $(4bmittud whioh 1) providos for as ! x minimum of one appropriately sized and located designated i , handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; 2) , • .. , relocaLes the proposed sigh outside or the required vision clearance area; a) has a maximum of 100 units; and 4) provides for ' FINAL ORMIR No„ at'.... 19 . pc — 00 80-04/SOR 80-17/V 88• 2/ (SCHUETZ) — PA01'.::: 10 •, . . . . 1 -.-- •, \-. , • , , k, • • • a fire hy cn cn t to be M , `!c t ea within 250 fee - of a fl first f luo r exterior portions o f all buildings unlos s the buildings are to be provided with automatic sprinklers, , . A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning J:, Commission approval whiicht includes locations and types of trees s to ^, r be retained, an air'borist's recommendations for method s of t protecting the trees as well %� trees on abutting properties t • during construction of the proposed apartments and also for tf. maintenance of the long—term health of the trees,, `I"h e Commission • directs that thie arborist use extrema caution in the protection o abutting property owner's trees, The trees to be saved shall be 1 t. protected d►u,r':lnr, construction by fencing, or similar mt ans approved . by the Planning Da.ifi.$ioti, No sit grading, clearing, or tree 4' removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this 'condition, • y� is further oirth; r ecl that t•ie hhi notified of thG1 ti►rntr'!,r of this final ord1etr . , r • PASSED: � This � �' � ,/� day �of �� y � a � � � 4 e a emborrA 1988 by ?,:he:. Planning n:i.ri'I �' �..,. ,,.»..w„N..,.,.N.,.,...„N. i � y �, 1 � C't:�iili�t i. ,,.,�,�,�ri of t.1'10 City of "rig afr'4t, • . .wihwr1..M.uµH..r.nWU«U..irMw .rN.WM.HI.NW.NWNNh.rYNrrW.M/Y�N.M4lN..wMNNN - !' A Donald Mo0►Ii, President "i"ry :Jar`r) Pl. C,+.iiuit:l.ss,ioi`i l ,, •f • I i D • • • Ji t / ' FINAL ORDER NO, 88 . PC NM PD 08-a4 SDc 3 i7/V 0a-27 (SCHUETZ) .r• I.i . a .. .J ....„,,. ,,,r,........ ... .. S1 ...._ .....it..,... ,.,, ..,»,.,. . .. ............ .. .„ ,.,. ,. .. .,...., f,,. ..i........ ... ., .,.. ...,...,, ... ..i '• • s , ( . . . . • i ,. .., ... _. ............. ,.,. ., .. .,... ._.,t,x: .,u.,.,..- r ..,:ti_ ....«..,..........r:r,rs.,s...ti...M,...,_.....,......+,-+.,w--.wow., ,,.,., _..,.,.«..,.-.«ra.xr.,....r.,-.....-......:..,t,l„r..-;,...,,...,K ..a ''PHILLIP PASTERIS F. 4s, A, Schietz i�' 3935 SW PINSBROO R ST: � : � ,' ;* • ^ � 32 Close TIGARD, OR 97224 Red Deep:. Alta, Canada T4Pr-2A1 ., { f . Tod DeKanter, Arch William A. Monahan I . - 720 NE 34th Place 12290, SW Main S� . Canby, OR 97013 Tigard, Or 27223 I John Piestrak I . ., 4800 SW Macadam 4 350 Portland, Or 97201 I i I Of rt Carl Nase 1 ' t,B HCompanies o 8315 SE Stark I , , Portland, OR 97216 , 'f :. Brad Schleining 1 4230 NE Fremond. St.. I ... Portland, Or 97213 pp Roger Rauch -1. : ^ 4800 SW Macadam # 350 °" Portland, Or 9720;L �� • : 8., , Edna Annand ` 14600 SW Pacific Highway ,, Tigard, OR 97224 I ' r 1 I Ramon (Ray) Harm er1y I '1480 7 SW l 9 O th , I Tigard, OR 57224 Jack Foie11 % Occupant , 14815 Svc 109th I i I Tigard, Or ' 97224 ti Jorn Petersen , , 10] 0 � en Place',. 972.2 . is, • ' I Marge I iDaven.porC , • I I • 15100 8w 109 th ki • r r Tigard, OR 972�2� l I t. , ,, 0 f 2 w w1, ' ,,. .... _i. _, .. .... ...........i. ...,_ «.,_,,.«. .., . ...,, ..-.I ...,...+.-.,.. i. ,.•. .. ........a.,.,.»,....-.,.. _ ..,, „a.,, ...—I..JC,»._ ..,u ,.x»...1'•.:1 �r�..i:_. K 0 ;! bk ([ • . . ; "i rl il Ic(Pr` '' ' 4 11�;il���. CTY OF TIGARD, REDO L A V G a, `V Gp N P u PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - IP] 1! h • CITY OP TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY '�� CASE NO. �*—c r ' OTHER CASE`NO'S: '----- '' , 7 , ,1 5.14/: RECEIPT NO. -? 1' 11/ 1.<7' ed, ' , �j Jdam YY/ Iv,/o ' ,S G�' 71 it APPLICATION C EPTED BY: 6' _, ' �(r�1.i, '04 4= f //*/ %.+.,`' .s DATE: -4 - `.».»� v;'/a' "" ,1. GENERAL INFORMATION Appl,. tion ';elements submitted; PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION -'"" 6;"--7 ""' L//(A) Application form (1) ___________a__ , ) Owner's signature/written ' , TAX OAP AND TAX LOT NO ' 'c, /0 . 47› 774. 6810 authorization ,y ,;.-7-- L....‹),. 251. /42„efc w/, 440.2_17,1,2 Title trans: t instrument (1) a SITE SIZE . Ace ( Assessor's map (1) a PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* /::7-ir-2- X716/ 'r• _._. (E)„ Plot plan (pre-app checklist) ' ,' ADDRESS .,.&'''''. A /A44 z elk eZel5iF.. PHONE I 00/6W) Applicant's statement .. , . ° . GTTY I) 15k?: A, 7.' A./ `, /mo`. '- 6/4/ (pre checklist) APPLICANT* :; c' . & 7 ' , '"r (G) Lit of property owners and ADDRE SS 2, /U r ► 3 Tf iAGOI 24.00-... ---- 4. ' 1addres ses within 250 feet (1) CITY ZIP ak t/ (H) riling When the"'owner and the applicant are different " ` people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with h written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: . p . from t he owner or an •ag ee rin t of th e owner with writ ten authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the sp ace provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: - submit a written authorization with this application. COtPe PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION fie 0 . 2. PROPOSAL''SUMMARY 'I of� f the The owner record of subject property ,% . re'gtIest' permission to create a Planned N.Pr,O Number: � Development consisting of 1 , CConceptualP an Approval�Date: 13a ;Ti .0 ` 4;449,444.5' Detailed Pi n Approval rbval; Ds.t' e` f v Planning �j an' �. , Engineering 0526P/13P ' .ev' :' 5/87 ' ° I • . , I ;• v. .;v.r..:n., - ..`:,.,.-.-...,a.... ......,,......-... ,.,. � ._..,n....:1,ti. «.,,r...«N.._;...,..+. .,.•..(...M •..,....... , »k.._.«w..,u,.«w.. „+ ....,. .,,.... .w .,,,.r. ar . i n.-•..w lti:.n+.... w w 't . Yr « ' 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application:: . , 4. Applicants:° To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this r application. ' ' 5. THE APPLICANT(S), SHALL CERTIFY THAT: '..*:., , A. The above request does not violate 'any deed restrictions_ than may be i attached to ' i.,,) or impiased upon th�a sub ject property. 0 • B. 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. n C. 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 that any such statements are p' ' false. •. I , D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including Ir the policies and criteria, and understands the. requirements for approving ' or denying the ,application. ; DATED this day of �19 e` { SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husba d an d wife) of the subject property. . ` ti ' r I 0. • • I i I i � ,; , �(RSL:pm/0737P i . /Y] ' 1 Y' . , n • i 1 k 13 1 , if) N,.'-,-,, '‘ . . . • AFFIDAVIT.' OF MAILING I . F , STATE OF OREGON > , xt• Count,,r of Washington ) ss. ,p t • City °f: Tigard ) !!! I �'c-' l ,,','`'. (ff 1,/ i.( ,.being first duly. sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please Print That I am a/ --1=f ,4L/27 for The City of Tigard, Oregon. . 1/ That' I served NOTICE OF 'UBEIC HEARING for; - , , That I served NOTICE OF DECISION for _City' of Tigard Planning Director , / 1 gard Planning Commission 44 Tigard Hearings Officer ��� Tigard City Council. A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the }r:` "' 1 attached list marked exhibit "W,� on the _._ day of . �_ 19� ' . ,g said notice NOTICE Of DECICION as hereto attached, was posted on an , whef da pf 19 �� ' • appropriate bu'l,'l ;tin board orn L y ,�., } " and deposited in the United States a;��.i1 on the ,, ..,-12-7,e 2 day of 11 1r'G "? ` ''c..,,. , ." 19, , postage prepaid. , e•n�y♦0 .a+s'm t o•'J {tom, ,, k , , ., j(....,,- /h , ((/'7://2:?' /: ) ' 14 / d'Zid7/1('-''' ..---4Zi..Z7;2 1/1r: (-".") ''''' /1"--X !:-.er- ` ,, Sign,!•Y,re d, ' Person who posted on Bullet ' oard (For Decision Only) • •arson who✓dellveired to PO. OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to before me on the / day of )) 44 , 19 W . , • . t4;) • *n ��JJ}}///p����`rr`ff Iv ,, . , ,..• k�UBia RY NOTARY`"A I AP OREGON My Commission Expitea: ''`/1 / , , 0257P/0006P ' ' y .. '' • . ,p , _i • A a IP •, " 0 # • A r 0.1 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING •. • d. • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. : PD 88-O4/SR 88-17/V 88-27 NPO # 6 • FILE TITLE: SCHUETZ (DECANTER/CBH) APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter OWNER: Florian & Anne Sehuetz 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby, Or 97013 Red Deer, Alberta REQUEST: For Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development Review approval to construct a 130 unit apattment complex on a 12.66 acre tree covered site, Also requested is a variance from Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 which requires apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. The applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be served by one driveway. Comprehensive Plan designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning designation: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) (Planned Development ovetlay). ■ LOCATION: West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection with SW Murdock ' Street (WCTM 251 10AD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1 10AC, Tax Lots 400 and 500) (See Map On Leverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE W,,TH THE • RULES OP CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF • PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR. TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF THE INITIAL HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-411. N • TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , OR CONTACT 1OUR, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 6 . • dj/7809D A , , . °' 414.‘ } k I 4 1 r 1 � i � '',I''' , � y . �� N0 , .\ 7s y`r} t4� ' 11+ p . J a f 1: � I 7 I ." ' ', . ' . 31rL ( tc' i 1 tivA, .o...r 7 tr N�2L TRCe rcrtn — Yr –,� 1 u�y fi( » «– 4 y J F��( � f!T•t�. I t ' r K.7 w S 0igp4 Nyr� ,i IA ""\''' 1 (S J , .. ,..... � 1�`, i, OR ` , ,,IA, , ., (..„ \ ,.,..ii.,,,;;; ,,c,„,..., . ii*, .,..., ,,," ' ' 1 ."'"1 H-'" "' iv—NE ' sO‘ql, I N . " ;. ''1—1 ., .1 .,_ , !A , #. . ■ 0 c,, ,,,,r. ,. \3 ,.,4.3:. \ 1 e( 4, ,+ r• C � w.y� . e gill . . g,1 'I % ■ a ■ ` \� '7 I +`' •W 1171 AYC tr, ;;s I. ' :T .. , i' \\''' \\''k, -----...„.„ •' Irk., ,,; 1 , ., , f 113 rn AVE I t ... .. y#zll'rA's,1:.; '" .,...,,,[,.. h R• TN[ r0U TAWS Al SpMM�RrIS. �" - 74� �'� CO`IOOMI■IIIJM� m 1 . '.(,<S,N, „ th P1. a� r • d,4 1^ ' 4 'Y N 10 9th J. .... ,,, p' 14'/e. , r ' i c::,),<„,.....) NN...SN' ,. , .. ,' .171 , r . .. ' . . ' I . ' • " • . , • 01)1.4V Ili i n 0;�1� , fin/ �O. "--' .. t ..—.. ', AV. ' 1 0 / J/f� ■1 1 7 t . ' . ' of ''N,,, � . 11. 1 w/L • , '1",.'".7'. ':7-7, i . ',: �'"� E L' aw. ioml I Ayr.. �, note t '. � A c UJ L_ -1..r7 ...., i, . .I/ 1,Ann 11166 CUNUOMIHIUM� . ,-- .? • all, F- - 4° Oi ° 0 - . f- . . . ,, . , , . . . , ' L.,, :, ' ' IL.om , it ,$, 1,?'t, , ' .;.; 1 . : . • 1 111. Zip _ 1'f f 71 '• r 1T �.# u r� Y,W, •. , 1 A i:A 111 _„ C._., I'1 ,i ®,• +",III 1 _: !I st,• • f '_ ",. ..ir 1.1 ...,...2 ,.. ,..1. ._....-77 � ' ,. 1 � " _ l , I.1%, ;,, 1 Y�# r ic'47?::',,," i ftT 9 •"�J4J • t ,%J- t ?,1.' 6,lir 1• na , ���a •l� r ., ; ,� ' , l Y �.'�5 d ,:�. •" - ��' 7r. f O r ,-y ':. • . ,;rr,,wr, i , y, ,. #' ; ,•g, a •, (,'1 p i •�a 41/'il.A ., �y ne r �, �y',.4 evAlG.�t+� ! , Ls , , + •.,, J' , .;, • 71 r y'101'4`Y.. 'y s•,,c,'.= •�t- / ��*- • ' , L1 .Z'�.1 �; (Y r • , • 7' �•y I1.f•1Vr' , l• r , .. ... :, V{•,• A 'hfr-')'r )^ ,Y,�,Y;. �.,„•� `tlt.1 grkT 1 '• ',' �, • i . . « ! ' , , y ` ! , 1 M X �,4, ;.„, •: \".., ..•4.•Y•`.+.r,+4Y,( 'i,f, - .>IGf t,.?n I Y , e.1�r..!•}v,,4 Y: ;,r,', 'c ' ■- g'e ” ,� ►+� J' .,7 , (. �, •.yJ � it r� , 4� ,,.. !•ly Y I 1 i I ' Y y lt4 r}, ,p , . ' Y ' I,. •i1�,,.91 •n/ : ' � •/ 4 fh, y Ay ..,,. ry • ,, ,,• � ,q t,\. tea`'VMS •, ' • • '��►� D6 K4Nitai4 ARC A Carole Stokke Lam! 1. �+y2n N.E.; 34th PLACE James, Mary 1 , & Bober t 24 Canter Ln 1.4820 Sw 109th • TICARD OR 97013 (` Sherwood, OR 97140 Tigard, OR 97223 Y r I E ,.) '7 00700 l l 90002 � Carole Stokke Sharon Petersen P e tersen �oi�t a P Olson i Li/ Al 10120 SW Kent 14822 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 . CARL NASE 2S11OAD 08700 90003 CBB C O. Moine D [�i.chael t�Kenna &'PCM Assoc. Yee M�o Lee Munson 8315 SW STARK 400 SW 6th Ave 14824 SW 109th Ave PORTLAND, 97216 OR 9721 . • I Portland, OR 97204 � Tigard,, OR 97223 I • PHILLIP PASTERIS 08801 90004 . 8935 SW PINEBROOi ST. ` Panorama West Assoc A � � � ��Gloria �Sandle� TIGARD•OR 97224 1st Farwest Corp/Siimico Prop. 14826 SW 109th. Ave PO Box 4162 ; Tigard, OR 97224 Portland, OR 97208 • Bradley S. Sohl.i.ening, PLS, PE • , W. B Assoc.ells & Ro90berta 0 J Fix 05 • . 4230 NE Fremond St . , Portland, OR 97213 14828 SW 109th #5 1 Tigard, OR 97223 �, . 2S110AC 00800 i 08805 Wilcox Erickson Western Cor ; � I 90006 Joseph & Linda Van ny j Rice . Route 4 Box 274 t Tam A8125 SW Canyon Rd � 14830 SW 109th Sherwood, OR 97140 I Portland, OR ' 97225 Tigard, OR 97223 . ,I 9 Ti,,�a 00900 900 O$ 90007 l Elizabeth Anderson Iris C Shapiro Lenore L Hammond 15001 SW 109th. 14805 SW 109th 14832 SW 109th rd 97223 Tigard,, OR Tigard, OR 97223 �� Tigard, OR 97224 , 01000 09000 90008 '1 Michael & Natalie Ben.t� Ramon & Leah Han uerly Sharon 4 Ling. ter . � G Ma.c . � � aron enfel d � � � U9 th` Tigard,�ard ' , ■ PO Box #99 14807 SW 1 14834 . 109th Ave Angwin, CA 94508 , Tigard, OR 97223 'g , OR 97224 ` 09100 Robert Deborah 491.00� � �, t; G Wyatt Dava.d Harper, MargeryLou & D�l�ora� C�er�te� PO Box 3521 A Burton Lino 14968 SW 109th #65 L. 1305 Rd and OR 97223 S :m Valley y CA 93063 g Lake ' - 00 � � � 09300 � � � 90066 • 4 Tigard Bva.. n d church � �ch a� �A Elizabeth Anderson Ronald P Mitchell l ` 13620 SW Pacific „ f 15001 5W 109th St 700 Summer St WE Tigard, OR 97223 Tigrd, OR 97223 Sa1en, OR 9721`' 90067 00200 4O a � 9�;� '� 3 0 ! John 0 & Catherine An• • C� nte't ury Woods Condo by I& I ry H Wells • r���s.�l 1, �2 Sr 109th', 14600 SW Pacific Hwy 1888 SW Madison `i v ed1 Can (179/6 Port,lLind. OR 97200 Tigard, OR 97223 ' • /y. • Michael E Hannay (� 1.2 ,, ' 1457"`4 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97223 1 L r, 'e'-' : 90069 ;�; . . Mabel H Brandt .. 14980 SW 109th Ave . and OR 97 22.. 1 � ,I�,f �7.g f ar 90070 EZZL6 U0 ' PleVT , . Sharon M Boyle a 1 14982 SW 109th Ave Z 6Oti S f����t1 Tigard, OR 97223 �1 9 �6�T ,, Iqupyeso 14g10$0 1 9007 : x� � • Kathryn E Lenow � E ZL6 HO P Z ;; Eu 60t8.0S`Villa T, `` 14984 SW 109th Faoa aumIapv t4,8 9`1 Tigard, ,OR 97223 I .f +'i p:o, "auuaTa );� :peg sgI . .. ,. - - - ' . 4'''''' . 1 gL006 1 ' 90072 EZZL6 RO `p.a2TJ; Dept of Veterans Affairs ' 700 Sumner St l i aein/4Q /4391 • Sal m, OR 97310-1201 219 a ut7 6S • 1 00 6 1 1 ,. 1 90073 ii EZZL6 HO 'Pae2IL 1 Everett B Newland I ' Etg Ott` f$TI 14488 Sw x.09 th ► '. � 140 1 Tigard, OR 97223 1 !, pu TmeN Q :fig ! EL006 ' , 90074 TOzI-0 EL6 HO 'thereS ,J", Stephen, F Goetz !, TOZT2 tn6191111,1840gS , 109th Ave 'I, satu3 '' Asut' , 5 o 14990 SW' 10 COL , . . " Tigard, OR 97223 sa egjy ,suvaa a go qdba0e0 y r Z L006 t i 1 90075 1 q , Charles Barr & Adr etme Ford EZZL6 1O pare 3t r 14992 Sir 109 t 1 Tigard, OR 97223 2 , L006 90076 1 EZZ� 6 11 aeT Gilbert Rosendahl 4 100 I. Y Y' 14994 SW 109 th Ave aA D '� ° T Tigard j OR 97223 Z OS � ^° r / 0L006 , 1 ' EZet, ' 0 `plu?T1 I ! j ITHdGi r •69006 ' r flak ''P vaT , cam!, . b� . py�� i bhG�.i t r, , r y • ' e� I. r; Y I , , ■ ,sD sD \ , V •• 1 . 1 • (66(-7 „ ' fpq4-' I I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 4 • „• Fly ii , , S //1" STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. , City of Tigard ) ' I, j i a 2) • _C , being first'. duly sworn/a fi.,,r'm, on oath , depose and lacy: (Please Prt,it) That I am a $ 06-..e. A. c/ for C I The i� of Tigard, Ore one That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for: ' • . That I served NOTICE Or DECISION for: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer .Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on the c attached list marked exhibit "fl" on the .3 () day of Se/(0-6,..4, , 19 'e a . said notice NOTICE OF DECICION as hereto attached was posted on an appropriate bulletin board ott the day of 4� ; 7. �; ' r and deposited in the United States Mail on the 130 day of( I_," Jti. � ) 1 .9 : postage prepaid, • ��i nature Person who pose ed on Bulletin Board (For Decision Only) . Per or(w d iver_d to POST OFFICE f Sub 1.~ihed, and sworn/affirm to before me on the day of,.:. .art 3,r ' , ) 'W �G,ml tH�t rrX • M f I n' s a . M• W vt» n x �e ,� r„ Rev+ r NOTARY PUBLIC 0 RiQON ■ My CotroJ.8gion Ecpiresi l,v 6P � I I �• r0 " r' n ,, TA A • a NOTICE OF PUBLIC xEARzI v NG ; /. r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER TOWN HALL - 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OR, WILL CONSIDER THE • FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO. : SDR 88-17, PD 88-04, & V 88-27 NPO # 6 FILE TI TLE: SCHUETZ (DEKANTER,) . k APPLICANT: Tod DeRanter OWNER: Florian &Anne Schuetz 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close } ` Canby',. OR 97013 Red Deer, Canby '" .,..,. eel, Alberta REQUEST: Appeal Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions for a L request for a 130 unfits apartment complex on 12.66' acres toned R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre--.Planned Development). Also, for a Variance to City regulations that requires three (3) access points on development of over l0 0 units to allow one access drive. ` 4 LOCATION: Between SW 109th Arenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AD, lot 8802 and 2S1 10AC, lots 400 and 500). 41, 'f . (See Map On Reverse Side) e ," Y THE sPUBLIC. HEARING IN' THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES C F CHAPTER 18., 0 F THE COI�IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIG ARD CITY COUNCIL AVAI BLE AT CITY Y HAL L OR RULES OF SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSON HAVING INTEREST IN THIS N HEARD, OR TESTIMONY 1 r , ' • MATTER �MAY ATTEND D AND BE � TESTIMONY �A� �BE�� �� SUBMITTED ,IN WRITING TO BE ''.,NTERED INTO THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY , RECORDER OR PLANNING xF. llE?ARTME.� T AT 639-4171, CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OREGON I 97223. 11 dji7155D • • • / w ■ V M "' 1 u ( r k I M.., �.. s9 JNtt AYS f' r ,r Cat 1, j' ;p,�i n r, . I.. v i F , / (' I I 1 1{ p d°W '�. y.O, ,_.,,r°. SF 126,t11 A E 1 ur y ' r, .1 + G In `y. .r"�' .w'.,.,..,,.. y, 1 ' .t1, tt .c" 4, {lit rll'4 k� t� I f ' i 1, j 0 r '.I t TIN{I r. w f 1�,,,,, rii 1!",,,'.I;(I. N',,,. ...4,..21/781 ,,,r<'1. ... .11 c"4. `� • i W •:,:l /• ,l '! ` '71r I n>,'. Y. t"y y rn w 4 I HZCLE I I�R 1 : C\', r,4 ,4„N,_,, pU4t • , V ' ■ y,y i 1,.,t y n � Y• A j(' l 'P�, y � - Gam+ , _A , r I 4 .;-..I =.1 -1 INTIP;i7""' ''N'% 'I. %:72).„,--2,,,.9\°\\, , . ‘,./ --1 ., {�" 1�,1 � 44,4* I� y`tjfy ..~`.'1'c ),:',4 '4 M•IrF r —.•� a SW . 4 t*' '''0';41 * .); \<fr:,/ `,), I t N. �` *1411ap ' 14 ..'--"*"--' I ' ,, ,:w117th AVE ■Y'''y\,,r'ms's U'S. 1 ✓11.5 m • y4 2F rv.r" •d �8 %p ,___, r Li r,RFT * ''' . . _ 11 ,• 1 :Li:i AVE ' _. �. . gym' THE FOtt'l'AIHS�Pf SUMMEHFIS'„c �_� CO`IOpMINIIIM"a _�•S,iV. II th PL r 11�� i �,10: . ,/ 3*.1 r 14 t /' au p >E >~ I \ �, M AVE 4111 • , 4� N .t. I OdQ `✓. I 47, • wow + �� i� . . 5 le, 9W. _108 l '4 .�,.... I^ a ' A LAW! HILL CUNOOMINIUMS cn:I tI •� _ _ J...,„ -r- 1--- L,S rrm _ rr -� ' M. 1 1'111' ` J '^ W'Ip�rt,'Mg i' I %! AY �r 1 1 ! ! #, c N : 'fna,, Iri i"..'- w. 'Y c hA� .,r t',' .1m ' ''� ,, r '"� k �M .„. i�.,,'CC,�,##11 yyjj„.„,„ S�,l ti�.7 �F� ' . NHW� !Wr Ip M r V i �� ri d�' �. f yl1 zf�ti AilI 1/.,i. ,T°• t YIr r Qv1'u , n,M 11 Z✓t y .r j' r,' 1 4•i.7 "1!.:rn,:t�.r••r/�{ii',Li'4' '^ ,�N '1i,:r�yp.,ee�' , , r . t4 ' '. „' '''.4,1....t::•), ,• .%;•s t'''..'° �y , . .- 1” ern +r lif c >s•,• - 4 *� R ''` Ts' • ' ,'e�' 9' Mw i 1�n tltt''tF!�' .y ;,e�j,pi����•ti'�� '•mile;� "", �5/p�,.� ,t {i q;,',,'i ','•�'e:� Ji fiY� '�.8 �! 1 t t . ,i'` . � '����.r ,. '1 _ „d Vfkg t ” •1 „Cti,�{,k ", ..t r° "§�� i utdr y,T " As ,.' "h . 4' AP• .vii, L y I, A ,p,, ti'.,f,,,,,:` Yr„ il;.,, '.e ;0,.,,,??N.t:,, ,-Lv, �,,:r; ., ,, p„^`t: 1' �:C t.,'+, „•�• , �,, r u'1 'il V�d; ..•,•' t::{+k • pr•0 ,•,,. '.+J.n„i,-,. r 7,v,t.'t o rh„ w r •,5'f''` rI,„4 �i.i�, -1,' .•.ri', n' ,.,N' 'i,,' ? - ^L•r� t s m �.w.,,,,.-1.,,,-..v.y ,r.+E te:,.., r 11 ��y ,r A,'” r, ,,p,,r∎ S, t Cr,,y d '•ia,t,• f:'• t ,a• '. l�!� 1tJf��C� Gx••r. ( 'r".( L',C "", �y Yj , . fr.c v •.1;,. , ..N �N t4'T•1.� ” ' N � /. f,� r'.;,.,• :lN; 1 � ' ' <• r .r.y.r.»«. µ-.T,. i,, .. ,sK. „ e, .. .,.,. ......-» , D r • '” ,1111 f ,.,. - `19D DE KANTER, ARCM ,t Carole Stokke ,jrtAeS, Mary L,6k 'RobEer t Lamb 720 N.E.; 34th PLACE 24 Canter Ln i, 14820 Sw 109th . Tim OR 970:13 ... Sherwood, OR 97140 , , Tigard, OR 97228 . , F ,- A Cr y ., #4 00700 90002 V• ••• B- Carole Stokke & Sharon Petersen Lolita P Olson • D I CANADA T4P-2A1 10120 SW Kent � � 14822 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 ,, . CARL NASE 2S110AD 08700 90003 CBH CO. , D Michael McKenna & PCM Assoc. Le Moine Lee Munson 8315 SW STARK 400 SW 6th Ave 14824 SW 109th Ave - PORTLAND, OR 97216 Portland, OR 97204 ! Tigard, OR 97223 : , . PHILLIP PASTERN 08801 90004 8935 SW PINEBROOK ST. Panorama West ;Assoc Gloria Sandles TIGARD OR 97224 14826 SW 109th Ave� ��, � 1st Farwest Prop. � ' PO Box 4162 Tigard, OR 97224 ; . , Portland, OR 97208 a Bradley S. Schliening, PLS, PE ; . w B. Wells & Assoc. 90005 . 4230 NE Fremond St Roberta J Fix . . Portland, oft 97213 i 14828 SW 1.09th #5 . . �' Tigard, OR 97223 ,r, 2S110AC 00800 08805 I'' , Wilcox s 00 6 �. x Erickson cn We �� s rrr Cor d'oseph & Linda Van IAm Am' T Rice . Route 4 Box 274 y � , Sherwood; OR 97140 8125 SW Canyon Rd. 14830 SW 109th Portland, OR 97225 Tigard) OR 9/223 u .; 00900 089089008% � .�, Elizabeth Anderson Iris C Shapiro Lenore Hammond . ,„, - 15001 SW 109th 14805 SW 109th 14$32 SW�1109th � ,� � � �� � . Tigard) OR 97223 f Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard)' OR' 97224 IA 01000 09000 9000 M� n m c ' �Be�t� Damon & � 14834'�SW���.O9th Ave � � . . G Michael & � Leah Hai�merty Sharon M Ling,er�£elter . ' PO Box #99 14807 SW 109th , Ti .ard OR 97224 , . , • �� � Angwi�,�� CA �94508 1 Tigard, �'OR 97223 � � � � � � 01100, 01200 09100" 90065 AaBurtohrpet Ma,r er Lou Robert C Wyatt P,�'y g Y .,, Deborah M C7entP1. � entr..e R 14968 PO Box 3 � � ,1 4 S 9722.15 l � � Tigard,'�0�.0 5 �, 805 g704 i aid,Simi Valle CA 93063 g R Yr . . 00100 09300 90066 , Tigard E ang; Elizabeth Anders 'Ronald P Mitchell" � � � '�• T�iga " Church of NA � Elizabeth� On �� � � �� n�a� then � � � , ���' � � '' ' f � � tic Hwy �:500i, SW x:09 th St 700 Summer St NE 13620 SW Pr'�Gl� �Wy k' s� a 1 Tigard, OR 97228 Tigard, OR 97223 Salem, OR 97310 :it . 002001 00300 90000 90067 L,' John 0 & Catherine Aft cx� Canteebury Woods Condo by titH `��y $ Wells I ,. 1.4 2 SW U t 14600 SW Pacific Hwy� � � � 1898 SW Madison 97 � 1. 9 h � 1 tri PA rat h OR 97224 i Portland, OR 97200 Tigardi OR 97223 , w�, ,'41Y 4' • �'1 " • .t ' Q r �� � , _ ...._.w•.w....�,•y,,.•.. .., ,.,,,, , x. 'S:k l�l...... +....,hn...1..................-li....,,...l.s�..rs�...._+-.�..,•in..,-,N»w.1.,��.4.» .u.u.ar»a..,y_.,...rw.�.YUw...F-.,11ue1«.�...,�::d4:.t:.J..—lu'».Jr-.+....4w,aw,'•�3}Yw'iu,'�,. .,, __•.,as,•r.....:...,..A •^ � • Michael E Hannan { 14974 SW 109th ,, Tiherd,, OR 97223 ,, 90069 Mabel H Bran r dt 14980 SW 109th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 90070 Sharon M Boyle 14982 2 SW 109th Ave , Ti ard, OIL 97223 • • g '. ., Kathr yn E 1,,enow 14984 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97223 • 90072 1 OR Dept of Veterans' Affairs , 700 Stirtner St NE ' Salem, OR 97310--1201 I I 00 I 9 7 3 I Everett B New•lanl , • 14988 S r 109th I Tigard, OR 97223 90074 Stephen ''F Goetz 14990 SW 109th Ave v Tigard, OR 97223 , ' • 90075 Charles Barr & Adrienne Ford , , ' : ' 14992 Sew 109th I ;I 2 .. Tigard, OR 97223 • • 90076 1 Gilbert RasendahZ 14994 SW 109th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 • i • � I , I I I • I li n J , • r , L S D R R '''''1 7, • V 71- .2 , AFFID&VIT OF MAILJ.NG f.' '' • STATE OF OREGON P•. • County of Washington ) ss. . .. , ,City,o iga „ C, '�� ,o ' I - ,:.,, i / , -being first duly sworn, on oath depose •, PI / Pie, :e' Pr That I aaa ..� ' 4 ��, �' for The C ter of Tigai regon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING for: .. • That I 'served NOTICE OF DECISION for: . ity of Tigard lanniug Director tigard'Planning Conaission igard Hearings Officer fi Tigard,City Council. • A. copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) o f vh is attached .� � r Exhibit���e'ik") was sailed ,to each Wired persons at the address ,shorn on the -- attached'list :narked exhibit "B*.on the ~" ay of ,T e 198 2 a ',..4 • raid notice NOTICE OF •DECICION' as i hereto attache. , Mao, posted on an • appro riate bul .atin board - • p. � � oA the day ---' Nail on the ,day of and deposited in the United States �'' J,., ..yrr , 198.4 postage prepaid. , AD � .a F .+ 0 ', .. ( . iii • -S` g itu,te' (!e son vh/posted ,n B • tin Boat! •L I J, 1 (rot' Decision OntY) .dor Per n ►ho deiiV r=•• t6 POST'OF ICS 2P.,SUb scribe+ i and',,s 'otn to before ne on the c;:, ....) r da of r 190 , ' , A i '"' % I el 1 ' ' I/ w. ,, , r,, HOT PUBLI r 0+ ' O I '' 025Th/OO21 , 1 n • ..zr,...n..., n.• ..n...,,. v„..... •.. ..i..n a ne,. w.. G I q IV NOTICE O F PU BL I C HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING • ' ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE TOWN HALL' OF THE TIGARD � a CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER' ;THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: VILE 'NO SDR 88-17, PD 88-04, V 88-27 NPO # 6 FILE TITLE: D'SKANTE E APPLICANT: Mr. Tod Dekanter OWNEg: F. & A. Scmuetz , 720 .N'+' 34th Place 32 Neilson Close ,, Canby, OR 97013 Red Deer Alberta, Canada 74P-2A1 A REQUEST: �� , LQ S Foa. Planned Development. appro�'a1. of a 130 unit apartment complex �, on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium density residential) 12 ).4.. , units/acre, Planner? Development). Also requested is a Variance to the Community Development Cade requirement that requires two (2) access points for a development of over 100 units. One access drive is requested for apple ov:A. LOCATION: On Little Bull Mountain between. SW. 109th , .Mvenue and SW Pacific Highway) south of Canterbury Lane. (WCTM 281 TOAD lot 8802 and 2S1 10AC lots 400 and 500) « W, I (See Map On. Revetse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS RATTER WILL BE CO DUCTEB IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL Pi)) AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL;, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 1.8.30. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST' IN THIS . ENTERED A INTO THE AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY i IN BE MATTER MAY ATTEND ,�' 'D� SUBMITTED, :�� WR.IT�:I+TG TO N E 'R.ECORD OF THE INITIAL REARING.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 639-4171. TIGARD' CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , D.R. CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 6. Cha±rperso i Phil Pasteris Phone Number: 659-9740. di/8559D . . SDR 88-17/PD 88--04/1r 88-27 00600 90001 . ' TOP DE KANTER, ARCH � � � � � c � I � Carole Stokke ; James, Mary L, & Robert Lanib 720 ICE: 34th PLACE 24 Can 14820 Sw 109th : TIGARD OR 97013 Canter In Sherwood,. OR 97140 Tigard, OR 97223 ,. I F & A sCI�GE�.z 00700 90002. 32 NEILSON !":`OSF Carole Stokke & Sharon Petersen Lolita P Olson s T4P-2A1 CANADA RED LIFER I r � � J I 10120 SW�Kent� � � 14822� SW 109th � � Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 W i . CARL NASE 2S110AD 08700 90003 . CBH CO. D Michael McKenna & PCM Assoc. Le Moine Lee Munson 8315 SW STARK 400 5itt 6th Ave 14824 SW 109th Ave ' PORTLAND, OR 97216 Portland, OR 97204 Tigard, OR 97223 ' PHILLIP PASTERIS 08801 � � �� �90004 ' 8935 SW PINEBROOK ST. Panorama West Assoc Gloria Sandles . TIGARD OR 97224 it Farwest Corgi/Sln nco Prop. 14826 SW 109th Ave PO � .Ti and OR 9722 , Box 4162 � 4 x4 L Portland, OR 97208 Bradley S. Schliening, PLS, PE .. Wells & Assoc. 90005 4230 NE Fremond St. Roberta J Fib' Pr Portland, OR 97213 14828 SW 109th #5 b Tigard, OR 97223 2S110AC 00800' l ,>. 08805 Wilcox Erickson Western Car ' 90006 ' Joseph & Linda Van, Lora Route 4 Box 274 Amy J (Rice; 8125 SW`Can on Rd Sherwood, OR 97140 Y 14830 SW 109th r a Portland, OR 97225 Tigard, OR 97223 s . , 00900 08900 90007 . Elizabeth Anderson Iris C Shapiro :Lenore L Hammond 15001 SW 109th 14805 SW 109th 14832 W 9t'10 j , Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 01000 09000 90008 T .0 C Michael & Natalie Seitz Ramon & a rah I arnmerly Sharon M La ngenelte2 ,. fc PO Box #99 14807 SW 109th 14834 SW 109th Ave A I. Angwin, CA 94508 Tigard,ard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 09100 ' 01160 01200 a 90065 David Harper, MargeryLou Deborah ' Robert C Wyatt M Dent.el A Burton•; PO Box 3521 Lind 14968 SW 109th #65 , '1305 g :: 7034 imi Va .leyo C 4 93063 Tigard, OR 97223 ' 00100 09300 90066 Tigard Erang� Church or NA Ei itabeth Anderson Ronald P Mitchell ' ' 13620 SW Pacific tiwy 15001 SW 109th St ' 700 Summer' St NE Tigre, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Salem, OR 97310 A 00200, 00300 9006/ 90000 Armand Canterbury Woods Condo Ca�tter . �' . 14972 SW '1,079 Woods b - � 'Vella 14600 SW Pacific �I x:8$8 SW rt Y John D & Catherine na ,� t' ' Portl" y 109th I 'lY and ' i .,Z'i.r��rd� 0�:;_, 97224 and;�0Rsa97200 ,w...,� ,, 22 �OR 9 g � 7 3 .: . 1 , ,.. / ', e ft' ' . l ''' tw�+rr ' , w _.......li' . a,•r N Y r` V tt I t ,w ' •, , 1 , ,., -rn\ I I ,t „ ' xA,.,.,," } SV:126 Aa AVE ir} Cr) t.CI ,.+ MIS. ,., a _„ „. :. • . {Azrt•ing TEBR — ri—i 1 a j. �. ...,*.,„QU,EE, ,iC� \5,' .:,„d pw AV'�k y �a _.t �yf y • ,4. i l rr �� V” �i i ili�► C i t�„, �°! _ 1 ti tih QR}k • r pi . : 1..rkJ 11�, •�p� ��� rr l A��v� -1'",1► A�!^a �+a^Ih �e��`�c ��T +' Avg.. »««• SSW. 1 ,r . )1.', , '1 ------I■11 • *.\40P*446 % . ,' " * , * �� . . , ,it ,� ` � ' �. ,__ �_ 40, t iiiir -,,,c. i &r � ', � �' ,_,.�- �Q,gin � w U „, • > . r; ' am, 411#411.11 u1 sw,II 4. 9 h II I 1,4,E i ill i �---- w sr ..., 1-i °.,AAA ,L, VI III I' 3 113 TN' A' AVE F ~«. 111.1 Z / ' THE FOU TAINS AT $UMIM°HF1E'„G a n 'N`""~ ti j +• ; S.,W., 144th Pl.. \ 1 441 at 4. 5 1--- .. , ii it P vi AZ a, t N 1,,,,,,,,,,\' M. o tl r} 'cam .� _ a ., ii 'I P 1� e� ` ") AVE Da �� \ Ns 4N °''. g • c::,cf ,f, S.W. 1091h ti ,, ci t' '' ' { I AVE, I .ten ' , .. t // J� C��'� Tt W.� I �r�s C�F,� n•1, , U i !! ,� Yd n i ., ..,., w 6'W_IOarfs� L•AVE.• r_.,.•,_.. s.W 115TH ', ' Ul. LAW; 11,61, ONOOMIN1UMa 1 Ate' 1' / JipiJ a _1� r r MI + t X11 p� ,r' G> r �" SW., 10314 .y :w qV Car .+1 I..i ....-• r n �� a In` +''"' tl't t 40!imb:k 4+,''" s i,, ti„ t S1• r Hr\F ® j f ,, ) ,'.%' ,t,,I V 4�t ra ".T'S:,y.�4 r ••° ',rei °',f"` Id��...._ ♦. 'i'VI �, ,,,,, L�'.,. +�, A't x '�• d S '.tJ I��.r'• } f•_,vi 7, ti,.,A;•�',, -- ,:,i.-Ta 4`, 7 "; .�1�R''4' `. . ,..q4.,.,..' '.'V.;s �'�y�'', •,•+ y;�4",,43,4, i.rs %I ll+:'(i.,'-,ti t., r,,; , .41 ‘434.?, �• •7� �'' �A i P W.l +0.^a"r.�" '/ '•� 0i" � •fir T.S u K,i•:! ',� 'r.; •l�i ."'fir f ".r 1 � 'r , .ytl 31ras�'-`i.x.} Xi, �pry�# •�Y i`L`�`;�� �.,.r e�'+�' 7a:,�I,rp++��"')"�f a� �, 4 1!1 '�(+3V r •u,..r���.,,,,I;itffv ;"{;W I d• +1 ...naF,.1 .. • ` y� •'t •�!.:4 k''�4 F. •t.,•x y. ';',.`. +p. -, ,•d ROW '',.";4r.:, rF. 'J' ,! 1,.', k'.:� r 1. ,,,,,- r 1 , �. •�>'d t."..{D.J Y ii.. .Y++,'t '�!k*�,••nt.. ,:n,tew..,�' rAr �•..i ii +dRtk:rr',F,�i�r Y, , '.nr Y;C" :yt�t,y 3.^ �'9,{ rat"�;1�. r,,r,,,5. `1?11 !I`,, r•' ,�.�'+, �•y�{ K r,,, iQ a:rav ., ,'0 -. r-4,-3.',Sr.v?i.; ,t w.•}rs �'7' f s•t��.y .,t!rt4 f�!r tl,A;ltYlr r 1'S t°:�.1 �•K., .,• ,+N1,,}itP '( 4 ,. 'v r�' ., 1" ,,:,, ), , 4,7k I, . v1^?4 5, + rr y i • , /l v r ' f r i tt4 t ar 1 + ., 1.. • 4. A w 2S110AD 90068 4 4 Michael E Hannan 14974 SW 109th Tigard,,,T {R 97223 1 . 90069 Mabel H Brandt 14980 SW 109th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 , r 90070 Sharon M Boyle 4y n 14982 SW 109th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 - 9 0071 Kathryn E Lenow 14984 SW 109th Tigard, OR 97223 fit, ' 90072 OR Dept of Veterans' Affairs 1y 700 Summer St NE , Salem, OR 97310-1201 Everett B Newland 14988 Sw 109th Tigard, OR 97221 • 90074 Stephen F Goetz 14990 SW 109th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 t, 9005 ! Chatles Barr & Adrienne Ford 14592 Sw 109th 1 'T gird, OR 97223 Y.. 90076 f Gilbert Rosendeh � �- , SW �.(�9,�h Aire 14994 S Tigard, i r OR 97223 r , of p, b0r 4 • r � REOUE3T FOR COMMENTS TO: DATE: FRAM: Tigard Planning Department t" ' ,I 12/4104 � � rit ATTALIVap kE: F'D 88-04/ V 88-27 ' DEKANTER (ECHUETZ) For a planned development approval of a» 130 ur��.t�.apartrde�t comp ��7c�n . aars zon R� a PD 1Me gum esr1�ty { residential, 12 Uuits/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to ,, City ETTI atior :�that 7` 6cess poa.n s oi� eve crpmen o over," " r units to allow one access drive. LC>CATio Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pr"Ci lc rg We W I S *. o 0 ::• ar a—M O. 1,�--5 Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other 4' - information available to our staff, a report, and recommendation will be preparred and a decision will he rendered on the proposal in the near future. r If you wish to; comm nt on this application, we need your comments bar AAA'. L , 19 88 You may use the space provided " below or attach ,a'fieparate letter to return your comments.,.' „h u are::,unable: r,.., to respond by the: nbo date, please 'phone the staff contact noted beloW with �-; your comments and confirm your comments in writing as moon, as ,possible. ) If . you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.A. Box° 23397, 13125 SW Hail Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: , 639-4171. J6l�t') ' )ciF61 ; . STAFF 'CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY; • •' I I �. We ha ve reviewed th e prop osal a nd hav e no objections to it. Please our office. contact Mice. ��. Please thefer to the enclosed letter. Written n CUmdee.q : I' • t r. r"- L• r I • • t17 , I `s. a ersd t omMe me o� Person F h ate Nth , ....,...,a .< ..m. , ., i,., ,...„, ..•a.,, i.. ,...,, .. b?„ o .rwJP r u r r II I ^C ■ • NOTIFICATION LIST FOR .ALL APPLICATIONS ' . . 1.)c - : NPO No. CPO No. °' ' ... c2 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS x'�, 4 Building Inspector/Brad R. , Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S, ' ity Recorder Police . " -X,•„; Engineering/Gary A. _____-_ Other. 3. SPEG]f.A , DISTRICTS ,Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beaverton) (p,ick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 and W.D. Beaverton, OR 97075 8841 SW Co amercial w School. Dist. No. 23J (Tigard) , OR. 9 223 ______�.. 13137 SW Pacific i H 4 �.. Tigard, 7 1 ci c ury. , _Tigaxd,,,,OR., :,97.2.21.„, .,. , , .. `- ._.�..� Metzger W.D. ' '• ' ',. , Other : :•., 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Wash. Co. Land Uae & Transp. Boundary Cornmissio � `' .S, '150 No First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530 �. . Hillsboro, OR 97124 Hillsboro,, OR 97124 i,. Brent CUrtia !1 i, Kevin Martin ' METRO' s ' Paula Calvin 2000 SW 1st tve» '' . " � Portland, OR 97201-5398 - . • • City of Beaverton % Jim Hendryx 1 , PO Box 4755 -; 4755 SW Grlfflth ,'�. . . Beaverton, OR 97076 hw� ivie. on Other �. StatdiB Highway o ' I . .. Lee Gunderson PO Box'565 ' Beaverton, OR 97075 7 e SPECIAL A 'ENCIES '' ,. • General"relephotie Pottland G. e taral Electric. Wilmott Jim Johnson • '12460 SCE" igin ' Portland general Electric i { i" Tigard' OR 97223 14655 655 SW O9ld Schol1 a 'ari y �, � , Beavertbri; OR 97007' 9 . : � t � . . to c 0 oiitai Azea vonmunicat� is .„ � nald D. Polri PE, PLS ` . Titn Oaks Technology Center. ' ' x ' r 220' NW S condAvI 18 15 AW 1,6ttili p , 02 a ' , ti . . > Pnrtltand, OR ,97209 , gverton,. OR'' 9 7306-48&G k ., P�. ..t B :11 tt�er r dific N,orttiWes e I ' ' ' ''' '' '.''‘ 'H 1 '''r? ''''' 1 i ' ' ' ' ' ' X027 /002 P • . • • . r Pr 1 • RE4UEST FOR COMMENTS TO I ( DATE° ...... , • FROM: Tigard Planning Department • RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEK�',NTE�t (SOHUETZ) For a planned development,� p approval of I• a. 130 unit apartment codex on 12.66 acres zoned R-1 PD Me` iii eon-ty residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to y regu atio s a require z access points on are�pomen o over T •units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Beto en SW 109th Avenue and SW Pac i f i s -i i W Ti S AD l to 886.2 a.iir- IA 0 4.S. ..300.,) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From 1 information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a repo rt 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, r �°�►e � ��need your'�; comments. 3i' 1� ,., , " , by August' 1.9_ , 19 X88 . You. may use the , space provided, � below or attach a separate, letter t. return sand b above � e �the ''s contact t noted below with . your comments and confirm Your comments in writing as coon as .possible.' If • you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning . Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 .SW ,Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: " 639--41.7.E n STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart • • ` '' PL 'AS 1 CHECK THE FOLLOWING I1 Etna" THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the propo,ial and have no objections to it. ,.. . !, Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter, . � Written Cornmants. 1 11 S;. , ■ ,. . .' Name Of person Cotume ►t t a • Phone No. a, . .. � • , NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATIONS ' [ NPO No. ' CPO No, 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS .Bui1ding Inspector/BrF d R., Parks & Recreation Board/Curtis S. : iry Recorder Police ',•. Engineering/Cary A Other r:; . 3 SPECIAL DISTRICTS ire Distinct.,as G ,�"� School D�.s B t to No. 48 ( eayerton ' (plck-up`box bldg.) \ • Joy Pahl', PO Box 200 ., gard W.D. Beav�e'ton, OR 97075 ti 8841'`SW Commercial School Dist. No. 23J (Tigard) . f „p Tigard', OR. 97223 �' 13137 S4 Pacific H ' ' Tigard, OR : 97223 P . . y ' Metzger W.D. ��' ��•� I 0th - , 4. , AFFECTED JURI;F ICTIONS ' . , ', •.:.. Wash.' Co. 'Land,Uae & Tr,ansp. ' . Boundary Coinmission ' � , .'"Hillsboro'',rs��,ave.� � 32O �SW�Stan 150 N. Fi� k Room 53( ,,, , ',;, ' 97124 Hillsboro,; OR 97124 ' ' • , Brent Curtis , Key1n•Martin METRO : . � aula Ca .yinSW1st Ave. Portland), OR 97201--5898 ' . . "City of Beaverton % ,I'im Ue:nd �i r ;, . PO Box 4755 - 4755 SW Griffith 1 Beaverton, OR� 97076 i. State N �.� igtiw�a • D .vis ott _ OtheY: Lee Gu o ndcra�on . • POBox 565 is ;1 teavertcn OR 97075 . � 7. SPECIAL AC NCxES �, '' /. Ed Wi1mott Cene p �artd Oetteral Elec ra �� � '�, e h otie , e ort trig � � �`�.� JOhztson �� . � ,. 12460 rW Mait. Pdrtlarid 0 ,, ���^1 E1eotrie�;� , Tigard, •OR 197223 14655 ,SW Old Soho1la i'err - i 4 Boa v'er on:; OR 97007 NatthWeat Natut'' �G / ttôpola� ,�� � , t. a';1. as � n'Area Conome�nicati , , i' Rohald �D ,Pori, 'E, P148 � . T ,in Oaks Tathtio1ogy Center ' 't orl,d Aye. S 6020 220 r�� � �.�i5 �� 169th�Plate* � � � , �. Sec ' ortland • t OR 97209 i Bea,yertcai , OIL 9700 -4886 �.acific ti„th...est 8e1i� u..y. �` � Other . , , (04;57P�,/002!ip.) ,,,,,'„,'I tv + (R5,/t11), i ' 'T r. U • k k y w 1. V `` V , �' ry ,,tie r ^ I A»c - - - - i Lt3 t,ice�. - UK. 7 f GG.1. . a . -- •; r�:4** ******:;:XXXX X>EXX507C-M XXX?CXXXXXXXX C$OC CXXXXXX<VOCI XJCXXXXO4XXXY.)f XXX%,X) <.0.0M1 XXX X XXXvM$C cXX?CX X>CXX 0.01 XXXX 00ekAXYOCZO:X70XX.0a- _ - -MARKET- - -5-2°2:,:006,700= - MARKET. - 5292,0_06,700 -LAND -- - 1823,0'453 500 BLD-- = - - - - 346 s,961,200 .-SF=-FEAT -- - - - - _ BASE 01 -5283389200=.0=Q- BA5E-02: -20970_8.fl0' _ BASE 0,3 .995155..0-0--,-___ BASE--04 -56486.00 - BASE-05 107-951#.00= - -- BASE-0:6 -- 58.5542.,00 - - BASE-0 � - - ..00 BASE-08-- - -- -- .-00: - BASE-09 - _ _ --.00- --- BASE-10- _ --- --.00- --- • - - ifl VALOREM I2a°,_336,--328--1 2-SPEC ASSII 7,--048,432.48 NET T-AX -135,384,760-.60 3% DISCOUNT 4=,06I,5+8.--90 CURRENT TAX 131,323,211-.70 - - _ � _ : --- F 13 _ _ 1--- _-_- __1„ - _ _ - Eat:5- - - -, - -- � __ c - ,- --- _ _ P.t21 " . ROLL:-PARCEL NUM_BER. ORDER:__ • - U fl--5 ft L N- G: T-0 N C-0: J tT T ? -PROPERTY VALUES FOR- 1987-88 -REAL PROPERTY Y -- •0 f0 =PAGE _ 4298 .- - - ROLL-CONTROL - -__ - 251 LEAC=U01700 LEGAL CONTINUATION :_ A LAND 24,X100 AD Lam- + 77 99 _ r• t_r,r a PCA� 1012 DISi.. 023 74 D CTL: - LOC;`.4980 - PACIFIC HWY- -SR -JV400G0D MAP: NOOPI. - BLD=DUAL - 10,500 NET TAX 757.99 •._-(10489- E E___- . D 1-5COUN T '.74 - - - • . _ 7-- - UT I- - - - -- ---UT AREA PC�€6 ROLL SEQ: 58122 XR55��--D �4, .00 3°0 i - N=I LCOX-E_R'?-C.KSON--WEST ERR COR. ,-76RRC ZONE = fl 1 2720 TAXABLE _34-:50A CURRENT TAX - 735.25 -_ pe _ - - _ROUTE 4 BOX. 2 74_ - - SALE GO-GO 1391a0��72. - 5HERWOOD. . OR 57140` • - nn4tl , Pca 6002: DIET:. 023 74 LAND -700 AD VALOREM _ -- - 15.38 i - - . - 25110A� .. �' JV:-OQQQO MAP: --NOOPR -*ASSESSED 700 NET=--TAX _ 15.38 I{EY _ iIQ.4 8 "d? CTL. I:. :, €r ROLL 700-3% DISCOUNT:: .1:,6 t _ - -- VII:- -- UTZe - AREA_4:IG - ROLL SEQ.:. 581:23 _ TAXABLE - .ANDERSO i- ELIZABETH-R: 3.:87AC --FOREST LAND? -- POTENTIAL CURRENT-TAX - 14..92 - - I- - - --- - -ADD°I TI ONAL TAX_-LIAB=ILITY ZONE- = RU.4- - - 'SDi�L SIB=1 t19°'t� • _ , . -- :TIIARD _- --OR 572223_ -__ SALE-Q:Q.Q.Q OO.CF_I459- I- _ T.-- - - - _- _ Lam. - - ' - PCA:: 7012 - DIST.=023-74- D - - LAND-- 352,000-AD VALOREM --65,699.08 - `CS#-t0 A -- Lt LOC: 11545 -BEEF BEND RD - - - SW: JV:00000 -MAP: 00007 -- =-BLD-VAL _2638,400-NET TAX 65,699.06 _ ,, , 004 9714- C • -UT`t a - : - --UT2:- - -AREA:X 2- -ROLL SEO: 58124 = _ -*ASSESSED=- 2990,400 -3% DISCOUNT. =t-,970 • WELLINGTON ESTATES - TAXABLE-- ---- 2990,40U CURRENT TAX 63,7261_ -- - � I�Ei3Z; G MICHAEL, AND` - 4=r27AC xx� DELINQUENT TAXES fix,. -- -- -++++++++++++t++++++++++++++--BEITZ,- G. MI:CHAEL - NATALIE - - t �ATALII� - • -- i - -PAX-BOX-#99: - - - . f84- 84048.837 - Co 84-34888 -12/7/84 - 12 AN 'if - ---- __-_ Ct .-945J8 - LESS . 16AC:-TO ROAD- GOLDEN PACIFIC. INVESTMENTS - - - - -_MCCULLOCH/HERING_CONST - - 9/84---- 84035359 - - - -- - --Ca 37233 - -- - - 1:-17-83 - MAP CLANG FROM: 25-1 IOA 3900 -, SALE 1184 84048837 I fD=Gt - t= - -_- - 2- -D IST:-=_023-7W - D-= - -_ LAND -- 209,300 AD VALOREM 7,500.55 I.c51=1I7P.,C 1 1"Q� � PCA::. 2Q=! :` - - - KEY:; 00.48`11: -C:TL - _LOC 11290 - BULL MT RD - _ _ ---5W JV::59942:_ MAP:_NOOPR. - -BLD-VAL _ 132,100 NET TAX __ -7,500.55 {. _ _ - - t, --- ---- AREA::ZPHY_ ROLL SEQ=:. 58125- - - - - - *ASSESSED 341,400 3% DISCOUNT_ - - 225.02 r . . 111iAT r,; R Q.; - - 1.54-AC - - - -- - =CASA PINATA RESTAURANT TAXABLE 341,400 CURRENT TAX _ _7-2 - 53 = P° !oil k, --- -- --+++++++++++++++++++++++++++-CO 3723' - -- -- 1-17-83 _ -f 1 Y_ - CA 93063. __ - 'MAR CHNG FRO/17,25110a 3681 ° SALE 0571 780.402L3 IBS 0 { -- __ POI: 2.002 D.I5T: 023-74 - _ - 2511ORC 120.0:- - LAND 375 I QQ -AD VALOREM 8 .240 96 .1V:-.59941. MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 375, 100 NET TAX 8,2 fO.96 } KEY:, 150.481 ;:Q: CTL� LOCO 1 4 AREA::2PHY ROLL._ SEa: _ 50126 TAXABLE 3=/5, 1 Q6 3 _DISCOUtT 247.23 i- - -- �. _ ZONE`NYAT€n ROBERT C 4.1:4AC E C�-4P� CURRENT `" 7,993.73 t SALE 057'1 78040235 V B5 0- •- --P- a. BO 352.< - - SIMI- VALLEY'- -- CA 93063 - -- - - - - - -t Aim -- Linn on root nom -- . -,-,-a -)� - _ - 254 mRC-01300--- - PCA:c:--10-12 DTS T-: 023-78 D - - - -_ - _ .. .. - t • - •-.... _ _. 1 _ . .. . - .. _ -, . . - _ , •.. . -....................... ....-..„ ' ..' ■ *A V . . • ,. - • Or . -. . ti. - - •. 'k .• ' ----- * , .. ' ' --. . ...• - -i •• ,c. 2St 1.(MC _) -,' PCP: 9602 ..-1 -,----------m, DIST: 023-74 E 13 *ASSESSED 0 -‘1'3 • 1 KEY r 00469723 CTL: LOC: JV:00000 MAP: NOOPR 3: ' 43 -- _ - , ' UTE: UTZ: AREA: 00 ROLL SEG: 58115 - , 'Ti BJEING. CHURCH,- THE .69AC NON-ASSESSABLE • 013F62No0R5T1-114 I PARMCERIFICICA HWY ZONE = R-7P-D . , . --. - ' TIGARD OR 97223 , --------------------------- — '- ' 251 I ORC 0026-: tr' PCR: 4012 DIST: 023-74 D LAND 75,800 RD VALOREM 3,805.21 _ - - KEY: 00489732 CTL:./W• LOC14600 PACIFIC HWY SW 3.11):00000 HAP: 00Pri BLO-UAL 97,400 NET TAX 3,805.21 UT'- / AREA:4-T IG ROLL SEG: 58116 *ASSESSED 173,2011 3' D I SCOUNT 114. 16 ANNA-N jo. •i -- 4-- 2.97PC +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OOPR 0 CURRENT TAX 3,691 -1- CRTH 71 .`. B5 11/13/86 CO 37225 1-17-83 TAXABLE 173,200 _ 1464 -:$ P..CIFIC 1-1WY MAP CHNG FROM 25110A 4100 ' TI •a R OR 97224 ,.. 3 • 2S1 1 OAC 003G1 PCP: 4002 fl 5T: 023-74 LAND 15,500 AD VALOREM 340.% -- ' : KEY: CO i" 0 CTL: LOC: JO65614 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 15,500 NET TAX 340.56 UTI: UT2.: AREA:4TIG ROLL SEQ: 58117 TAXABLE 15,500 3% DISCOUNT 16.22 _ ANNAND, JOHN D -CATHERINE .83AC +++++++++++,'-++++++++++++++ CURRENT TAX 330.34 ' I JOHU D n MARY ANN ET AL CO 37226 1-17-83 MAP CHNG FROM 25110A 4201 . 14600 SW PACIFIC HWY SALE 0000 099004P+ _ E _ TIGARD' OR 97224 . ‘ — --- 25I[UflC-OQfUOI Pal: 4002 D IST: 023-74 LAND 100,800 AD VALOREM 2,214.57 " KEY t -20489741 CTL: LOC: JO:06333 MAP: 00011 *ASSESSED 100,800 NET TAX 2,214.57 UT1: [Hal. AREA:4TIG ROLL 5E0: 58118 TAXABLE 100,800 3% DISCOUNT 66.44 • SCHIETZ,,,et°RISK ÷-2..D ANNA 4.8011C +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CURRENT TAX 2, 148.13 32. NEI ;..., ' 2. ' 1 SCHUETZ, FLORIAN AND ANNA 04/85 - 85019+16 ' • REITor -, f CO 37E2_7 1-17-83 MAP CHNG FROM 25110A 4200 ‘ CAN SALE 0385 85015416 FD X T4P ..1 XX -800G - ------ ------ - „-----I , --- 25110AC 00500 - i PCA: 4002 DIST: 023-74 LAND 153,300 AD VALOREM 3,36O. i. - ' KEY: 00489769 CT f LOC: JV:06333 MAP: 00011 *ASSESSED 153,300 NET TAX 3,368.0 I . - UT1: I ,, •H AREA:4T IG ROLL SEQ: 58 H 9 TAXABLE 153,300 3% DISCOUNT 101 .04 SC , , Z... Ft 4 aja.. /.1' ANNA 7.30PC +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CURRENT TAX 3,266.97 • — 3a ' - li, - ..rt,-- SCHUETZ, FLORIAN AND ANNA 04/85 - 85015416 , i .., , . ' RED -i-E 4 -•.1 A CO 37228 1-17-83 1.1AP CHNG FROM 25.110A 4390 cri .j. \ SALE 0385 85015416 FD X . - NP AI XX -c1800 : • 251 MAC 6600 ----- 1CA: 1002 D 1ST: 023-74 LAMB 9,000 AD VALOREM 197.73 ' : I KEY.-.-.- 00_48- CTL: LOC: JV00000 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 9,000 NET TAX 197.73 i Uri: UTZ: AREA:PC ROLL SEQ: 58120 TAXABLE 9,000 3% DISCOUNT 5.93 STOKKE, CAROLE .54AC Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx$maAAAMwoc CURRENT TAX 191 .80 ' , 24' CANTER Lid Ca 37229 1-17-83 MAP CHNG FROM 2511011 4402 - ' SHERWOOD OR 97140 SALE 0881 8 1 028360 V QC Q - -- .0.- .P . ast MAC 0 t 70 Pm:. 1-0 1 2 D!ST: 023-74 D LAND 24,000 AD VALOREM 832.66 - - KEY 0048": DL:: 1_OC: 14950 PACIFIC HWY SW JV110000 MAP: NOOPR BLD-UAL 13,900 NET TAX 832.66 UTZ: AREA:PC46 ROLL SEQ: 58121 *ASSESSED 37,900 3% DISCOUNT 24.98 STOKKE,.. CAROLE ANN 1 .24AC ******=cxxxx)Acxx.mmc.Mx* TAXABLE 37,900 CURRENT TAX 807.68 . - PETERSEN. SHARON 11 CO 3723C 1-17-83 MAP CHNG FROM 25110A 4560 - 1 10120- SW KENT SALE 1281 8104760 I QC U . TIGARD OR 97223 lottatipbbt*lor $cso-ekk)m)m- A--**)0,c),-"Nont,e3e..y_v_14,.. ..._,__-. --!--------- -,---- = .... . .i, - _ ,_,: • - -- _ . • - , , - ,.. • . • • - - ' K � _ - . ' • ; ; a t - : • 2PCA: 7012: D IS T:: 02374 D LAND 246,800 RD VALOREM 34 963.05 CTL:5000 LOC:14460 CANTERBURY LN SW JU:.43572_ MAP: NOOPR t - , r 0 R BLD UA_ e344,GDD NET TAX 34,9a3.D5 - UT t U_-2 AREA:X-2 ROLL SEQ: 58262: *ASSESSED 1591,400 3% DISCOUNT 1,048.89 . MCKENNA,: D MICHAEL AND t4LN3609 202350.02 4-.4511C TAXABLE 1591,400 CURRENT TAX 33,914. 16 PCM' ASSOCIAt-ES 14460 51-1 CANTERBURY LN PANARAMP: I1 76 UNITS 400• 514- 6TH AVE + RECREATION BLDG ++++++++1-++++ ++++++++++++ -PORTLAND OR 97204 BOFE REC DEC 87/88 7/.24/97 MCKE,:I4i;, D MICHAEL PCM ASSOCIATES 12186 8605689. 1 N6 12116/86 SALE 1281 82000547 I CT U 7 __ j __________v, • PCR: 1002 DIST 023-74 23 7 LAND 24,200 AD VALOREM 531 .68 KEY: 00491 I CT LOC: JU:340S' MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 24,200 NET TAX 531 .68 UT1: r , AREA:ET56 ROLL SEQ: 58263 TAXABLE 24,200 3% DISCOUNT 15.95 ANNA ..b JOH=� t; L-.11.* .1IINE .-60AC SALE 00.00 06470162 CURRENT TAX 515.73 -JOH st -•: 'l'_4_.0=-_E. ETAL 14. 4 4' , -:' IC HWY !.I G°e D. OR 97224 �_ _ 2StIORD:. 13E13 ' PCA:: 7012 DIST: 023-74 D LAND 222,60-0 - 2, QO AD VALOREM 29,30i .jy a ' KEY;: 011' ' 0 CTL::50.00 LOC:10695 MURDOCK 5W JV=:56732 MAP: NOOPR BLD-UAL 1 1 1 1, 1.00 NET TAX 29,301 .39 y EI` t: UT2: AREA:X-2: ROLL SE( 58264 *ASSESSED 1333,70G 3% DISCOUNT 879.04 PANORAMA WEST ASSOCIATES ULN3609 20235010 'f.60AC TAXABLE 1333,700 CURRENT TAX 28,422.35 FIRST- FARWEST CORP PANORAMA: WEST APT 74 UN ITS ++++++++++++++++-+++++-t•++++ • i BY' SIMMCO PROPERT=IES INC BOFE REC DEC 87-88 7/24/87 SALE 0582 82012581 BS U • P Q BOX 4-162. ` PORTLAND OR 97208 251 10AD 088O2<= : 1`002 DIST:: C123-74 23 74 LAND 24,200 All VALOREM 531 .68 KEY:- 00491159= CIL: JU:06333 MAP: 00011 *ASSESSED 24,200 NET TAX 531 .68 UT 1:- i 2.=- •• FIRER:ET56 ROLL 5EQ;: :;826 5 TAXABLE 24,200 3% DISCOUNT 15.95 ' SCREE FLOR` -.-i . a - SAC +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CURRENT TAX 51 .73 32 NE-0 _t-0 SCHUETZ,• FLOR.IAN- AND ANNA 04.1E5 850 1541.6 RED. '- - T" ''� SALE 0385 8501.5416 FD X . . i CANAD-: ,--: T4P 2A? XX -80UO' . -IICAD PCA: 1002 DIST:: 02374 LAND 18,000 AD VALOREM 395.46 _ - KEY: 01014397 CtL: LOC: JV:38656- MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 18,000 NET TAX 395. , . U t 1 UT2: AREA:ET56 ROLL SEQ: 58266 TAXABLE 18,000 3% DISCOUNT 1 1 . s VAN" Lott, JOSEPH t1 AND - .3310 ZONE = R-7 P-D CURRENT TAX 383.66• LF:NDA E SALE 04-77 78038656 *xx r *** 8125-- SW C AN`?ON RD- DELINQUENT TAXES PORTLAND OR 97225 251=RI yD p90 PCR: 1012 DIS-T.: 02374 LAND 20,000 AD VALOREM 1,737.84 e KEY: 011239 CTL:4000 LOC: 14805 109TH AVE SW JU:00002. MAP: 00009 BLD-UAL 59, 100 NET TAX 1,737.84 _ IUT1r UT2.: AREA:ET56 ROLL SEQ: 58267 *ASSESSED 79, 100 3% DISCOU-4r 52.14 - SHAP IRO,: IRIS C #LN86567 1540 1 1306 LOT 1 BRAMBLE BEND OOPR 0 CURRENT TAX 1,685.70 - = 14805 SW- 109TH. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SHAPIRO, IRIS C TAXABLE 79,100 ° `! : . . - ,t - - ' - _- ,: e. , . , e - e rr t, .,r II 1 A, j U t_1 L U U N 1 r rt'Urtt�t Y Vt-tt_Uc� ruw td/-8d REAL PROPERTY 10/07/87 PAGE 4309 Q ROLL-CONTROL - 2SI TOE - PC_R: 1012 ]315T: 023-74E LAND 20,000 AD VALOREM 1,737.84 KEY: _G 12.7240°1 CTL:5000 LOC: 14807 1091 H AUE SW JU:00000 MAP: NOOPR BLD-UAL 59, 100 NET TAX 1,737.84 - _:. U.(-T U,T2> AREA:E T 56 ROLL SEQ: 582.68 *ASSES SED 79, 100 3% DISCOUNT 52. 14 HRMMERLY,,`RAMON J AND tLN3975 10.0050000501630405 BRAMBLE BEND 00PR 0 CURRENT TAX 1,685_70 LEAH R LOT 2 SALE 0882 82022585 I WD Q TAXABLE 79, 100 I48Q7 S R 1..09T1 ,,: T`EGARB OR 97223 25;11 0AB 9100 �_���! PCA-: 1002 DIST: 023-74 LRMD 20,000 AD VALOREM 1,737.84 KEY: 0_ I27_ CIL: LOC: 14815 109TH AVE SIT JU:00000 MAP: 00001 BLB-rs`JAL 59, 100 NE T TAX 1,737.84 UT!: UT Z: AREA:ET 56 ROLL SEQ: 58269 ASSESSED 73, 100 3% DISCOUNT 52. 14 - NARPER, mum 1° BRAMBLE BEND LOT 3 ++++++++++++++++++-t-++++++++ TAXABLE 79, 100 CURRENT TAX 1,685.70 • , LIND,- HARGER'YLOU HARPER, DAVID W L I ND, MARGERYLOU/A BURTON L IND, A= BURTON 0E/87 87009575 N9 3/10/87 FORELL, H J / D C F RUS FEES 1305 GREENTREE RD 6/84 -° 84024235 B OF E S/C 8/5/83 LAKE OSWEGO OR_97034 SALE 0684 84024235 I WD G `° 25 10AD .1.9210 PCR: 1012. D:I:ST: 023-74 LAND 20,00u AD VALOREM 1,737.84 ' KEY 012t ; ' CTL: LOC: 14817 109Th AVE 514 5.U:00000 MAP: 00006 BLD-UAL 59, 100 NET TAX 1,737.84 UT 1: UT2: AREA:ET56 ROLL SEQ: 58270 *ASSESSED 79, 100 3% DISCOUNT 52.14 _= LIND,. IIARGERYLOU TRUSTEES BRAMBLE BEND 10T 4 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TAXABLE 79, 100 CURRENT TAX 1,685.70 Hl RPER', BA Um W LEND, MARGERYLOU/A BURTON MAPPER, DAVID W . FRO: L. ND, A BURTON 02/87 8700.9574 N9 3/10/87 FORELL, MILLARD J 130.5 GREENTREE RD FORELL, DONNA C TRUSTEES 1 1/83 - 830'+1 227 - _ - LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 B OF E S/C 8/5/8:1 SALE 1183 8304=1227 1WD Q 25110A 1'304 PCA: 6012 D IST: 023-74 B LAND 24,200 AD VALOREM 1,751 .01 KEY': ,0048` :07 CTL:50.00 LOCI. 15001 109TH ST SR JU:00000 HAP: OOPR BLD-UAL 55,500 NET TAX 1,751 ,01 ------., UTt:_ U T 2. ARER:PC'+6 ROLL SEQ.: 5827'1 *ASSESSED 79,700 3% DISCOUNT . 52.53 ANDERSON, ELIZABETH A ULN3t1-37 1 083385 1.94AC OOPR 0 CURRENT TAX 1,698.48 . I SOON= 51W: 109TH' STREET FOREST: LAND-POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY TAXABLE 79,700 .IGARD` OF 97223 ZONE = RU4 SALE 0879 79035947 I QD F 2511'OAQ_I1D PCA:: 9902 BIST: 023-74 *ASSESSED 0 KEY': 010, . 04 CTLI LOC: JV:30I28 MAP: NOOPR UTI: UT2: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 582,72 . CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO. CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO COMMON ELEMEN-i - BY- HOFFMAN AND' HOFFMAN SALE 0679 COND0204 HILLTOP ESTER!ES 1888= 5W MADISON PORTLAND_ OR 97200 251 MAD OUO PCA: 1°12 DIST: 023-74 BLU UAL 37,800 AD VALOREM 830.46 • KEY`: 010 2 CTL: LOCI 1 4820 109TH: AVE S W JU::30128 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 37,800 NET TAX 830.46_ - Lill: UTZ:: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58273 TAXABLE 37,800. 3% DISCOUNT 24.9 1 LAMB,_ JAMES 0- UNIT 1 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO.0124%INT COMM ELEMENT CURRENT TAX 805.55 LAMS, MARY LEB;IC A: ZONE = R=7 P-D +++÷÷÷+÷+÷÷÷÷++++++++++++++ LAMB,° ROBERT` E ET AL 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/2.4186 SALE 1082 82027404 I WD N -- _- 14820. SW--1-0 9TH_- - - - - -- - _ - - -- - - _ - - ---- - • TIGARD OR 97223 251111A 90002 PLR: 1912 DIST:. 023-7+ BLD-UAL 39,900 RD VALOREM 876.60 _ _ _ KEY: Q 163'+2_3I CTL: LOC 14822 10 TF1 AVE SW J U:30128 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 35,900 NET TAX 876.60 E UT2:- AREA 9033 ROLL SEQ.:: 58274 0 0PR 0 3% DISCOUNT 26.30 =_ OLSON, LOLITa P UNIT 2 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO:.0124 o INT COMM ELEMENT TAXABLE 39,900 CURRENT TAX 850.30 I . ; 1-4822 511: 105TH ZONE = R-7 P-D ++++++++++++-e+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ r tIGARD OR 97223 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 0980 80036005 I WD L /- _ -------- _ __- E--I-5- - -t1 251-i 0AJ- 90003- PCA: 1912 DIS-T: 023-74 BLD-UAL 37,800 AD VALOREM 830.46 . _c • ° -yi .L �X.: 56-87 v•'L - 1,.. I 1° J - TTTTTTtTTT7-TTYTT'r-,:`T'�' i-t-+'t -e-e--,,e ` -- - ' I ° -T GARD_,. L_ OR 97223 BOFE REC DEC 7/2.4/86 SALE 0980 800.36005 I WD L I(+ 2 2.S 11 GAS e OQ3 PCA: 1_912 DST_ 023--74 _�BLD-UAL- 37 1130- 6 ,800 AD UflLOREH .46 F NET _ KEY: 01034240 CT L:2110-0 k2QQ0 LUG 1'�82.4� 10 9tH AVE SI•! JU.31_3128 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 3 7,800 NEt TAX 830.48 UT1 UT2: AREA:9033 ROLL 5E0: 58275 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 24.91 - -- MUNSON, LE MO INE LEE OLWP3!294 18062 001 UNIT 3 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 37,800 CURRENT TAX 81_15.55 14824 SW 109TH AVE CONDO°0124 s 1 N.T-- COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-D IGARD OR 97223 ++-++++++++++++++++++++++++ 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 . _y_�___ SALE 0180; 80004170 I WD 0 1 251 tORD 9 0 PCA 1 912 D IS-T: 023-74 23 7'+ BLD-UAL 38,400 AD VALOREM 843.64 KEY: QI 9 CTL: LOC: 1_4826: 109TH AVE SW JUr3012B MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 38,400 NET TAX 84€3.64 UT1 : UTZ: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58276 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 21 SINDLES,: GLORIA: UNIT 4 CANTERBURY ',MODS CONDO.0124%IN°T COMM ELEMENT TAXABLE 38,400 CURRENT TAX B 1 _ 14826: SR 10.9 c H AVENUE ZONE = R-7 P--B +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _ TrGARi OR 97224 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 0380 80.009540 I WD 0 -251E 10RD 'HO PCA: 1912 D IST:. 023-74 23 74 74 BLD-UAL 3 7,800 AD VALOREM 830.46 - KEY: 0 l e ' 68 CT-L: 34 LOC: 14828 109TH AVE SW JU:30128 HAP: 00011 *ASSESSED 3 7,800 NET TAX 830.46 ' _ U 1_.-1: UTZ: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58277 TAXABLE 37,800 3% DISCOUNT 24.91 - - } FIX,: ROBERTA J UNIT 5 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO..0124 o I;NT COMM ELEMENT CURRENT TAX 805.55 1`4828 51t- 109TH= 5 SALE 0384 84012227 I WD Q tGARD OR 97223 ' 251=I OAD 'OOO PCA: 1912 D I:S T-: 023-74 23 74 BLD-URL 38,400 AD VALOREM 843.64 f KEY: 010 Ci-L 4000 LOC: 14830 109TH AVE SW JU:30128 MAP: 70010 *ASSESSED 38,400 NET TAX 843.64 U t i:= UT2: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58278 TAXABLE 38,400 3% DISCOUNT 25.31 RICE,, AMY J 1 LN85567 154007987 UNIT 6 CANTERBURY WOODS CURRENT TAX 818.33 14830. S14 109TH CONDO,0124 a LN;T COMA ELEMENT SALE 0284 8401 Q559 I WD Q TIGARD OR 97223 251-1OAD_ _ PCP: 1912 _ DIST: 023-74 ----- BLD-URL 40,000 AD VALOREM 878.80 - - !Eu_ O1: 286 CTL: LOC: 14832 1091-f AVE 514 JU:00002 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 40,000 NET TAX 878.80 - U T I UTZ: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58279 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 26I-% HAMMOND-, LENORE L UNIT 7 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO.0124%INT COMM ELEMENT TAXABLE 40,000 CURREN- TAX 85 14832 54 109TH 1-1 SALE 0381 8100.7201 1 CT Q TIGARD; OR 97224 25t1QRD 9000 PCA: 1912 DI t: 023-74 BLB-UAL 39,900 AD VALOREM 876.60 KEY: 01 , 5 CTL:5000 LOC: 14534 109TH AVE SW JU: MAP: *ASSESSED 39,900 NET TAX 876.60 UT1: UTZ: AREA:9033 ROLL SEO: 58280 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 26.30 - L.INGENFEL_TER, SHARON. H #LN2022 190207 UNIT 8 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 39,900 CURRENT TAX 850.30 1 4834- SW 109TH= AVE CONDO..012' Q r1_ COMM ELEMENT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ T/CARD; OR 97224 86=87 BOFE REC DEC 7f24/86 L I:NGENFELTER, SHARON it 06'86 -- 86027262 NI 7/23/86 SALE 03% 8-6027262 1 1413 Q I ?q!1>LAD 90009 PCA_ 1912 DIS T: 0 73-74 23 74 BLI-UAL 40,300 AD VALOREM 885.40 KEY 0103 4-302 CTL 2000 LOX 14840 109TH AVE SW JV:30128 MAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 40,300 NET TAX 885:40 1' UT I: UTZ:`2 AREA:9033: ROLL 5E0: 58281 TAXABLE 4C,300 3% DISCOUNT 26.56 J w I BACHMAN% ADAM JR ANNA 1#LNP50965 40733 001 UNIT 9 CANTERBURY WOODS CURRENT TAX 858.84 14840 SW 109TH CONDG..01241_%IN;T COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-D TIGARD OR 97223 ++f+++++-1++++++++++++++++++ 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 - - SALE 7281. 81004563 I WD a j xxxxxxxxxxxxxoexx$(5w( Xgasx*c****xxx cxxxxxxxx*xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - t1fRKE- 5303,,622, 100_ MARKET 5303,622, 100 LAND 1825,575, 1 00--__3LD __�.._______34-75--n 3=n nn. _.- ch,c' ..-:- '°'"'..--°_,- _ - -- - - - - S�_ �_ T -i_.I_►bH-1RD OR 97223 + ++++++++++i++++++++++++++ 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 _. ' SALE 0180 80.002528 I WD Gl 25 C C_0A 9Ef.-065.= PCA: i 9`!2 D 15T, 023-74 23 74 BLD-VAL 38,`100 AD VALOREM 837_07 MAP 00OPR ASSESSED 837.07 KEY': °U Er? 3 CTL-5000 LOC: 14968 109 T H. AVE St! Jt1:30128 33, 1.00 NET TAX • - UT is - 1:1T2: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58337 OOPR 0 3 DISCOUNT T 2.5_1 1 ' DENTEL,, DEBORAH M #LN1901 091952000415 UNIT: 65 CANTERBURY FLOODS TAXABLE 38, 100 CURRENT TAX 811 .9. 6" Pf96E 514 109TH #65 CoND0.012 f%rNT. COMM ELEMENT 2ON! = R-7 P-I] T IGARD. OR 57223 ++++±++++++++++++++++++++++ DENTEL, DEBORAH M 5/-87 87024532 N11 5/26/67 66-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 0587 87024532 I WD 0 25I EDAD 0 PCA: 1912 DI 5 T:: 02374 BLD-VAL 38,800 AD VALOREM 852.43 KEY: thfL .I2: CTL:21 G0 LOC:: 14970 109TH AVE SW: JO:30128 MAP:. *ASSESSED 38,800 NET TAX 852.43 U1 UT2:: AREA:9033 ROLL SEO:: 58338 TAXABLE 36,800 3% DISCOUNT 25.57 • STATE OF OREGON - DEPT OF #LNC0752.1 87201 001 UNIT 66 CANTERBURY MOODS CURRENT TAX 826.86 VETERANS'` AFFAIRS COND0LOI24 INT COMM ELEMENT +++++++++++++++++++++++{+++ • % -MITCHELL,- RONALD:-R CO 44295 2/23/87 MAKE ASSESSABLE 700 SUMMER_ ST N E AA 43222 8/13/66 MAKE NON-ASSESSABLE - ' SALEM= OR 97310 % MITCHELL, RONALD P 7/86 - 86. 03153 I N2 8/7/86 `- fti = 86-8.7 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 STATE OF OR - DEPT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS 3/86 - 66010592 xx*c xxx **5.(********nxxxx******xxx*xxx*xkxxxxxx*x?t**xx*xxxxx x*x*$Cxxxxx xxxX*xx***Xxxxxxxxxc***x)10s x xxx x*xxxxx3xx4xxxx*xx* MARKET 53Q6,074,Q0'? MARKET 5306,J174,000 LRND 1825,575, 100 BLD 348. 0,498,900 SP-FEAT BASE-0t 529741.1500.00 BASE-02 209708.00 BA5E-03 995155.00 BASE-04 56486.00 BASE-05 107954.00 BASE-06 585542 00 BASE-07 .00 BASE-08 .00 BASE-09 _00 BASE-10 .00 'D: VALOR-EH 128,644-x136-04 SPEC ASSN i 7,048,432.48 NET TAX 135,692,568.52 3% DISCOUNT 4,070,783.13 CURRENT !AX(31 r 621,785.39 N 15 s r t _ - t - - - - �J t kurift �uu.t:tf- LLUHL LU[v 1 1 UH I LUIV SALE 0786 86031531 I CT Q. - -:2SC E'0AI 9Q:0.6 ' - RCA: 1942. D.tST:: 0:23-704 BLD-VAL 40,200 AD_VALOREM 883.20 - .. - :KEY- GIG 1 CTL:2000: LOC: 14972 109TH: AVE SW JU:3012& MAP: 00PR *ASSESSED 40,200 NET TAX 683.20 - UTI . -. UT2: AREA.:9033- ROLL. SEQ: 58339 OOPR 0 3%--DISCOUNT 26.50 - ` ELLS.,- NARY -- #LNP29079 15847 001 UNIT 67: CANTERBURY HOODS: T-PBLE 40,200 CURRENT -TAX 656.70 -- -- . - : 1:4972 SIB:- 1 09TH. CONDO,-0124%:INT COMM ELEMENT-SALE 0482 82040264 I WD 0 : -- TIGARD OR 97223 I 2S 1 IE7A =-90 : - PCA: 1912 D I ST: 023-74 23 74 BLD-UAL 40,200 AD VALOR EM 883.20 - 'KEY: 0103.5230 CTL:5000 LOC: 14974 109TH AVE SW-- JU:30128 MAP: 00PR *ASSESSED 40,200 NET TAX 883,20 - - UTI- via:. AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58340 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT - 26.50 - HANNA1 -, MICHAEL EDWARD #LN190 I 09 I 9521 0I 0.I9 UNIT 68 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 40,200 CURRENT TAX 856.70 -- _ _.-1 I+9 +' S ._109Th CONDO.,0124tIt T COMM' ELEMENT +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TIGARD- -- OR 97223 HANNAN, MICHAEL EDWARD. 6/87 -- 87032399 Ni 7114/87 86=87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 0687 67032399 I WD Q - - 251-1QAB 3.00-69- PCA: 19°1.2. D IST: 023=74 23 74 BLD-°UAL 40,000 AD VALOREM 878.80 - -' - __ ; KEY:: 0.10 .. ;-- CTL: LOC: 14980 109TH AVE 5I~= JU:30.128 MAP: 00PR *ASSESSED 40,000 NET TAX 87 `'.0 UTl UT2: AREA:9033 ROLL. SEQ: 58341 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT a _6 - - BRAND.T,. MABEL H= UNIT 69 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO.,0I24*IN.T COMM ELEMENT TAXABLE 40,000 CURRENT TAX 852.44 - - `�' = 14980= 5I;1: 1'09T1 ` AVENUE ZONE - R-,-7- P-D +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' '. !TI:GARD- OR 97223 86=87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 0382 82007983 I WD 0 r-25I OA.D 90070=. PCA: I-912 Di51:: 023-74t BLD-VAE 39,900 AD VALOREM 876.60 - KE` : O:I u.1 Cl L: ZOC:. 14982 1 09TH AVE SW J.U::30 I28 HAP: NOOPR *ASSESSED 39,900 NET TAX 876.60 I L - :UTI: --- U_TZ: AREA::9033 ROLL-SEQ: 58342 00PR - 0 3% DISCOUNT 25.30 --- ' - BOYLE,, SHARON! I-1 - - UNIT 70 CANTERBURY WOODS CONDO..0124%INT COMB ELEMENT TAXABLE 39,900 CURRENT TAX 850.30 ' - - - ` 1:4982-�14 EU9TH= AVE SALE 0180 80003518 1 1413 0 . - =- .- -_- TtG_A RD OR 97223 251 i OAL. i PC[ : 19!.2 D IST 023-74 23 74 BLD-UAL 37,800 AD VALOREM. 830.46 - KEY-:: 61.0, �- . CTL:2000 LO.C: 1.4984 IO9[n AVE SW Jtt:.Du-►28 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 37,-800 NET TAX 830-46 'Uri: UT2: AREA:903:i' ROLL SEQ.: 58343 OOPR 0 3: DISCOUNT 24.91 LENOl4,- KATHRYN E _ #LNP435G5 30273 001 UNIT 71- CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 37,800 CURRENT TAX 805.55 - „ f 14984- SW: 109TH CONE .O i 24%INT COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-D . i . TIGARD - OR 97223' ++++++++rt-4-+++++++++++++++++ LENOW, KATHRYN E 11/86 86055288 N6 12/10/86 86--87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 -- SALE 0160-800048I9 1819 I WD 0 - --251-10_AB- 007 PCP 9052 D IST: 023.-74 *ASSESSED 0 r = - a.. KEY: 010 6 - CTL-:Z0O0 LOC:: 14986 10-9-TH: AVE SW JU:3012:1 MAP: OOPR OOPR 0 4. . - U.TI:-- -U:T2 ARER:9033 ROLL SEQ: 58344 _ - ST:fITE OF OREGON #LtF31202 90559 00I UNIT 72 CANTERBURY WOODS - 1 :-DEPT OF-VETERANS AFFAIRS- CONDO 0124%INT COMM ELEMENT NON-ASSESSABLE 7Q0= SUMMER-ST T- NE +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AR-44615 e/4/87 -- - --- -SALEM. - OR 9731-0-1201 MAKE NO'. ASSESSABLE STATE OF CREa:N DEPT VETS 02167 87009179 N9 31[2/87' SHAI4, KEITH T - 10166,- 86049795=N5 1.l/l x:/86: 66- 7 I OFE REC DEC 7/24x86 . -_ - _ SALE 0187 87009179 ED X t - - ' - - i25UA -20-7 - -___-7_---7PCA i 1912 DIST:: 023-7. 4 23 74 BLD-VAL 37;600 AD-VALOREM 830,46 - : KEY: 01-03�4. S CT-L:2000 LOC: 149Ga 109TH AVE S14 JAI:-30126, MAP 00PR *ASSESSED 37,800 NET TAX 830_.46_ _ ' - UT1 . -- UT Z: - AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ_: 58345 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 24,9i - a NEI4LANII,. EVERETT BQYDE #LNP3I20I 17969= 001 UNIT 73 CANTERBURY -WOODS TAXABLE -- 37,800 CURRENT TAX - 805.55 14-988. 511 1U9TH-- CONDO.-0124 INT COMM ELEMENT ZONE R-7 P-D "= : TIGARD OR 97223- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 86=87 BOF(I6REC DEC 7/24/86 - - SALE 0180 813170.5 12e I WD Q - - ' -s - I Y.. �r? aka _ 8 - -_._. --__ _ - -d - _ - _ - - a a __ . - 25-.-t 1ORD- 90074 PCA 1912 DIST: 023-74 BLD-UAL 38,900 AD VALOREM 854.63 KEY :: 01035294 C:TL:2000- LOC: 14990' 109TH AVE SW JU:30 I 28 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 38,900 NET TAX 854.63 �-.. UT 1 - UTZ: AREA::9033 ROLL SEG: 583. 46 00PR 0 3%,-DISCOUNT 25.64 GOETZ,- STEPHEN F #LNP45340 32108 001 UNIT 74 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 38,900 CURRENT TAX 828.99 - 4990: 5W 109TH AVENUE CONDO.01.24%I-NT COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-D TIGARD OR: 97223 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24/86 SALE 1081 81036439 1: WD 0 25:1 I OAII 90075_ PCR: 1912 DIST:. G23-74 23 74 BLD-UAL 40,000 AD VALOREM 878.80 '' KEY 01035301 CTL:2000 LOC: 14"99.2 109TH AUE SW JU:30128 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 40,000 NET TAX 878.80 UT UT2: AREA:9033 ROLL SEG: 58347 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 26.36 BARR, CHARLES r AND #LNP58146 4731-`. 001 UNIT 75 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 40,000 CURRENT TAX 852.44 ADRIENNE- FORD CONDO.0.124tINT COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-D 4992 SW 109TH +++-€-+++++++++++±++++++++++; 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/24:86 -TIGARD OR 97223 SALE 0981 81.031655 I WD 0 2511 OAD 900.76 PCA: 1912 DIST: 023-74 23 74 BLD-UAL 39,900 AD VALOREM 876 A" KEY: 01_0353 in CT L:5000: LOC: 1 4994 109TH AVE SW JU:30{28 MAP: OOPR *ASSESSED 39,900 NET TAX 876 UTit UT2:: AREA:9033 ROLL SEQ-: 58348 OOPR 0 3% DISCOUNT 26.30 ` ROSENDAHL,: I: ILBERT N #LN3037 9021411 UNIT 76 CANTERBURY WOODS TAXABLE 39,900 CURRENT TAX 850.30 14994 SW 109 TH AVE COND0.0124%INT COMM ELEMENT ZONE = R-7 P-B TIGARD OR 97223 +i t" i++++++++++++++++++++++ 86-87 BOFE REC DEC 7/2': '86 SALE 0.186 80.002524 I WD 0 - 25I1`OBA 00100' PCa 10.1-2 DIST: 023-78 D 23 78 LAND 21,800 AD VALOREM 975-06 KEY: 0049116-= CTL:500 LOC: 1465 I STH SW JU:0000.0 MAP: OOPR BLD-UAL 27, 100 NET TAX 975.06 UT I•- J1-2: AREA:PC46; ROLL SEG: 563'0 *ASSESSED 48,900 3% DISCOUNT 29.25 . DROUIN:, RONALD E AND #LN3973 0703234854•-17 ..18AC OOPR 0 CURRENT TAX. 945.81 SUSAN J SALE 0978: 76041698 I; WE Q TAXABLE 48,900 - 14-165 54 II 5TH TIGARD OR 97223: _ 251 10.814, 00200 PCA:: 5032 DIST:. 023-78 D 23 78 LAND 26,700 AD VALOREM 1,310.06 KEY• 0049/195 CIL:: LOC:14235 1 15TH SW J::-:3 1 392 MAP: OOPR BLD-UAL 39,000 NET TAX 1,310.06 UTI: UT2: AREA:4TIG ROLL SEG: 58350 *ASSESSED 65,700 3 DISCOUNT 39.30 FUGERE, H Z CHRISTINE F 3.99AC UNZONED FARMLAND POTENTIAL OOPR 0 CURRENT TAX 1,270.76 . - 14=235 SW 115TH AVE ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILIITY ZONING VIOLATION TAXABLE 45,700 . TIGARD OR 97223 "- 2S1 IOBA 06201 PCR: 5032 DIST: 023-=78 D 23 78 LAND 300 AD UALOREM 5.9y NET 1- - KEY: 0 1.202344 CTL: LOC:- .1U:31=392 MAP: NOOPR ASSESSED 300 r�L: TAX 5.99 Ui1 UT2: AREA:PC46 ROLL. SEG: 58351 TAXABLE 300 3% DISCOUNT .18 FUGERE, DONALD J AND. .92AC #4054 ZONING VIOLATION ZONE = RU4 CURRENT TAX 5.R1 L ILL IAN D= UNZONEII FARMLAND-POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY 361 DR MONTE WAY +-f+++++++++#+,++++++++++++ CO. 80-31392 12/22/80 SAN= LEANDRO: CA 94578- FROM TL 200 SPLE 0980. 80031392 xxxx_ xxx.cxm*xx m xxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxicxxx xxxxx*******x** x**** MARKET AKE�O€ 553TH,513, 00' BASE-02 60 73,600 LAND 1825,623,900 BLD' 3480,919,700 SP-FEAT 543 600 MARKET 530.6 543 „�__ 8 9- 0 BASE-03 995155.00 BASE-04- 56486.00 BASE-05 1.07954.00 BASE-06 58.S4�2.80. BASE-07 .-00 BASE-08. .00 BASE-G9 _00 BASE-10 .00 4 All UALOREM €28,_654,.219.90 SPEC ASSMT 7,.048,432.48 NET TAX 135,702,652-38 3% D I SCOUIu. 4,071,085.64 CURRENT TAX€31,63 ,566.74 1 '. s • " Si __Wild. -'�' ;`e - 2 �- 4 =. a i F� 7_- sip:•- _ - } di.' n - 1 CIIIY OF TWARD�� scab�1� . d Rp.Box 2334 7 �� , Tigard,Oregon 9123 `�' � .� Lel - , Asa— 40,1e- - T. 2 i _ : -, _- _ ..ir- 4_'''' ‘." _ -, X--Pa*: - _ -- -- iiiin,_to ro :- -- 1_ - - 4 - E tip --. _ • 3 - i --\-\ - _ _,_:_;_ _ p3-7" t a - i • 3, • ' " \.4 '.. - _ '-,-, . - - • - . _ , 117 . . ,,. . J, n , F:('' „.. . . ,.. ( • ...„ • . . • : , 1 . r) le wry' + , V p� 1/49 �. 1` ; it o +, Hall Blvd, a,o . • • 13125 SwW W Y . P,O! Box 23397 ir I � ,, 1 e on 97223 �MK and Oregon �.`�'U �. 1i 9 f�� >+�,, 7i� dr � t.(rn 1t f, ... y 6.,rs 1' ;,a• r,. ,z F & A UEZ � , ;.fal," .a r a; I •1 R I ' ,'�, 4CANADA Top-2A.�,, t+w,k.:'., 1 ,I'1r,11. f ' },1 - t�, .c nib'. ✓r ry i r.]{i,J yy I f J Dc''''' . tl J llnt1{, , l', i . , . 4 • 4g1P 7 t - I1YOFTIG ' . .„ ...., 0 13125 3W, Hail Blvd, ► ►� � Cf,0 Box , P r 23397 1. 1. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 i \ , , ' /7/1/1/2/^ NO sijr, r„� pp� • 00100 ,, Tigard gang, Church of N 13520 51 Pacific w. y Turd OK i213 T, M' 11 1 1 • ill V i I , . I., r . yyA' . . ... , . ... .. .. ■ ■ ■ , kM r, '�. ? Si.( �✓,'�„1x'4� 4.4'4.4..K,7�{*�'''''.4.,,F i .4 u 1 , ,rr, t f � 7a .. P,O1 Box 233�7 I,� 1�,��•,� �.r � � Tigard,Oregon 97223 4) "°■ , e, r � �" bpd .� V�r.tvi 115f., 1 k , �y 1.� �} � (pI�a y ,,c % x,/y 1q ,ap ;r' 1''49'.,(.‘„,,c.',11,;''''',..,„'",::,'"4,,,,,,,1';';)��A •M" 'A y , .t ' 90005 , }, '1 '�"� , Roberta J Fix , `c frfrc14828 S l 109th #5 . Tigard, r., 97 � 97223 „ i 9 + 1 t 1‘4'lx ';',C; 1.20''i1 xl,�Yft O./ :I. eb•x °Il'' ' t„:, , • A = ,.,,, ,",,,, .w:,.....,, „:„.,,,,,.,;w,r.M�,,, 1,,„,4IP 1,' x r a y l rx N' • •, rA 'aka aim i��t�,i a«i�w.f;,'ol,,�j,�.,,'a„��,l10"tp«�r,,. ,4,,I,,,;, x 25 S W, Hail Blvd, + �` 'rep"i's,... C. ,iJ :1, , I P,O. Box 23397 � .. r ' ' ';r 3G•c), ,',. �f br 1 wy a i4... ,, 5' Tigard, Oregon 97223 v . «� h ic, t. Ain t '"4 I p „.: ; ,E '�' Tigard� )� ng, C' u of avt Tigard, ac1.f3Ic; Hwy 1 36 20 criT25•5 j Not ,`k.. ?r. p ,+ s ,x,, „',... o.4......., ,1,1M=;i,,,,,-4.3.4444. ;/.1.4'..v1 i i iW rl4Ats°f” t 1 1 11 a 5 16 v f yl°i �b Vi?{ x ,"w } w ' r �ri� Y d } L v„ � �� / !n y'> . r'yY ,t y L � � P. r 1 `` 11 ,dAedvj t. I t' } •Hall Blvd, �` �� � I�.�� ,. I W � , P.O;'Box 2397 �� �� /��8 ; Tigard,Oregon 9 223 �`► „ , ,1 1 4t "d v ,I II .. .. ..�p . d y'', 1 L,:1�w6 f dY1y�l rt IG�( �I�, I • L'�{ lL , 1 d IA t. J-t N 1 , r t7 1 t � .N 1-8 '�;�. � C � � � '—� ,,,.I °=' .• y-) e su+. 'i' ,u„rr,,...x, '.`.e..-,t�q,+ ,,,�.y, x�.«�«.. ew,tii,,,a,,,,,_ y ,'• ,xMx".,wam+ w,., r'( i,,'.W n.,�' y ""gW""-- „r a ( -- iii,,,,,,,,,...i ,, na,.k 06,f .,1 r,...i ::;"r.,^ a r• , F • • x A • ry 3`, 1 i CQCQt 1 t I I , i .tt a .. f �;W iE 1.1 .s ° - �'tly „F''�f ... 'l v:.,..„:4,,,: , ..',w,W, +, .. 13125 S,V/, Hall Blvd, , „...4,, ��, ,„ A,,,,.. ”" • "1 . I i0 Box 2339/ t. .k i3t i''�.Fki ('''1'.p l` 111 ,}^ f f d 1 & aR ligard, Oregon 97223 < ,` . ,,i.,:." ,, , :-;a (.` `,+ ft, -1,63,',,e, ,,,::;‘,.,,, ,,,, p:,,,,\, , k'''"',.,.. ' XI've:. \ "<4' '', I . ''4, 47r.,, "` :',...:C:',1\, is.,d',." y, rl ,u 't 7 • 1 0 5. ""''� / Roberta 'J Fix ; " �� � 1 825SW 109th , 5 4'1,,,,4;::::,*:'''''' 4 Tigard, OR 9 2. ,10 . t r 23 9I { t'3 11 .1. 0 �1t ." :::/'.V: S 0 •,1 `:""r.! Aif,i .. +}14 "�'•,��P�!A(yl',I, ,1. !1r . ..,/:3(;- Idy ' „ ,., I„ ., ... .n,.l.,..t..,- ML .1,,.1. ”"4rf�..N,l 'ii,,I.OfC,+. l , • •, A,i _ , ..., , ,. „, , . , , ,,, , 1 125 SW W'Hall Blvd, r ► ` r'.;' `. r ' + {� . a y :'z LS '�Q � �'y �j•� AIp* , w n 7 7223 SE pg. �, I.•' 'rd Oregon AfP 7+' `v �. ~. ` "- Tigard EVang, Church of NIA' d $ 3620 SW Pacific I- r , � Tigard, 01 97223 . , .'4+�t•ll. e'T;NR7 ° , '14.4-4+Nua4.4.. ..4.w.:1.;..'-,W&«ni';,; 1�.....i b.k ; i;kl.l ,, q •d..Neat �" �x,cs�n,ld ! r Awnitocr ,• I}• �,x rl 5,. '1. .! �� •�•^' :,.,. ..4...,„, ��r.,(u' e■i�°1,W 1 Y6'i ;F.p 'tr? SK`.L” C6f' �' ^ Y.io...74,-, � ..,^ 1 ,1, A. ., f '��Y�{ e : ..,.ia�,a-i° P.',C�a'4'1[' 4 G xA!'�,XS}y;11( ", • ' 125 SW. MII Bled. n I'0 Box 23397 I r ` 1B'a `" l " ard,Oregon 97223 ; . , (,\I„)\ ,, i ,','.r L d iti . , , r ,,, ,. 0 L'''I''' 11 if * -. 4)....5\ • ,r. A' � G. F4J s , tr & cl'ite t G 1 a Y 3� ��e "� v10 Canada' �' P--2 ,. ' ,,N y Gt,.{ '{"� ^�^ .J+ / n,.w.+",--1 .- ,....«imr",i;,v,bt,. ;*Y v74.,..,, ,,...,ww, m„-„, '' c , cs„.,..,,,, ",'t4'AV14 t ' \ irc„....) ' ",: , .1,)6,{• ". I�._�U« t`'11• t I I I it , , ,. .I• ... �.. I r e �., j' l _ � � G .,,. p Appl is:arlt ! , . . �tyc�t i� rt. 1 � (411" � re c � •, Decision Date: _... • .� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED p {' .. .. 1 ,'Prior to W., ,t.�.r.r.: ; 04 kY-; OJT.)a. ;,:�'a '1 1..itt , i1,- Contact Sig r1 0f1 Date ' 2, ` w { 4 Y p by y "'° ° d �� ' ' 4 esy 1w t.. ?pet%;',''!," 1,p F, .�&a:Y a• ... e.YIN,, :,, r'1:."'"^ , li..,rte, d:F \,WSm=r .,.._ - i 1 r r 1,1 ., rq . p. �., . ill, 6 .t.A 647- I . 1 . qc,,,,/ 8 4,,,:£,,,, ,, „ e. / i trva „,,„1.1-1 .. i•P.^a �•� e�� v-a.:�+^$��'r�"�,,'i..1,i'�u ''k` k.y 7.1AI i,„„1 y).a ir 6” C.,sttp '44 y � • • 1 ' ii:; ,n+1 Y J ,„:,a ,7q 11 el (,,' e fi 14, alt �Y ,,t e a p l' it, o rel A � +1'kM�4'�tluANWtli i Y� +u `"' 'k ,' a ? �a �C., T§,. c+*wri,,,j r. ,t% ( ' eyyrPw+ Jt 5;... „ , ty r4'v, .''."4,�'no p • g� t t , ' ,t.., n� ,a r 'i f,�m.' 444”�1�� s /Ivii, 40 ' r ` i tp,i'l i' , , I (IL b/a44 , ... ., : . , i. . ,, . (1 p ,. ,,, - ,N . r 4 A, 1110's J ' Lo‘ik ov..4, 1,t-e.., eyiA. 1 C) N5 's k • M t 1��«fib'11 )�A"If i ML'N�e w V''�y�'*�,��,y�q ?14-°(:-°,:-.1"S ��7 M''v.r�+✓7"A'`� I% �{ra 1�' {.✓V t'� y�, .A, . . • . - , , , ,, . , ,..'\ '.'''.. . .... .. R9 1.•1" A• /,1 i r Gl• • +I , f / 1 , „. __,...,---, -,) Permit No. / icr 7.44-(.4.5 X . , . " I CITY OF TIGARD - TREE REmovaL PgRMIT , a COPY OF THIS Form En= B crEEZIORLY POSTED O1 SITE OR XN THE POSSESsioff Or THE PERSON REMOVING THE TIMES DURING ALL TREE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES. p, ; . . 1 1. GENERAL /NFORMATION , • PROPERTY ADDRESS / LOCATION TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 2:...„SJL_ioj6„c $_Qml___ ZONING .. ,/c -- t Z.,, . 7- 7",.... .. , PROPERTY OWNER * 51226 te- xii... 410-lif SIGNATURE,„a„,‘ ,....7- ‘2, ...r.-,, ,---...._ 9-,-, ADDRESS ..,,,Taarz,_1141r2ci — -1%-c--/ 2 ?PHONE-..4sz ,4,..._12 _ :), -- CITY S-,.. , # 4 -, ZIP Cti 1:-.2. ..,_j.3-1___,- .. . • , -------7e APPLICANT * SIGNTURE , i ADDRESS//„-e-Z,ZZ2_____ ,(L2C.2.7 te41,11Ve' PlIONFZ.AVV— :/-`2:14/4../ -, CITY _ _2".----4.?.-c7 ZIP 7'-'-'.._.... ..—. .......... ....--- . ." . , r- BUSINESS NAME 7-:evots--1,`Ale. /Ar-.4. 6ry 111114..tLt..cA -1...S.sq...1g.V...TIALS...-_-__- _____1 . , , ' * When the owner and applicant are different people, the applicant mast be the " ' I purchaser of record or a lessee in possession of Written authorization from the . owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must , . ' b sign this application In the space provided or submit a written authorization with this appliCation. i/ • 2. REASON(S) FOR TREE REMOVAL -, 0 .41012 ,;,,r- ro-,e e* ..$ (-4-- ,...3 4:7-- 4 r O'r,l':'.1e.7- 1,............f_t __ _ __________ , d .....,...............................................,.............1 -..........................• .................................... .....*•....................................a....a.u.......................*................... t . ....■........................,..................................,..... ............................. ... ..........* 4.....■...* .4 . 3. RELATED LA U) USE APPROVAL CASE NUMBER (if applicable) ..........................................e.m.... . . 4. Please atta< rt a photocopy of a tax map or site plan to the back of this fOrill. , ts ' - larger site kaani may be submitted if necessary to adeqUately address the proposed tree removal. The site plan shall shoW: • . ) ,I, ' . 1) The location of the subject Site • 2) All proposed or existing structures 3) All easements, dedications, Streams, wetlands, eta... . . 4) All trees over six inche0 in caliper stzet measured four feet above grade., . S) naBio identification of tree types (ComMon naMeS). • .... . "10 ' 4. /1 s . , A • .• 1 '' ,, 1 I t M ' li r•-«.l a....n...'.....r.... .1«!rI ,..,... .........tw+.—..•....nom....4 «�.+4% . „ l • 1 ....._. ,e. r 4. i......i_......1a...- .v....v... .n........ .,._... .. .• ,i......w.......-4—..r w.,..�.._,.....». ..r....nw.w..w•v.«n..... ....— Yi ` _ . .,_a a.. nx iii. ._.�.. •. . . I (1 ( ,,h, ., •• �E. '. ' SITE PLAN ' ' R ** *.9....w + . 4.Q s..* *. w w t k . *s Al *,* *• v ti.+ tiw. „ �S y /• 6.'L 'S is ei +A* �' • ak�. a �, Ali> e.....w .• .. 0 4.b ar..m as a,o its tele,'ib*Ali,!b1 iU *OK#1 p.�i.lid o, I ,r d.`k !b 41;rd'A. +C 4 �•'10 u*�!f e. • A .�'4.i•r. K Qb ..**.�t ''*:W*or�*'O '�fla 1Y q1,1�.'.M....t. d.0 Q/,41. M a. . v tl R 6 4 b * . h . F "c a$4 4 1 ^k 10r,y is 4.4 s. ss 4i*w.w a ..O Mc'-h,du P•at,m',q.f 'I�'9*dFi1."fM1�fot, r tip.. , .., . .., ,1. ...4. nva sr. 4c ,W • i! f1�7►'+k.q•.>tk iY. ,s,• y',6 4, yr�s, , , . .ab 4,••41 46 W•14 .yt.^.." 4r' 4 >k+l'10 J0�, . .. i'W- 9 7F* * ' ,'ti r....' r c'.a!s♦i N.sP rr .t k • 4 h∎4 1'i1 If *** • ,t',*ja :a t ;t ; !t y ► r s I. *4a ow.4f6 7' ` rM ♦ Ili• y /r' \. , , .■•• (0),•.• pit^.� ? *."" � �a roc ,¢,vk 114'*'' ':-�S r ,'�,4r /"1 \ y,'t k .a .P (6 a1 s s 4,•ia.4 04 4r«"T$ *, ..,�; .,�._. � \., '°'�4w. ' .q'Iii.!'s4{ .b'°s" '0 / „CS?is y. tt 1yI (�,. sAI 9 ..'aia..F • + Jr. �+t� \ M 44,.4� f ti 44, lit c'' 'P.,'Q∎IL 4''..I• '�+ 6 1 4• °, ,ate Y • eS),,.{1A4vl �i �, ��XJ----�� ,r1 �?. Ark ttt _� . w . . 0.- *104/f'a. .,.1#4. .e).,..\,//0 0 0 0 0 ' it* v*. . • f e.6 itt* 1•s1*" y .'• „ ' b.M Wr hb *,40 WV, a /�, ,a' ,Ilk w ar at -_.,.., y„r•a.s „,y.4. y • • . r 01 w ,*' '"0" 4"14 14,, ''Qt o,i,'" T ` tft `'a 10-4►,8r'f' q p►'IPf, M 4- A+4+4' ~P b.r.4' ..,b^4 4. .0"'at. ""'✓ �S. �j 4 yyp'S�►y�{ *�( .8 !Alyf,.y 4V40/46** 4 i0 40 m m a0 4 . ••• t' a'a'''�' A.i'' 4 ... , . ' a �. tli Y ,r IL -y+..4e:6- AT Volt....s. ,,4.'*. .1.{L,{L. . 4.$ .4. N'4 . , .. A. •. V A Y • Tree protection pig required . Yes !-o . .. • Arborist°s Report tequired c _ Yes r kto — A dita.onal Cornitients and or Conditions of Approval .1 1.- , ' ` 0.__:,...., • . _ • - 0.. "•• . - • _At oo or i v'tP•e� '`ri L C* .1c ° ;/ . r nt t�J,,a i 4'b d ) 4-s ' • • 4 4 S OR 2U4 PR1IXki�7C"Z�t ' UNL55 '�i GtJCT RE t1E . X`7CE] 3X tNG 'btVISZ,ON PRIOR ' T iIRitir.a. Oki rr' . oed �p X Txtie, .ia,. ..., ,..�» Da,tlw �3. I . . tx ee8..trill ' • �, ty >f vd September 30, 1992 Ms. Carol Boardman . 14799 SW 109th Avenue, #1 Tigard, OR. 97224 Dear Ms. Boardman: I am writing in response to your September 29th request for tree removal at the Timberline Apartments at 14799 SW 109th Avenue.. 0 Tree Removal Permit TRP 92-54 is granted subject to the following w; ,. condition: d •b ° Trees shall be replaced on the basis of one 6 to 8 foot tree s: for every tree which has been removed. Trees shall be either Douglas Fir, Red Cedar, Deodar Cedar or Western Hemlock. l replacement trees shall be planted within 60 days of the issuance of this tree removal permit. This condition is based on the previous Planning Commission and City Council review of this apartment' complex. The City Council reviewed this proposal on appeal on October 10, 1988 The Council ' upheld the Planning Commission's decision and, amended several of the conditions of approval. Additionally, the Council added a design guideline directing the applicants and the Commission to save at least 130 trees of 6 inch caliper or greater within the proposed development portion of the site (Final Order No. 80-15 PC) . In a letter by Terrill Collier of Collier Arbor Care, Inc. dated March 26, 19 9 0, it is stated that 34 trees had been taken down for various reasons. This letter also related his understanding that • the City of Tigard had requested the replacement of all of the trees which were lost. Whereas the City had specified the replacement to be Douglas Fir, it was suggested that Red Ceder, • Deodar Cedar and Western Hemlock trees be acceptable as substitute trees. Therefore, this consid ecatio n has been allowed ax d specified in the above condition for this tree removal permit (TRP 92-54) . As of this date the number of trees to be removed is 16 as stated in a fax received by the City from Wilson Free Care, If this number Is to change, please contact the City. • questions or comments, please contact the City o � '�' a of If you have any e. �rnts base tact th. Tigard planning Division at 639-4171, Sincerely, o• Ron POmer'oy Assistant Planner .. .d ` d . , u •I '..r, Y . ,• .. h ..\r. !./•' ••'• , /+l'Y•••1. .M. Et l <i.'. .`r. y,.,-- rfl' . . - . y 1,4 •. ,,fi .. y , .tip 11 Y ► !j, QUOTATION . ,, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE + r I L SON ' e Clean Up ►urY Mess°'• •. Commercial & Residential '��� ter.. ��rtf�i�c�1�r�sri�t� { j . 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE I. CARE ' 24 HOUR EMERGENCY SERVICE P k T is , ,r ., .1 K+ H ..u` ` 1 '. .. 71111 f k' •1 •Y'' ♦ •�•H -a ?' t. n:• 1` t.,V"Viu `'`r 1r N'<aJ, •r W h , `L'';'f t++ Yh••<` }' `I`'y•'t (• 1 ~�•. , •.'"'ttttt. r'/. 1 �', ' , ' ••a 'Y• , •S` n p 4 • �1•� ;• Y �.,, ,.. . �1 !' M•r'i. w q.'t 7 cq * � � ♦ ti/—°^'�� A.:,„.„ 9 i` • +' ,:'4,,,, • 'Yp d_.p 6( , S ,'o- (`+r • +1 Lk - . 4 4 4 •• 44,'' . '' .'''Ok , .! ;•,..... 14 • :e i 1,, ',,-. ,1,...).., . . I. • a:, t„, ;,, r : , .. - 'o I .` A •,,,..,■,i;1% . , ' .'4, L.... 1 _. c),„_e.,.., .., ... Q7 Li I.{ . 4,6.. . . 4 N <• i .; r- "� ` s, . • -,h . ..v a ..4 - • ., i < 1 „ • .. t. Y We are phased to quote'as follows;a L. ,,. .. •A.° 1', • , • 'r I 'A't 0 ,. ., . .•a- i j t * ,' �a. r:'+i:y`bu'�,'. ,r, h� l q 1, ,t• •,'" 1 J • ..'• <r'I�, ,a r 1 ^� .r r' o ( •, f A rh , . t '1 C ! . 7 • t P R"•0 '', a J.V 1'.t 4 • y, ii • l .. N, .• l•.. y « ',�f 1• • '�ir , , - r`' ',t •1. •�.t. • •i , y S. ✓, x '4;,; i,t '' '+•, � rS, r 4 • •� ,,• >f ear..�...,.�....�:..,.�...�.�.�........�•..... " ; ' 1 Quantity Doscriptioaro Price Unit AMOunt 1 %. W \ _ M. (211'1114j1/413 kr"""IL". ,re , • • .1 o A. c. „,..... ¢,��.� ) Li 7 z a.,a " ., , , .„,...., ; /11tc ,. - 1 a , . Ad!.t A:tf‘...,A.041.k_ ? 1‘,,A) 1 i* LiSz,... t'..-L (Ad...13 5 00 .e.I 3 c t-o- •!" L ( 5 j i- r u.A LAd i 1 1, ,,,, j__.t.k.„‘-...a....4 c e...c._1 ' oc:____`.." , b ieta$top the Given ItIolisee Myer: I „ Fred Small becid�uous Tteo i a With Any Removal , t 1! 7 try+ r..•.,1 +,Iry{ ., w � "Y 4 kr>< • 4 • . , A• . I . , . 1' \ -, r- \ k`,4L • ■''`. • , , , , Permit No. SP 89-80 . ., , CITY OF TIGARD SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION , , I The applicant hereby applies for a permit for the work indicated or as shown in the , *- ,• accompanying plans and specifications. . . .. ., SIGN LOCATION ADDRESS: 14703 SW 109TH . ZONING: _IP.12-_____ 1 ' • NAVE OF BUSINESS: LITTLE BULL MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS . —-----______ ' APPLICANT/AGENT:, STEPHEN_WINSTEAD_ CO,MPANY: C.B.H. miENTL, PHONE: 292_147/1 ; The City of Tigard imposes an annual Business Tax which must be kept current on all ' ,.. ' ' persons doing business in the City. Do you presently have a current Business Taxi J. . - Yet; ( X) No ( ) U.L. Label # . , r---,--1,-=:-..r-=.4.—...r... .2========== ==inrissvzsesciuctrsen=se==s---m•=ar-i===== trt, . •■■ PROPOSED SIGN: (Check as many as apply) . • . .,:. . PERMANENT (X ) FREESTANDING (X ) FREEWAY ( ) TEMPORARY ( ) WALL ( ) ELECTRONIC ( ) • ()TITER ( ) BILLBOARD ( ) * BALLOON ( ) , SIGO DIMEN8I,ONS: 96" X 42" , EXPIRATION DATE: TOTAL SIGN AREA (Sq. Ft. : 22.64 SQF ___ • WALL AVM (Sq. Ft.): 4 I ' WALL FACE t EAST , ,. • HEIGHT (ft)t 6'- &' 0, .' . ', PROJECTION FOR WALL: ILLUMINATION: YES ( ) NO (x ) TYPE: . COPY: __Wijallil 8.1111L11011gIAIN_APIIEUMENTI.---2 ........_.....__ MATERIALS: ..,...asa_BLAsmast Onn STGq_____ - — ,,. EXISTING SIGNS: NLA . ' A.NM : 0 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION: N/A I I APVROVED I J flow m0C4 Z ARM [ 1 nEiGnT [ ] ,: COMMENTS: ______ -- • --,- - =',,,- PLANNING DEPARTMENT .. .........._ -- - All sign permits must be accompanied by a scale drawing , \,,,, ,;, Permit Fee: '.7.16,00 and plot plan. If work authorized tinder a sign permit 'L .' Receipt No: 104167 ---- has not been completed within ninety days after the " .. ' di,:, Approved Tay: yc _ _ Issuance of the permit, the permit shall become null r .. ..: Datet /22/89 and, vold. , - PLECTRICAL PERMIT I CERT , Y THAT I AM THE RECORDED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REQUIREbt YES ( ) NO ( X) OR AV AG,NT AUTHOR ZED BY THE OWNER. . BUILDING PERMIT 1 , , •• . ''.......t,' / ..../ .4t001*...''''............. , ■■••,* .....* , 3,, % • ,'". REQUIRtp: )78$ ( X) NO ( ) Tip licanes Signature . . Y3ft r sf 71rAeit.' iverdAmpoo< ii,41-iielL i Adtrrp- 4.72i6, Tei(Thom, . f ; • l 4 4 t •�, G , a, 1 . • 1L, • -. „.,_.,. J. M_,.. .. _ .--... -., - ...... .,.... -....-4.................. ... ,. ..• -,.._...,_, .....,.•i ..._I...,.. ,..-.. 4:L,.,x.J'...x......, 1....H...w,..l .,..•..,x Lo-mn ...i-.w.r4.• i., '!t C.B.H. COMPANY 0315 S.E. STARK STREET, PORTLAND,D,, OREGON 97216 .E . April ` 2, 1990 Mr'. Keith L .deny Senior Planner City of Tigard 3125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.U. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE Occupancy Permits for "Little Bull Mountain" . • . Dear Keith, on March 304, Jerry Offer called our office to inform me that it would be impossible for him to inspect and issue a certificate of occupancy for all of the buildings as well as the project. His reasons center on the trees that were removed due to proximity to buildings as well as the tree that blew down in January. Jerry was not informed about any discussions we had and was reluctant to make a decision with consulting you As of this date all of the buildings have had their final inspection and the carports are completed. As soon as both you and Jerry can determine how many of the larger trees f are required and where they are to be placed, we will provide •' ,' additional bonding to cover the cosh It is (very important to us that we r rceive a final occupancy permit for the entire project by April 40 1990. I will be leaving for my annual active duty in the reserves on April 5. Thank you for your willingness to help us in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns please give me a call as soon as possible . Sincerely, etA ,e2e02_,/ St'phen M insteac u a „ project Coordinator �• col Craig Haskell,0 Superintendent r1( }�eyq� }tWtia.rq • ., Y►Ecttvga. MLAAwA A1>t APR 19 , a , .. .. , . , . ., . , ••••,..-„•,..,„..•,_— .....,..,__.....,L.„„,_—..:e.,,---.),!„•.„,„_,•_('"-' .,..„, ' , APR 02 '90 08:11 CBI COMPANY 503 252 2451 —........___,,A.,.........4,-,---.. ,,,,,..,,...,,...,...1. Po1/2 ,-,.. ,.,..• . • . .. •,', .. . • , • ' . . ..., ' ei, • . . i . . r . • • ,,, . i .,d' 0.6.k.COMPANIES . . . , . . . e3 stAriK 5t. . , ., FOR rt,040.oFIEGON 97218 , Pt4t)NE ge ,t470 , . ,. . . . .. trAcSIM/LV: TRANSMI •, SH 8SION COVER ET . . . , . . , . .,..,„, . . , DATE$ L'A ,.2 .......2,t,..Aa9 ......J...r.......t. • ., . , .,; v TO! .....LIN.....e...\...L...\4........1.,. ....a..9-C14.,........:.„/„..xci..Q1C........ ...\,..Q.AINas...X._...„....—...................... . . J.. le ...., I. ,.. .,....,..• .......,,,,......,,,,,,,,,.....,,.......)...,......4141.,.........1p.pr,....11.1,......14117.■.:..441.[I,.....41.1110111,,*WW,......111,11,••••••...J. . . . ,,,,,,,,,,,,....„,,,,,,,, .....,.......,.........,....,,,,,...„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................J.,....,.......i.N.,..............”..........,........041,......1.011,..........411 ....... . ■J*J., .. ....0 1.,... ,1‘1.,.,....J1JkI), ....1,34,............1..J.,.......14,...............,.......ilar.w.....—.41•Inp......-4.444.P .4.......--,—........--.-...........■•... '4. . , SENT TO . . FAX #2 ..; . (.54,4,,,„-.. ---2,,a,9„„,,,I,„ ,......,,,............,_,_.....,,,..,,...............„.,......_...............,_-................-- . . FROM!' ,.... :tr....4., „.......3,............„—,...„-.....--:.---------, , 0 .1... Yr.. .0.alf. ...I....v. 11,1....4.1..op,......44....,,,.....n......,......0 4.10Mow.0,...110.1.e.....I.0.0......11401.10sw....0.4•Tv-I*01.10.0.w.4.41.0.-0.0.4.007.04.........••••• 1 • 104.0.I I.■J./,,,,J6J,IJIP..p,.,...i I. .,1.114 i,I.4...41 1 1•••••••$,OP 4■11,4 4■i.oili i•,..1,04:•Porrookre,•••■...1•Ww•r.,,,,,e.4h•-,•••,......■*.d.....-.4.......•••‘,..,.......4........,,...... i . 1 FROM .. , 0... ., FAX 0! 252-24$1 CPH Comooyftypriess Inn..t .. . • ... . IC iiiiti:N Ts: ..,,.... ,i,„,„„•,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4,,......1.i.f.,••••••••..t.o...........1.1................./11•1,••••••*,.............,.... ......... ... ., ,,,, ,,,,, ..,,„,„,,,,,,,....„„„..i.,..0......p.,..........,..,..,.....,,,..-,...dappopm.....—.11.-r• ../.........,i,..................,..—,..4.,......,,.../114,......41.11114,.....1wrik••••••40.1P.....,11111,••••••,P....*1.11,1,•••••• ,.. 1.• , . -Papp .....P.th ,.... 1,,,,.......iory ...1.44,...,,,....tuallov, .,..coltr4.1.....a...0 or,.....,...., ...40,••••....4.4•■•••,.....,••••-..1.••••••.•••••••••••*..,,,,-......"•••••••...."."' • . ‘. t F106 T s O FOLLOWv EXCLODINO tOV R 814111ET. ,.............,..........-,...,,-- • , ,.,. ,... A It= YOU b0 NUT PECIVE ALL or THE PAsts, PLEA8E tALL TPE ONO119101\WO AT C503, 25'2-1470 (COM Cdmpany/CypPetz thm)0100 ) , - IMMED/ATeLY, TH,INk YOU APR 2 1990 • . ... 8F...1\1$)E.R:,,,,,,,,,,11,11, ile,'...„:1,,C.;4.0...r.,,,,...r14.,.,.... i. 4 ,..w...4"........,,....4...,Jp1.1.,.........pl....,,....10f,••...416.4........P.444.4........1.1411q,..P.1.0“..4....,,,,,,,,.....41, 14w.........1....••■••••,.................-"........ r" . ,.., •' 40 , •,.1,4,y• .. ./,••■• ', 0 .1, • ,„, . . .14 ". . ' 4 , I .I i. 411111111=11111110111111123111111mmimmigmlimmiu1 umemmum : ,. 4 I f 4 , • , . . . . . o.A,...o*,,r-,.=“.,..„,.1., 4,.,..n,.-..--.,,,-..,..-r., . ;1.'....4»,. .....,...-.-.•.,*v-,,,... ,..-..-.X,I.............J.-.,...,*,,m,.-1......,..“4.m... ,4,J...-„..„...-.1,......,,„.., ,,....-.,A-.LI.,,....14..,,4 1.,,-.-.,..,,.,,.-4,...,...-.......J-.,.....,,,,...-...4,-,,-.1,14..A,Alt.......444 ....,.---m+. ,.- APR 02 Si' 08:11 CRH COMPANY 503 252 2451 -------------- P.2/2 /,'' • • (''''' 4 , . 0 4,, ..., '44,, . . . . . ... ..A . C. H* COMPANt 8315 8.2. STARK OTREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97216 - . , 1... ,.. , . April 2, 1990 ..; Hr. Keith Liden, Senior Planner . , • :. City o Tigard • : 3125 S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 . . ' ,, ,.. Tigard, Oregon 97223 ' , , . RE; Occupancy Permits for "Little Bull Mountain". . Dear Keith, . . On March 30, Jerry Offer called our office to inform me . . that it would be impossible for him to inspect and issue a IP certificate of occupancy for all of the buildings as well as ... . , the projeCt. His reasons cent that er on the trees tha were removed due to proximitY to buildings as well as the trees . that blew down In January. . : Jerry Was not informed about ahy discussions we had and ' was reluctant to make a decision with consulting you. As of , 0 - : this date all Of the buildings have had their final H - 4 , inspection and the carports are completed. As soon as both . . you and Jerry can determine how many of the larger trees ., , , are required and where they are to be placed, We will provide . . additional bonding to cover the cost , It is very important to us that we receive a final . . , occupancy perMit for the entire prolect by April 4 1990. I ". will be leaving for my annual active duty in the reserves on , April 5 Thank you for your willingness to help us in this If you have any questions or concerns please give me a •, '., . call as soon as possible. ,. i Sincerely, .1 A, e / • !' •, OF / • / i 0*"<";" A, .' , ■ 1 I St-phen H. Winstead, A, t ,A. . e ' , . , ProJect Coordinator . . , . cc: Craig HamkeIlf 8uper1ntendeht . . .,. . , . , .i . • . , s d d -- , ii .:. w n C.B.H. CGMP L"LN Y 8 315 6.E. 9TRkK STREET, PORTLAND OREGON 97216 ; a . March 28, 1990 Mr , Keith Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard 3125 S .W. Hall Blvd . P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 s RE: Occupancy Permits for "Little Bull Mountain" . Dear Keith, On March 27, 1990 we delivered to you the following r 'items ; 1. Revised Landscape Plan. 2. Letter from Collier Arbor Care. 3. Tree Survey Plan from Collier . 4 . Landscape Bond . 5. Completion Notice for the Public Improvements Enclosed is a copy of the landscape estimate that you regUested It is very important to us that we receive a final , occupancy permit for the entire project by March 3, 1990. Thank you for your willingness to help U in this matter . The nm . ratnulsi but din o t;P k,?0 tanopogte,d and t ,nailed ate scheduled tor inspections on March JO, 1900. I f you have any questions or concerns please give me n a call as soon as possible .. f Sincerely, • Stephen M. Winstead, A. I .A. 'roJect Coordinator : Craig Haskell 8u erintendent • PLANNING MAR 2 1990 5103-262-147i MJiaa,+.,l..,,• .,.�'»;�,—.1.nll..«L:.•,...,w,».._...w.�,..a,.L»..»,ih_. ,.,,..•....,..�r..•,»_...M..,—.._ue.,._...r....,....,.�r.iu.«�Il.,......._._.....«t,:..._...,.....,,.�,,,,...,t� n.............w.......,.-,....«.,...-....,_•a,.w<.m«..N......�......�•a.».•..i.aki.. „•.,d..a«.�..w,.i ,....,.,.,._,..a ,.«,.i,A„n..»....x,,..�-.....r•vl...a.M.+.»«.,.«««+,., (;-�. ,,, ,. W1LcOTT . : IRRIGATION i\IN,1 0 .:,'✓ LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT ' LANDSCAPE NiANr GEMEN I IO IMPROVE YOUR PROPERTY INVE9fb1ENi , R7U1E 3 #G k 146, S !ER . C�,()R 97 140 15031 538-1435 • 3/23/90 Stephen M. Winstead, Project Coordinator C.13 .11, Company I 8315 S .E. Stark Street Portland, Oregon 97045 Re Estimate to complete the l andscapl'ng for the: "Little Bull Mountain Apartments” ' . : ' o complete Pte the l.a"ndecap tng in accorc ance to • Scope of work: nom 1 by the, City off. Tigard, ` � the approved Landscape Plan b �• An itemized list below is furnished at your tequest. Estimate I ' ' ' item i l p $2, 500 .00 Remaining Ground Cover �' $2, 000400 : ' .erriai,f i ng Shrubs Remaining Trees aria Replacement: 5, 50 0 .00 ; � It of Tres removed d resulti from rom wind damage t] rag a aria construct on . $10, 000.00 (,," � _ t E you have any ques i ofs please cell. us . Thank Your , chl(//),LeeKre;r'' , d e , 'i icott i i a ' f. l�• �, � r � ', � � � �j� , ; i . �; •�. .a ,�i �.y � • w n . . . u S Piyp ' 1A}l ,, T �• ;. " P'w o,fCM` 4 ,r I o �ti « s .Fl3.•. � � �. x..n. G. M k.i? « . r•rp•r • r l' a • } /I" `,• , , : d ,ov ?' �'�G 1'—.r`� y_.�..,,1.,.....,......,�.�,.._�.,»..�.,.,�_�,�.W.,�.....1.»aa..«.a._r,�,. ..,,.,L_....�...W_..•.:+:,-.....�,_w�. w..<,..,au'.a..,W:...,,�.,..f::•�; '.;�1'. h1AF? •15 CBH COMPANY 503 252 2451 • ' P.1/3 ' .,- ,--: ...`",.:f'f. 8af9,3,�.i�9ARl<'al�. .• PoRYtAt�rr,antGou o7±I , f. ,',:‘,,7, PHONIC 2E2.14te y' 4,. 5 i . , �Nt`1 , , • . FACSIMILE.' TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET , w E',3 � �p+J�.gy,f a. 'f irr .r.-..ruwm's ✓nrnr.-In." 011.....,5 •..-■ulu'rlru-r..d " 7• • yA y` TO: , I,~ C�1 . , �.. ..ulswlvl....irw.lw.e.+.--:•..Ywnh'r•:.••a/.YYIrw��,+•+u.iulrrr�riW,s..T,wr.�lwna.•.,..»:I+rY.,w.M..,.,Yr+wo.l�' I.Mnm+yrarwr+K•,-�Wwn»n.++1+A�M'.•1"�uV . .... 1' Mf..r..+..r,' .i•1„�Y F�,-. 1 / -r..,w r..1.nr,--,14 a.Ir... ,w .WA'r1w.F•Irwr1.YY'O^r+�wwl,Flllfw'Ir^'A_"•`R.�'•1.•+�ar„ f' ,TU.uw111 1,',, ` .u...w..—.,,• .. •..al•w,.,.JU11H,M1"•T•J...H.wv....Y+rt*..4,•nr• Vm.n•++LJ....w•rn.....W∎o1 .. a.orr,....•.....”......ifMY'•I.....r W+►•lf:....rlrr w " P 1 ,ry,...Wtiw w........,,�1M.uumn,i•••M.Yr.,1,^ •'wslrn•••••.Y.1.l+-r-.Itrwn.r....1.6 rn,o-..+..1.1••••Jr4averv....M1..mn rn...j.w....r. 'rte• 1Y t�4.a Cpl.r)�' 'err'' �■/ •.M E`4• 41f c I, ." FAX $ .� 4..7. ' 7. .1alNlrr^, •••af1a .�I1�'nIR••.,..w.Mll!1T•...'llA•V•.1-••++Ia11114 W,..r7{I,YYr!•TwWaar{.q-4r.iYVLf,}r••Lw1.,ano���w1a1MYJMi/YRpnwr./.La.laay}.ry,./.ia.al..'I,•M..Y PROM,: rgV . '�1�1S'1"d 1' ti •^•-'Oriet,,,,,,time,.....aw,∎••••r4winlrn...YWnrn/,n...Maus,.......-W,I.irrw.•.1..morr ntn:•-1∎1∎••ne*rr-W..an,, w wwmr.-,•.a.....� ;. . v, y w... .4,wA rtrr-••..r,•..4....�...wDown.....Yaalrn...uownrr�......nw......... ...44,.nr........r4-...enlM+«.....”,.... • ,.Y...I..,•..f i 14l,/y M.10 01,1i.11 r•,,• 1, 1111,114x•,/ .rYr•,w1/„uY.rlwr,,,l....nl1,11 nn'u1�,1+r.IM w•wr n.an-....0.,...0.Wh.,r',.....,.. .....,••n••1.4,...."4 ...I„4-'�"' @ �� r'rC*i 252-2451, Coi m '1 / y r *s% /hra ti' coI#iEWTS 0 11.1 `'t'' 571 > 1441 V" 1 ....I••4 a,h-•-.W.iw.1r.-.L'w11..MM.,L.IW.Ir•••+:,.•,IYa11•.+.Y4{.,!)itilr,•NH1i..r •r..lYla.�r..�6WflrnrM••••,11YMVr...,.,.Y.a,Tp..'T�4Yf'IMAJr'•"•,a 4waw..•r.J N C • +..,.,...aiu+.A.n.i..rwl,„„,:e.....:I.u,r,•yM,.4.n•r-...„„,n-++I'„,,,,„,...r,,,,...,,.•..w....nMY...,...I•,1J,:.Ir..r-•'>.. —,,,-+m.+n.wr-•rHa.w--•1,.... rww.,,Y.Y.A.1-La4M. 1• 1 1 1 ..Y..._,u.4u.., wa..-...1.,,...„,..--..,,,.,:.-..4,4im-:•.,,M,,,,,,,,,,,,Y•u,„,„,,.y,.,�r/wMwuYa,..Trb'.in+w-1+,•,+,ns.......imo r•r••M...rw,.�rrwmn...... •.,'r-r '., : "'Mf EE 1'O F't)LLOt , f X CL+UL9 Z to COVttR SHEET h .' , .I '7u tit N�1I'Q F�.5 tiIr t Y E ALL '4 r jq yry y ' 710 '� v Lih�1�,�1 e'' 3$t 1 t!) AT (SO ) 202 2 —t4 '8 (Cf -i t' 1 ahy/C ype,pgs Ino 1 • a l�ANK YCJtJ•:T1'.•.1113 i-u ill xMr,4, ',.w. p .,. • . . 1 M rl„r.'...uw81:+..,6i.,w.a.—.L.,a,,a,.....:.rww.-..{61w:... w++.r(' , r " 1 . ' ,.iw::..ik..a.p.,!....,.,...:i..u:.«....:,.M..r«.iLa...........i..-. .:.*,++.K..:,.':.,.,.«..,.-..ul:...:w....'..:.n........w...:•...wr.wwal......c:.war,,:;=+.x.1a.,..,vcr2,w_a..i.r::.,,,:+r.u.r.,....i.l:.i-•,+ rw , ! ,.:w4 y.•..-n'tilJ.fd/w.n. wi+'.......... .F.aAt.....n+... ......:..+--.N..H.r»......4.sn.. ti_4. .-,........ ..i......r.i.....W:a.w UwLw+.-.^wnMw,.n .1 MAR 23 90 15:17 CBH COMPANY 503 252 2451 P.21?'_ C.B.H. cow Y 1.15 g.E. Ste* STREET. PORTLAND0 PORTLAND 010.2420N` 97216 March 28, 1990 l Mr . Keith Liden Senior Planner ., City of Tigard f . 3125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , P.O. Box 23397 `",2 Tigard, Oregon 9722 n• RE: OA 46 Gp 4 Permits f or oy it 4 G Bull /p Jw 4aLn“ f , f% Dear Keith, ” On March 27, 1550 we delivered to you the following , itefrie. 1. Revised Landscape Plan. 2,, Letter from Collier Arbor Care. 3. Tree' Survey Plan from Collier. 4. Landscape Bond. 5. Completion Notid0 for the Public Improvements, SnOlosed is a copy of the landscape estimate that you .. r�. ; requested. It is very important to us that 'we receive a final occupancy permit for the entire project by March 3, 1990 Thahk you for r willingness to help us in this matter, . The scheduled � ��ti�t�inks�� to � � remaining o be thspsdted and final1ed are . '� ed for inspections on March 30, 1990. ,.. , . concerns please give Me a �`�' you have any questions or +� Call as soon as possible. $in a e1ya ..die ter . • gt .hen M. Wi nsteald, A./ .A, ,. f#rOJect Coordinator r , c,c: cr iq Haskell, Supet int ;ndent o , 163'3$244/ 0 • , .. ; I i I . MRR 28 '90 15:17 CBH COMPANY 503 ?52 2459. f ( W ■ .. .a.. 4 ? WILCOTT b ., IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE MAPJAGI;MtNT x LANDSCAPE MA1 A JEMEN T TO IMPROV . Youf�PROPERTY NVE'PME iT ROUTE 3 BOX t46 SHERWOOO,OR 97140 i 1503)53e- 435 . • N 3/23/90 .• st epher M, Winstead, Project Coordinator C.S.H. Company 83151 8.E. Stark Street Portland, Oregon 9704 Re: Estimate to complete the landscaping fox the: "T,,it t1e Bull Mountain Apartrte tt; ° scope a work: To complete the landscaping ,n accordance to « ; . �., . '„ the approved Landscape Plan by the City' of Tigard . An itemized list below IS tU nIshed at yoUr request. Item Estimate « � �, Boa.t�� Temaint9 Ground Cover . Remaining $hrUbs $20000.00 Pemaihinq Trec5 and Replacement $5,500.00 of Trees removed. resulting fro ,J, r wind damage and construct i on. 4 . *10/000400 U YOU have any questions please call us Thank Yod, r� /4ira!),1441L11 ,0 . I , ti w n •, „ • 1, . , • •-r ,,, ,, •'t•., 1 (7 .111"i: INSECT&DISEASE CONTROL i -s, , . N,..:,,,_ PLANT HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS ' Iv/ ' 0. ARBOR CARE, INC. FERInoNG PRUNING ' , ; I Professional Tree&Shrub Care,since 1937 CONSULTING .., ' 4223 S,E.88th Ave, e Portland, OR 97266 * 774-9642 _ LAWN CARE • . . .. , . ....._______ .......,._ .........._,,,................................ ..........________ : c , ma 44 i • leg 1 WIYAgt . .......„ „ . , ' Mr,.. Steve Winstead ' , MAR 2 7 1990 a4) CBH Co. .- 8315 $E Stark CITY Of- I IGARD • Portland, OR. 97216 PLANI\MIG DEPT, . . RE: Missing Tree Report for the Little Bull Mountain ..' Apartments, 14703 SW 109th, Tigard _ • • Dear Mr. Winstead, , . . • . The following report will attempt to explain why some of the N.1,,, . ' trees, mandated by the City of Tigard for preservation, have p been removed. It shall be noted I was not the consulting I . arborist involved in tree preservation before or during the , . • . course of construction. The majority of these trees were . , removed prior to my involvement with the project. As a , ../ ,' consequence, I have based the following report on my . observations and my conversations with the site supervisor, . - • architect and landscape architect and t1e landscaping and . tree preservation plan by Murase and Ass, ciates . . The trees were lost or removed for the following rbasons: . .4, :. ,,,, 1)change of grade 2)proximity to building or roads , , •, 3)fell down or damaged in the i'anuary 1990 windstorm . , 4)reasons unknown . , , , „ „ Thirty six (36) trees were noted as removed in the tree . . , preservation plan, Two, however, were found still remaining, , bringing the total to 34 trees removed or recommended for i r removal Tree Romoval Observations and Location • . ,.' •: , ,,, . Between buildings 14719 (building 23) and 14799 (building , 22) t 10 Douglas fir trees removed due to change of grade and i 'proximity to the buildings and safety considerations. I . . gave a verbal recommendation to remove this group of trees to the site supervisor, prior to the windstorm. " Page 1 , . 1 , • • • ., , •,,, Lleorteed 49:Ch#0011 Slate below-Ono(of Agriculture Mernbertuotegatt AsseclatIon NUrselymOil 4 LandriCaliii 13,o I tf Mortal's Chapter,Intemattottal Sablety at ArbotteultUre tritarertildtial Pleettolde Applleators Asettelatiott 4 Natiahat Arberiat Assaciatiari •'' • ' . . . , . , , ' . , • , . ' . . . • . - t n ..'�° ' w INSECT& DISEASE CONTROL r PLANT HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS � 1 �. FERTILIZING S' I4 .. , PRUNING Professional Tree&Shrub Care,since 1937 • .,. :, CONSULTING 4223 S.E. 88th Ave. * Portland, OR 97266 ° 774.9642 LAWN CARE h Building 14723•. Three firs removed. One was uprooted and struck 'a building due in the windstorm. Two were removed probably d,uc to proximity to the road: • Between Building 14715 -- 14725: Nine firs removed or recommended for removal because of wind damage. Two are recommended for removal because they partially uprooted and leaning. recommended,ants. pare ly ooted Inc. fir �s recor�rnende '' for removal because it is 90% dead. The other six trees; downed the ► were ed in th wind storm. Building 14737 : One fir removed to south of building near pool , probably • because of grade change. Building 14757 : Three firs removed for reasons unknown. Building 14767 : One fir removed to west of building because of proximity to parking garage. Building 14771: Two firs removed because of proximity. to building and road Building 14777 : One fir is not removed. Building 14781: one fir behind building is not removed. Building 14797 : Two firs removed because of proximity to buildings and is road. building 14799: One fir behind the building to the northwest removed for unknown resens Building 14799 Two firs removed in front between building and the road • g and . due to wind damage a p- , y building. • ro��>r��t to the �:ui,.ld In addition, one tree behind 'building 147330 partially Page I , into rt atlnhof Lioo Hed by;JYO oh State qto bo aNment of Agriculture tore • M1oh ib�roc Cro�on AboioiaUah Nurserymen Ltnd sbaro Proieaoidhh s ChdpibY,lniothol.iohal 6bcioty bAcboriiultu ro e ticide App ipntors Atrioctoiloo National Ar bYi5t Aoboiotiott . a Y k , 1 1 , , • • • r INSECT& DISEASE CONTROL •• . �, PLANT HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS '? s:' : ARBOR CARE, INC. FERTILIZING Professional Tree&Shrub Care,since 1937 PRUNING CONSULTING • 4223 S.E, 88th Ave. e Portland, OR 97266 774.9642 LAWN CARE • • uprooted rooted e' p and leaning, I is not listed for removal . I am recommending this tree be rernoved.' r It is my understanding the City of Tigard has requested replacement ' of al,l trees host with 12 to 16 foot trees Trees this size will probably have to be transplanted by tree spade and will have much lower chances of survival as compared to smaller nu yse,ry grown trees . Some of the removed trees are located on sloped area which are not access iIhl e by ee spades . Smaller, enur$ery grown trees have the greatest success at survival . Small sized trees are much more readily available and better suited for replanting back into sloped areas, An additional recommendation, Il;would be to replant using tree species which are more desirable, better adapted trees than Douglas Fir. The recommended trees would include Western Red Cedar, Deodar r cedar and Western Aeml ock. • .V I I I It is my understanding that CBI , Co. �' g �s willing�.i ng t o ''put in smaller Douglas Fir, 6 to 8 foot high, on a two Inew trees for one lost ratio. Additionally, if some of the trees were accidentally removed, CBH would be willing to provide 3 or 12 to 16 foot replacement h I. p�ace>�tent trees., If you have' any uestions, please do not hesitate to call , Sincerely, t' p � I. I I I I Sincerely/ is (-) • � + I t I Terrill Collier • • • I I I I M1 Ali a q e y • Litohuod by!orogon State bepar i nt o Agricuitutt MOInbtlfm Drs op Aaaociallon Ntirseryroort +Landscnptt Protosulotibi's Chaplor,Intgrttatloh31'Soclaty oI Arboriouliiure Itttorriabarial Pestictds Applittntora Asuoolafiofi 4 tvaborfgl Arbor's(A;?aoclatirati • n r - • At 4 . •:l . .' '5, ' . 1r 11' .' 9. r l • r I ' ..M , ,.. .a+ .- -w ..n4:.d-ui ...u..w,.,.«a.,.-xr......M.lr........,.l..a.... ...... .....fM_.i,..r...nP..,u„rk;«.L.nw.,:h.1:';..t art<....,.....,.c.::..,is i....,:Lr,-i4,»..,..+.•.+..au»..k.a tti§ud.,..,,.....n..r.,.rr...ra`.,,,-.r«.:..a„44r,.a....s«.M.,.4144,1r.....,..;Wtir:,,..w...w4.,7«..1i...,a:....-1.,,..4,,„+rr._4:4;.« ' ,1, ; MAR 23 '90 13:24 CBH COMPANY 503 252 245 ' P,ai4 • Y. t }'e RT a !... �1..�.,..MI�IM.,M•••••.++.•�M11.IIM..,..........«.....d..l � I � � C . This is to certify (in Accordance with 1 Item No. 1 of the ;Sewer Compliance i � Egg, cement, sated � , between the City of Tigard, 11.WIM..."M ...lw1.0(.1w1,1w�...,.. ':.1.....«w..1w»w.., k. �I I OregOfl, and 0, 1Lt``> P3 W r', .4z, `'.,, � to the City of Tigard, . -L....kwwrr,Mrw. .+:�.rw•Mn,Mw•�..�•� mm .6r+er Oregon, that the following item(s) have been installed if' compliance with the City's (sanitary) (storm) sewer improvement startdArds and specificati,onsi and • that the following lowing i t ems are complete in accord with the approved' plans, special specifications and conditions, ae approved by tiro City, relative to ‘,, • the aforesaid project, to wit: (Project err ir►eer• s r Y Sanitary Sewer System 2. Storm Sd W0e ty9t+t�ilt� ...,/?f',4, 1aI 1 . �.�c`71' m nts, properly exeeuted and sub11i PtIe i to the City for acceptance certified th i t. �.,. P?..,..d day of �..�,i-fJI p_........4.1.11....................................... l a I 'a 1 �1 ,�Gr�-I a if----- i ANIMM.M C11Y..1l1,/•,P^'•� P Projec ,rrt iheee9 It I I I I I. �{ 4uu.d1111wM1.r1, _ .,.Z.w...l..,a.n•,,.-- -- uuWbrm.rn•.-, ' .....1.4...1.1 I\M.M...r....wwr......... Moll1.1111111,11.,•...--∎»l+ .••• 1..,191 Z H1.,Mo.,--..eq.(w,7 e''J; 6)'4:4_,...1,...7„,..4....a._. • , I I I � (:) 1;4 4 MAR 2719 0 1 •k 1 I G tl } Y.. l'''' l r, I ; ■ ,,��.,....�.,.«.,�,..,r~..w�,.»m•.�,,,r., .�-,.•.w ' r , ....... ._� „.. .,-z. ,w,>,,��•,w>r... .,,. .1» ; ..� .�.,..�..,;u,,..«,w..1�„w,�,.., ,..,,,,.w..w�,.�..,>w.,; n t q 1' o C.B.H. COMPANIES ' ` ....J......,.m...u....,. .«,T ,.r-. ....,,,:.u..W...,rmn.r......1.,..,-. uu,i, .,....x. ......m.r-.,..,.i..w.,,, ,,,,,,,,,,rr.,.-„.,...,..,.,.{ .,.,r•...,,«,..,..,,.,...,,... ...,,�:.,+:c....,r.,».,w ..u...,,.,r-.....»....w...«,« ,..t.....u.«Si.ri.';;,.N-..+u-1k,w.: »,..:...,a $315 S.E.STARK ST. PORTLAND,OREGON 97216 PHONE 252-1478 March 19, 1990 , , Mr . Keith Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard 3125, S.W. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 ' Tigard, Oregon 9722 REg Occupancy Permits for "Little Bull Mountain". Dear Keith, We recently discussed the use of bonding the landscaping in order for Us to receive a final project occupancy permit should the landscaping be delayed We are rapidly approaching completion of the project with the exception on the landscaping and will be exercising this bonding option. Wilcott Landscaping has determined the cost to complete ; the landscaping is $10,000. 00: Unless we are instructed otherwise, a bond for 110% of this amount will be submitted The revised report from Collier Trees Services expected to be delivered no later than March 28 1590. The amount, of the '' bond above includes all revisions to the, landscape plan, 1 resulting from the wind damage and removal of hazardous r trees . I' you,f' have any y guest i ins or concerns please give me a • call as soon as possible . Bit t erely, elair)',0,- . St-phen M /Instead, A. t .A tiga6r Project Coc.rdihator° A i • /yiiiii���lbllrN nl �. R�� „ CITYOF TIMM), FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL NOTICE • DATE: MCt 6 I e 6 C) TOE � "��� �� �" ;__ _ 4, co.,• /DEFT., : C-8 N ( FAX. #: �r 5J rU Y DEPT: tr7 n„l t , -_ PHONE, , 639-4171 b SUBJECT: L l r-rt.,• J 'I 1. MT AE' 3 DP,_ • "c. MESSAGE: ' cute f 1 L 1 14,t7c"(4 i(1 e" r c"urbo1/"f f" ; !re.port re c G yd • IA41 -frees +11 &f k pi 6;t 4) 6,1416v4 1,4)1°i is h _-fee6 !{a v e -It re moveG I• *Tile cold, 'is0,4,55051, i'Y't 47-elvel 11 '')h/A,6 • k 't.1 r 4tit Qr VrTkette wile vi 4v are a 9.or a t t- shook !U re 10 13 et kd kkOpio blit+1 4h size rah 1L,_kr 4 . e -"r 6$ M r '6e � .. ,1,icv (Jo 2 4 Pkka,s rev or recettfroe letvid5capiA, Flo C�{"rdot 4,1,5 ' r Page 1 of • JI 41x1 re 14 m� r ' 11 e C'n i15' KLW eC !� ac/� 'C�' i 1 i fa 4 c 1 � t' ,a /,/ /l w liamtf 6't 4:1,011A one rol fire)6.4, our facsimile telephone number 18 503 684-7297 j This tit,tither is to be used - �^�` Ss y t , smissio a Gorily'' and is available for not � ' r e for ��LI'�e advertising purposes should You have any ��f�se� s with this �ra�s�i ssi . please ' call (503) 639-4171 and \offsvcs\f N. LA , -E; joihk) /41,4614/41) OF Oche: u / PTV Yoq RC-6 //ti6 ' et/c Impiew6744o075 � 13'25 SW Hdll Blvd„P.O.Sox 23397,`lgurd,'Oregori 97223 (603)639-4171 •--- � • 1 a "4 , . .. ...,.,_Ib.w,_..._»..,. .. ,,.»....... .1 xw.....i. ... .-... ,.,.......r......._._. ..,y..l..-. .,_....0...........,,._ni.i.nN.wJ ..u.s. ...,,.n,..a .. . ■ I e i. Chapter. 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the . applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal 'permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. The, site plan , $ ^ and landscaping plan designate an adequate number of trees to be • retained in the area of development as directed by the City • Council. The plans''. also provide for, appropriate measures° �to be employed during construction in order to protect the trees to be j retained and the 'neighbors trees. Perimeter fencing and fencing { around trees to be retained will be required to be installed prior to the issuan c e o f site work permits for the de velo ment The site plan also provides for all trees in tbe western „ one-third of the property to be retained except whe'r�e neeeseary to accommodate the proposed sewer. ' " ' a J. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied , upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of . the proposed extension of the public sewer along :Pacific. Highway, . 41 : a connection to the existing sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and , M1,.: installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on SW 109th s" a • of pub Aven ue. Approval a public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal `permits for • the proposed development. .: E E. DECISION . . The Planning, Commission approves the detailed plan for Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88-17, and Variance V ' 87--27 'subject to the following conditions: TONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR. TO CONDITIONS . , UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING, , THE ISSUANCE OF SITE WORK AND BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: KEITH ", LIDEN, PLANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 4; - GARY ALFSON, ENGINEERING DIVISION; CONDI`.i1OHS 5 THROUGH 11. ° t " 1. A revised landscaping plan or addendum to the present plan shall, be submitted for Planning Director review and approval. The plan . p P buffering the northern and easterntborder_ of the site. Said perimeter shall rrsw�.d�. s on proposed perimeter �uffe ' along t eter �. �. ,w-.,n„+�,w.w..i.._. .w. aw..,,.,.--... ,� ,- I:S�.HnautwhlwixaC�,.. ' w.TOO-t- w.+w««.ww w buffering shall cottsi.st of a 6 loot tall; chain' link fence and r • ` vegetative screening or a 6 foot tall site obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners. ” The fencing rushall be r installed prior to commencement of any site work, con • . tree cutting. The revised landscaping plan shall also provide details, on a minimum 4-foot tall fence enclosing the swimming pool. , area feet shall be installed • 2. Fencing around the dri line of height trees proposed for retention prior: � ar n p p zor� �to any construction on the site. The fencing Planning beisio inspected idr an approved issuance. consulting An ultx.ng arborist � Work �aithin, the .�P h. Y st and y later' land he driptines pear � } r FINAL ORDER NO. 88- 15 PC' - P . t It 4.;', . 1 f w r r ' ' r ,M • t CM 4 j ha11 be pexfar4 by hand. A qualified arboris ,hall inspect the ,` • bvi( e site at a minimum of two times per week during construction to • Ow 1,0\A, ensure that the tree preservation program outlined, by David F, ( _ n McConnell, dated October 31, 1988 (Exhibit "A") is followed. ? 3. A tree. removal permit shall be obtained prior Co;, any tree `removal • � ,, e p F Y . �• 0 ��t�' on the sites Removal. permits will not be issued for trees ., 16(7-0'"8� designated as type I trees by the landscaping• plan. /�. 1 y 1`� _r/ ar Y s �i coPorisiS -e/Mitt . eem is we 41W-4k-fad et_ we 01/ t/'5i!e ,f tju 4+. A revised plan_sh ib�be• submi �ed . hich provxdes for a minimum of one hundred and thirty (130)) covered parking spaces: be designed era � connection� to,�Std. 109th Avenue shall e�. 5. �The �single��drive g ° O K in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic, � report. I 4 '8 6. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement construction - o' plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate,, stamped by a , Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be It" submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final, plans. Said plans shall include installation, of a 5-foot vide ( , concrete sidewalk along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. • 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has *approved public improvement plans. The section will require a 100% Performance f� Assurance or Letter of Commitment, the payment of a permit fee `and a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer agreement. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to or 1 ; concurrently with the issuance of approved public 'improvement plans. 1, S. The applicant shall provide for roof and parking lot rain drainage to the public storm rater drainage system or by an approved on-site i P "-system designed to prevent increased runoff onto Pacific Highway. 9. Sanitary sever and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic tap of the storm, drainage basin and sanitary sewer service , area rV. shall be provided as a supplement to the Publ ,c Improvement plans Calculations shall be based on full .development of the serviceable area 10. The applicant shall obtain a permit fro m the State o f Oregon i Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of /Pacific highway. A copy ox. the permit, shall be provided to the �' dztEngineering uanc of a Pubs Improvement . y � (Office prior to issuance 1`c� � I Permit. 11. The proposed privately-operated and maintained, parking .lot and . � roadwa y plan-profile and cross sectixn n de tt ails shall be provided as .01/*- part of,the public improvement plans. E� INAL ORDER NO. �g� l 5 PC PACE 12 i,f . • o PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS, ON THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. (STAFF CONTACT: KEITH. LIDEN) 12. All landscaping materials, permanent fencing) and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the landscaping ' and 1 ,1•, site plans. , 13. A sign permit,'' shall be obtained prior to the erection of an identification .sign. Sign location and size must be in 'accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development v Code. �C p,e/t/t,wi &el_t o —i —8 " , I THE APPROVAL S H IL B E VALID X� E XERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. It is further ordered that the applicant be notzkied of the entry of this i• e final order. PASSED: This ,) 9 day of , by the Planning Commission on of the City of Tigard A. Donald Moen., President, Planning Tigard n Commission • 1 , 8 n x.n� • • • • br/6765D .a ' . , I" � � ', q .{,ter• FINAL ORDER NO 88- 15 PC PAGE • • 1 J t ' It �� a a.. .i..^ • t'^ 0.„f tin »L0., ».4.v.... d'Olitil I - J2Z""I ' February 9, 199a CITYC)F I; . 4 OREGON , Ps Winstead Mr. Stephen�'ie n t� W in t p CBH Company , . , 8315 SR Stark St. Portland, OR 97216 I - ( ICE: Street Opening Permit 316-89 F�� (Tigard Station at Tigard Street) . . �4, I Dear Dear �. v +. We received a . request to reinspect the construction performed under: the y aforesaid permit and found many of the previous; defiZiencies�corrected. Others 1` . were `n attention: . not done �satisfactorily and. are still� in need � �. a �� � � II'i of tt � 1. 'e the U.S.A. sanitary The . � Secu., e U�S. . nx.tasy 'ewer manhole watertight�'lid. ��ar�ket and � � bolte need to be reinstalled. 2. Remove the old-fence material. Its now;pa 'Bally buried and, having' been. . cut-off just above ground, sticks-up out of the pathway fill Creating a hazard. 4"s :Las.. 3. The sanitary sewer clean out lid has an unusual hex-wrench lock. Clean the concrete out of the he r. wrench hole and, also, provide the City with :a ■ wrench which will. fit the hex-bole li .4 Submit the required en,clneaxs, Certification of compliance. A dopy of the as previously sent to you for completion turn. . form ��r p.. y y pletc�n aid return. � � i: 1Nzrther, returned herewith, are two (2) plan sheets which were provided to the _^ Please and other s aso to include t y ri _ �� � ��demoted by�'t' � as attwbu It have' them corrected he pathway, • ,„ culvert crossings, Waterlin and ther item y oulr memos thereon. ,, t ,Lts t�.11y' Gat firnd�aeww :nidmr:Laprpi:Olatlootfe:: v:atnlelilagteta:wTe:PTInTe:V. report to complete ete ti, � T O n 5. Hagman Engineering T ec xn iCia n f ,, \''\C. ::).H.::;:*: 8(/) j r/C1H31689.a nu • 18126 fiWI-laII Blvd,,P. O.Box 233Q7,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 _- _"". , e } •. . • . . . ., . '• , , . , • . , . . , . . , ' 1, . •, , . . . . • , , • . . , • , ' .. . . •, ' ins e•7''' , FEB las '90 0953 CBH COMPANY 503 252 2451 P.1/2 1 • . . . .. . , i , , ( . . . , %,„,., . . , .. '. . , ,410. • i • . c.itlit coMPANIOS • , h 111640WAST, .'.• ' :', ,' 4' F0filLAND,(MOW'MI , PHONE 252,1470 . , . , , A . , t. . • ! . 4 .,., ' • . rAtait1111-5 TRANSMI6010N COVER SHEET . . . , .. . .: • ,, . . ! OATFt .............. x.r.L.AeFtie.2_,....___&,,,_.B.,s_,o,_...,...,.........,..„„,._.....,,........,,,..--- , - , . . . . , , , .. . . . ... 1 . . oevo—,..oieo• ruoya,■,..Y11sraww,.ltk,11onswro.....rlr.waooaom..r.....rov,....Nim•aw,....a•Iml"1649.............................................'"........."".....". ' ' vr.:.....',:,"..00rsn.a.IWIFAry...,...IIII ,,,..aorargr.n..nen.nITTM.Rm41o.e.I...mn..s..,....wl,.,.....r.fT.....*.re..,........r,•*................ , 4,. , ' , r . , . . . . • . . , ,,,....e,...................., :1 '' I',, SENT TO „ - ap$44 --7 °,2 9/ • ,.........._,...........,.......—.....„...„,....... . , •, , , . , 4 . . . ". It I , • 4-,..............,—,..........,,,,-4—..........,„,,,,.... .....0.,...........,4—,,,,,.w.......44, .....:-.........,,,..,.,„,,,,,,—...k.,............. , ' . ... , , 4 10,..9•1,,m*.m.................14.012111.0,... ..4asmonsi.m...... O,.. ...,..,tn..i........,I.q......i-o.......L....t,r.'...............a...•.■.A. . , . 1 • . • , . . . . • . ' rox 0 25 -24ut vYFItFotil 1NN8 , .,,, •. _, i., ... ,• i , .... • . , . , • . _______„ ,„,.....,„,...._,....................„.........--.. • .4.......................„.•_-......,..........-....................._ ,,..........—.74.__. .i. i, .. ( . , POMO Td MJLLotill Fx0.1.101NO p0),,p1 0HE5t . ,,... .„• I 4,4.1.,IA 1 It i ,4 , I • , • I . . 't you lo0 NoT tiolE1,vE .044, or Tog l*AGEF,iir.o.sols p,04. THE, , • . s ';', uNtOs"'IONE-0 Al' 003) 02-1410 (dVeP(E,08 OW 41111P1A14026 , ,. , .. • '' i.HAN , .. , 1 ‘ '. , . ....H4 • , - - . „..— ....., . , , : • , . / . • / . .., ' .. ,� it ,� ' ...µ ,..eA.a.. -.. .,,.. ... -_ ...__..•, ' Yt FEJ 08 '90 09:53 CBH COMPANY , 97 4' , '. 4 1 w'r�.�tmv��rn • t 4 0�.� ' L . ' INSECT a DISEASE'CON!' l)L . r ,� •.. �{ .+�I. 1 PLAINT HEALTH ,r,Af2E, F'E�CaC:�l�fa,M,� • , ' E.' • A. o R CARE, INC.' ' I ' PERM ING : PRUNING Profe,vsiv7al'Tree&1,7i'ob("'trr1 s F ! / CONSULTING 0 4223$'F Auf1.7 Ave„ • Fk n'll:ir)d, On 07266 . 774.9642 '' �:�.,, LAWN CARE I . ' , January 18, 199 , •' R' AIM .hen YV i n s, c13J .Companies', I t315 SE Starlr , I t , ' Portland,: Oar. 972,1.1 4 . RE: PRELIMINARY MOUNTAIN,: APARTMENTS, X4703 SW 1Q9 TIC - Deaf. M '4 Winstead, with you and Mr, Kei(i.th Xiden f 'om the City y of 'Tigard vn r , I mgt w' arivary' 8. 1990 to view the damage from fallen 'trees las a 1, : . resu1 tl •o'f the recent stgr�ms, Severa.1 trees had f ai l eri sear ' buildings, 22 1 23 r 24 �s� a 1 ar � t he n�r th �r property'r t Y line.ne» ' I As a result of Out meeting we agreed that 1, aondu.ct 'a more i depth study evaluating otential tree hazard sH., .•' ri As a result from a previous site visit, 1 had eoo ended.' the I ' remmova1 of a group of trees, located between buildings 22 and ,23 that presented a saf( ty hazard. At the time of that site v .sit: oh 10/17119 therle was protecti a tenoino around those ' trees . Protective fencing should be left around the trees , to be retained until nearby ' construction is 'substantial l 9 comp to or On approval from the consulting arboriSt ' PieasF1 call if you have any guestionse I • " incere1i'r . I t. '1 1 Terrill Collier 1 I I I „ I � y- y �YYfIi' .i. . -iV•• M.+wlvr•Y4Yr..u�r.r L.wYV III I� , 1 i , �i1�•� n'L.,,wL.NW..�.Yrw.m.�L Yr'.1• Yv+++".1•.eY, .L.,I.r uU.r YY.� �r n.v?�!."."ww1M.li1 6 5,,+.4 5r•3 I�5�°..►+°i;Prc.lsl n.Itiniiu1 4.4.,<<4j°q 1w,41r{1'�ayi ,�', 1 : ,1 I'...,7i.,!oi iYlr,.x,Y, i'-i 1r.t1 r' o isIfl5t1 �'tt't'iit 1�rpt1}tP �Idllriotityl, ti)tC['111r1't�1di t:?:,' rsxt�i 1.ii',I Stub. `itrvy ' Mtt►rliyet,t Otr.4hh Ast,'A410101 Flip,0Peitiy%1t''lUtAltl%hO ►ie.+Ir1F'y 011dril Cltitpfut.ttitathAti�yiia`I'6berely hl�ltliarlrulluta I I;, 100,11,110,0111'(.ok felt'AlJISfll,1l 0!.111 ncthtnlinft i'IflliiltS+Y1 Ailli,tl'.J A'04."tailAm 1+ I . I h., I I ' f„^ r ., I I i n n • ... . . ,. . , • . . 1 ., ,. . , , .. . . . • ( {, . . • , I 0.0.H coMPANIeo . I , . I . , If 0315 8.E,OTANI ST, PoRTLANt),OilEG014 97 10 ., PHoNE g5 -i 4 7P • . . ■ . , • ;.'s : : -,. 4,- ,i,„ , FACSIMILE TRANSM/SSION 00VER SHEET -.., . , . • . ----...—..---...-...---- ;kr, .................... ,, DATE! Fef3R0A.P1' 5 ig40 .4tb., TOO kfOirtt • ctlycr rcoAR0 ..............6.._ ..,.....*...........................................n......**............. tr.......... '4 1 ...........-.....------ . , :or , SENT TO FAX 0 6,84- 7 2 c1 1 „ _______ ........._....................._................................._ . ,. ........__.............___ , FROMi Srvu 6' W hore-AP 1 . ite. PReu ECirr CZCPDA6011—................—..-_,— • e,.., . ',,,' .............._..................—..................................... . ., . FROM F 6 X if 252-'.245t cyppF85 INNE HA p01,11,15,NT $ . Ice.. oce,64_ ,4„,e z icia, /,,Liirs r,-tAieT,, urne eue.6. Hopiur)!Y ■ o......*.a.............o...a.............•..........*..................a.......*...........,.....r.. o.,....w...., I \ , ...........**,.......**.................. .n . F058 TO FOLLOW; CLUDfN,3 OOVEk EIHETt 4 'IN Al e 0 , • i 4 1 FLEAt3 I NN) Imm8 ATELY, OT kFC V ALL or 11* 1At5E8 , pli E OA 1-, TI-1E l , iiNolitiloNE0 At (603) 252-i410 (bstroso I 4 1 THAW 0(31-/ -- 0 q't,)Vtriataitie St41-1dOr 1 ,-,..—......., k...................41.--..,..... , -,C ' 5 E 8 7 199 ' ... . , . , , N ...4 Ot .. . , •4 fr '-•' • 7 ■ S, „ ..1. . ,, ,..'. .. -• I , ..W , . .‘, ti k\k ' , , C.B.H. COMPANIES , . • 8315 6,E.STARK ST, PORTLAND,OREGON 97216 ; , PHONE 252-1978 '4''' , ( I February 5, 1990 ,.. Mr . Keith Liden„ Senior Planner . . .1- ..- City of Tigard 3125 S.W. Hall Blvd. • .. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 . RE: Occupancy Permits for "Little Bull Mountain". . Dear Keith, , In our last letter to you dated January 10, 19900 we .. . discussed a time frame for occupancies. We understand that , the final occupancy for 'the last building will not be issued until all of the conditions of approval have been met. We are prepared at this time to provide for you the following • information for occupancies . 1- . . , Buildings ready for occupancy by February 9, 1990. , . Building 16 14775 SW 109th • Building 19 14785 SW 109th . Building 20 14793 SW 109th Building 21 14797 SW 109th Building 28 14767 SW 109th % .,. - , , . i . f. "T.. Buildings ready for final inspection for Which we would h my be requesting occupancies by Pebruary 16 1990. Duilding 5 1472b SW 109th , .;., Building 6 14729 SW 109th , ,.., Building / 1473 SW 109th Building 8 14741 SW 109th Building 9 14749 SW 109th Blinding 10 14/53 SW 109th Building 11 14757 SW 109th . „, Building 12 14759 SW 109th Building 13 14763 SW 109th •'—',.: -,, lituilding 15 14771 OW 109th Building 17 14777 sw 109th - ' ... I . , 0 . 4 , ^ , • 4 • it I 0. • It i I t has been more than a year since approval for final occupancy on the balance of the buildings. • We respectfully request that a letter be addressed to us that will itemize what is left to be done. I was not employed by i C.B,H. Company at the time that these conditions were approved. Your response will clear up any miss inter:. i pre•t ations that might be concluded. Thank you for your ' cooperation in this matter. it i .e el , 1 , t t . Wins sad, A. I .A. I' , x CI 1, I � l f a I y` r !I 1 { r. , 1 GIB 7.i I'. i' 1 • I!' �µ M , • I .w.,.� !...45.. /•fin ? 11{""r ' , _ , . ....,.,�...�-.,A .,.,.�...� �.c-CI..:... ......:.:F.wr.. ads:+.. ...a..,.,.«c....., .«.,a.A..,.._..... ..u�........i..,..«,.,f,-..«,,..µ ,...,M...«.. .u«.SaL«..:..rr-.:..,.i.u....wl:'...w�.....,..«..,r,a..,,,r.ew.,».,..•u.wun...!c',.i�'..r.x,...r-.»..--:,.'J....i.- I..:.I,w..,-N.4..:�,:ri'�' .;.'.,-.i-�.JAI."...x�t.4mv....Mi«,..u� w...t-•i.:�..w..,••�,1..•4.+, , . „ . . . . . . . . . . , , . ., - - ',,,'-',, ,,'..; ':',::',,■-..,'.,,'',;,'l' ,, '• , : .[,-,: . . . l'1110-1,' LI':,c,..-4...,2,R ,, INSECT&D,ISF DISEASE PANT HEAL,TFi CARE'PROGRAMS �� i� CARE/ C. Professional Tree d,Shrub;Care, since 1937 ,• 4223 SE. 88th Ave,4.Portland, OR 97266 774.9642 ' '. ' . ►:AWN-CARE - ' ' rt ..�................_ r y . F k x r d w I -A• } f _ Mr» .Stephen 31.x1 t c ii S • . , 'CAH Conpar.i.0s I , ' lJ.S Mark Purt land, old. : 97216 . ,• , ,, T ,,A.f,M .( 14 0 � � 1' ' • ;, PRgLIMiNARY TREE HAZARD EVOR F'Of I ITTTL , U1LL ,l OUN p,J'r`4 4•,� } i • 'A1 r1 811,1 , +14703 SW 11091.` 1, ;, °,t, �' { ,t, - Dec r AL . i I i t IVd, t• M x I }t I 1. . i not wi h, ou' a r r Keth �den L o� t�� � � ' . : . ' ar uary 8,, 1990 to 'Tie the d.arnage ±r:.otiii fa`E ler1 •t oeP. aP 1 ' L cw u.i:t. of the recent toms .., S very Les had fat 1 ei'1 near' ,� h' pr'opert , !4A. a; ��, , . t;' tara�:lc . s1 :?�" r a1 al �.� a1, nr� to ago ' • A a ' �r,e uit of lour m.aetjn 'we ag oed that. I conduot {''a i or0 i' ° f I . . c.,.pth. study evaluati g put1et tra h z AP a re8u1 t l r1o� a prey .oup s i.�t visit , I had t ecommeAdec t 0f, '' 1. . ' ••.. . � ir. l o a ai^x a u L•a u a t ;: i r�' : ►u l ag x` d °.� b �, ,' t1 'at• p�° nt d � a z t~ r a d 'At'' the t 'o. ►a;t '��,• v:L$tt Cln , 1O/1//t9 there was1. p coteot i.ve t.eii .ng arotrd tho ' i . t etrs.'.. Eroto tine fen'tr .,rq :should bo le t H around. tho,pt.`trees .. �. h •t $ be ' reta ,ned;unt l, 1nearby„ 'u'cnpt,rur t;ioti is , b. taA ei+ l r, , . . r ompl.,retea or on :alpprr raI .,,truri the cc���nsu1tiz arboriPt A ,(;, A`,k" i ° ' ti ',� Ac V ,d ., , , I ;�lease, ca1,a." ,��,f you h'av�o an guePti.oh�� . • H, I w.y� y�( y �,S qt f Mince Jr,el bf �a d 1.. , i �I^'.'.`u'�"'A'*'"'"'.. * , (' /i()/ y1 r Q�j',y,�/� * 1, Y�1� i rill •cl1 1 i, .ei, 14 �f ,; � � s�( 1 r I .1• A b to I. ,r F ,I}.' t Tl h„1 j' • `. r„ I a �a r w w.w•n�s�w.�•ww.ril•:�:s.�-.Iwy�.nJ.:..w�+hwi 'y ,, ' - I .. I Ociii>iiid byi Chilton&fit°bdp ttininl di dnrlptilIt�e0 M f :I + , , Mehitift ii itito�nii 4aeoclgllgis r ` I di A4100U 4100,r. `".' , ' u4. ' . >r� ► �l�ndaad b t=itrl�esiiloii�il�a�lie t� ��«��llonMl pn y I ,;uf ;� ,, ,` b lnretr 0110nal Posliclila At Ucd9,le , eac,latii ii Iniiii tbb'iii �d Oc : rsu���el y ,, ' tFl 48,A '^?u 5 ss.'�'�f,f.1t-`IJIr (j 'u '' rp,�:n n. f f�,,,Y".,f R,...1r,',i.,:IIr»<,° 1 rt�N �' .y' 7 7r i -�,r,, I'r ,t,!,,,,._ , , „we.,, ,—r,.,ap„.,•.,M,, ,∎∎4 rl'.,•J" A.,A$.NC,,1_., ,uNh«wekMW,f1+,'aL r+4446t4444,l:i,,,.Y1d:4n444.,u.u.Vrv,,1uu.,a.li..,,k,.,,,:-,'4' qq b.,,I x,,4∎14,4,,via 40444i,46,,,l t,, A11∎ 44, .� ,�Mn ��Wf�v � Aii� ffh,�+A,iM•,,r'Jturai ',I r r 7 +11. M w 'ti.,. w,.ti .,T..,..«.'r.,.,...»....�:.r;S.a.J.v...U.7.u>.z....:..:.:.'.,t4....sa....n..r.,.s n..,a.:.wM»,......,»>,..„w.»........a,..w.:n.r�:, . • , a ,a ( BOND NO. 9939,306 • ''` IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND • KNOW ALL MEN THESE PRESENTS: ' That we, Charles 13, Harxi.s� I a:GBH: cQm 4 panu s Principal, and INDEMNITY .• COMPANY OF CALIFO NIA, a corporation organized,rand doing busineaa under and by ”, 'virtue of the laws of the State of California and duly licensed to conduct a general surety business in' the State of Oze on as Surety, are held and firmly . bound unto Gi�y of: zl and ' , : as Obligee in the sure of 'FII'TFFN TH�CJSRND 12 a.$ 400. 00 , . �$ �� ;�� Dollars for�which payment, �well and truly to be made, we �bind ourselves, our heirs,, executors and'succeasors, jointly and severally firmly by , these presents4 . , n . '•; THE CONDITION OP OBLIGATION IS' SUCH THAT: , WHEREAS, the above„ named Principal;' as a coraditio'n :of the: Obligee's issuance of 'occupancy peratita •on an apartments: pro, ec,t, now kne rri as, Liit�.e,,Bi�1,j ,_,,�,a,;� g Motintairi A aar'tmen . ' entered into an agreement or agreements with said Oblig0,4 to eomple t,e the land-e , aoaping improvements a ,ecified in aaid agreement or' agreements. : : . . • . t. .� � NOW THEREFORE, �-the condit�,ora of ' his ob1 igation ie' such, that if the above p'riAopal : . ' ' � shall well and truly perfor m s acd a K xee ment`or agrsem eica during the ,original tern, term �� of or n� � �� � of sa�.� that may,,be granted by the Obligee with �� there� � f��atty ts�ctez�a3�on or vithout notic.,e to the Suraty, this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall s. �, remain in fU l force Nand effects 7,.. : the seal ..nd aignatu IN `�ITN�gS �k �REaFt � ��,n� � r�a �o�f���said� Principal is �ierek,o� affive��� and � `�' ' � e oorp ox ate �sea� axd the n ame o f the s aid Surety.Hialhereto affixtd end attested by ts duly 'author4zd A t torney i n�faCt�at ��YF CSWL�O 1 1 a,, Oreg , thiu. . 27'TH : ,day M� G H. �� 19,q�, , . it Pit/2 C PAL ,' ' ' ' SURETY ' : Fr ,r, x N DT?.COMPANY; OF CAttitORPIIA , f A' ti OLgt4,&i.:', 1114t. ' .,r 333 Wilehir4. -enu't ' m X801, , ' � � 714) 999 1/j71 • r I.. (, ( ' BOND NO. 993930S I t IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND ; ; , . 1 I"kNAW ALT. MEN BY ,THESE PRESENTS:, � � � , '• � � . ' That ,ve, Charles ' B. 'Harris 1 III. dba:CDR Com•arty as Principal, and INDEMNITY : . COMPANY, OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation organized and doing business under and by , ' virtue of the laws of•the I Stag°e �of,,Califo �nia and duly licensed to conduct a �-• • • ,general surety business in• the State of Oregon as Surety;, are held and firmly . ' ' bound unto Ci of', . • • '`,as Obligee in the 'suit of PiPTEENTHOUSAND F'45 xI. ,aP_ ANfl olaz CO nnrz ' '''': ($x',15 f 40.00. 0 0 Dollars or which payment, well and truly to be made" we bind , :• ' , : „ '' oursr lv'es, your heirs,,` 'executors „and successors,, jointly and .sev�eralJly .firmly, by ! , , , ,,,,•,. ' then a� presents di . ' ' THB,;COflDITION OF OBLIGATION,, IS SUCH THAT: - •'' : , WHEREAS,,� the 'above named Principal, as a :condition o°f the Obligee's'i�sauance of ' , `, otoupancy permits on an apartment t projeCt,:noW known, as Liht2.c Bud. M curtain Aparthent 0 � : : I . entered into an agreometit, or- agreements-14th with said Obligee to touiplete the land b aca " ree ent at' ag ts. '; . ping,'improvements speck�i�ed� in said�ag � m reetnen NOW ,T},ER.EFORE. the condition of this obligation, is such, that if the above: Principal shall, wa11 and truly perform said agreement or agreernents during the orig�.xia1 term ` any at ma��� be rartted b; the O ,r k �� � th����of at� of� an�� ea����naun of Said term th� �y � g • �. y ���. gee �iC�h , ,': or without notice to the Surety, this obligation, sha11 be void,' oche tvi:se it shall ' '''H., ,. 4 remain in full force and effect. ',.01, ' .0 •., , IN WITf1E'SS W�I.IOF, the seal 'and signature of. Sand, Principal, ip .he,se,to -eff.L.�od ztid, . ., : • the corporate seal and the nate of the said Surety is hereto f red: and attested , qy Lts duly Authorized Attol:ne i n £act at LAXE CSW // , 7TH shay Of_„.. MARCH. , PR111C±PAL 80 111 , �� -" E Ir Cott'A t' OF w �. ,,;,'" � � u.+�� �Y/�',/Y'_ r ,o.1'�jb•,..".....`".«` _:..A... � � �' �:1:�V�Li Att N,ORN.T_A : �. n I t.o'rnt3- 4n . 1 333 t�l,lsh�,re e.nue � : , ,. • Anaheim, Ca 92801 • ' (7 4) 909.1471 :! ,,,,,, .4 ' 1 �' A • , ', . WUCO1T n?IZI(GAi ION AI\II) . ' VANLiScAII' MANAGEMtN 1 4 a' I AN)SCAr'E MAMA ,ENIFN 1 TO IMPROV E 1'()111t PROPERTY UI'IVES[MEN r 1.. uoU t r :lloX $46,ti itRWoou,OR 971 Atl (503)5111.14J9 q 4/2/90 Stephen 14 Winstead, Project Coordinator C.B.H. Company 0315 S.L, Shark Street Portland, Oregon 97045 Re Estimate to complete the landscaping for the "Little Bull. Mountain Apartments" Scope �. �.� e � le 5 � � , k land �a ;t n a, a p landscaping in accordance to the approved Landscape Plan by the City of Tigard . An itemized list below is furnished at your request Item Estimate ' Remaining around Cover *2,500.00 Remaining Shrubs *2, 000.00 Remaining Trees and Replacement *5, 500 .00 ' of Trees removed resulting from wind c . ' � ' � � � damage and construction. , n rK,, V , Additional 20 Trees 12 feet in height $4, 000.00 y, , Assumes fir trees. (5 were i ocluded in the original price) Note : There will be . 25 trees at a height of 12 feet The balance will be G to 8 feet, Total $14,000.00 Steve, your Maintenance bon d should be for one year . if you have any questions please call us. b Thank nk you, elfaf / ow' ' a"• CC: Craig Naskel ■ r , 4 4 ,k, u • . „....,,,.„....,,..—:.,„,.."'j—'•.....,..,,,,,a ",...Y-.+N h....w,.4.,...wi:..:.L:.:..,,,...:-u..,..a a _., n •au u,w .idX•.:. •;.•• • - -.. . NXw ;. k 4.Na v. N S U R p N C E • , April 2, 1990 • I I City of:Tigard 1 l 13125 . .Hal 7 Q I Tigard, Uk�. 97023 I Gentlemen: Re: C. B. H. Company 1 , • Maintenance Landscaping Little.Bull Mountain Apartments • for the above project. e e prepared to issue',a maintenance bond or , We ar � p When the landscaping has been completed and accepted by the City of Tigard, we will promptly issue the maintenance bond. Please forward the letter of acceptance just as soon, as available in ', , order that the maintenance bond can.be issued right away;;, . I I If we may help any way, please be of hel in, an wa lease be sure to call. . I I I I c . I Very yours, . I F'U1,1113q.TON & COMPANY, TI1C, I I Ede Dunn . I Ell • I r I i s I I , I i P,Q, 8ox 2901 ° bii�ld�d Ot�g on 97229-001 2701 J,W,`h�u�hr►.Sulu 776 503 274 6511 FAX 274�5 2d IM v . P r `� INDIVIDUAL-GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ' STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN,$Y THESE PRESENTS, that do hereby dedicate to the Public a perpetual tight-of-way for street, road, and I utility purposes on, over, across, under, along,'and Within the following described real property in„Washington County, Oregonz • • I I I ti ''' To have :and; to hold the above-described'and dedicated rights unto the Public • , forever for:uses and purposi,As hereinabove stated, The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner Yin fee simple and the , • property is free of all liens and encumbrances, they, have good and legal right ,to grant 'their rights above-described, and they will pay'all taxes and assessments'due • and owing on the ,propetty, The amount paid for this dedication is : I IN WITNESS WHEREOF) :the :unders i n d grantor(s) has ,(have) hereunto' set his (her) (their)” hand(s),and seal(s) this day'of • (SEAL) (SEAL )II SEAL ( ) (SEAL) I STATD OF OREGON ) BOA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) , 19 . Personally appeared the above 'named instrument eknowleld ed to me that this 'who executed: this and each of thear a gI instrument was executed Volunterilyh and freely IN TESTIMUINY WHER ' EO , I have hereunto, set my hand and seal this day`of Notary Public tot Oregon (NOTARIAL SEAL) My' Comisission Exxpires t • • Approved as to legal description this dal of 19 Title:, 'Approved� �� this � � � day of i � l9 GRANTOR'S NAME/AiDDRRJS DEPARTMENT'OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Titl e,Y I • I I I I • I I I ., ,..+...:.J.:a.aPw:...:...A.,:i.1.:,_.i+:Ai:.._.w:...,...,w.:a.A'1....:.»..,.+•...............vw.A1;...J U...::..:4.barv4,.aw.....M1SJ::t.aa.:J..w...... .:+.1..-.._.,L..1:..u1.J...+..;l:tai,r.s«.JH4�.4.,.:q:..w..,N..«::.1 1.+s..u%t«.::I.A•'k.eYLU+.-.._1 y. o A se • • t ITS P6 Vz, • a • e r • November 3 • j 19� . I Q I LEGAL DESCRIPTION POR ROAD DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF T I GARD The North 1 OO 00 feet to the South � �C���� f . , eat of the following " described property: Commencing at the SoL theast corner of the Northeast one--quarter of Section 34, TowhsKi p 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard , Couhty of Washington n and State of Oregon, runhing thehce West 110.20 feet along the South line of Section 34; thence South 31°32Y ° Westax d�Nca. �.�Jefeet©tc��th�rcertter along said centerline of said County the thence anro • of the y �� y� of ��nn© Crook; thence up the center of said f;:reek� i n a Northwesterly Y direction to its intersection with the East line of said Section along place of beginning.inn�.r� o� 1 � �.on 34 to the � �' 34; thence South a t� the East line of said Section g th EXtrPTXNt THEREFROM th gt portion deeded to Ralph M. and Thelma M. 07, Page 46O fir"own, � in Book Pa� - Washington County Records. . . • • Ii X ' 17' • a'. " „M 1 ..ru........n,. ..-...r ,..f.,....-:,-..,.:...IIbIG+..,'1 u.1.1,—,.u..+i.,-,,.:,,..A i..»..+r A..a._...i.,.,..d1A�l.,,,—,..,J.,..,,w n+n...u.«w.,,,,,..dvr�..R+-^.+.i..tN.(,..• W+....,.Frr..lr"+A „l._4,, ,,:a.,I WrrJ..-,—.44.iMn 1 , r.• , �f".x y , r 9 E X'/7/1;Si 7-• A. -I A /2) 1--'G. a/Z.... 'l' ' l' ,1 • ilC II I. • M i 1111 • Y 1 i . T.1.S , 1. W.11(1 d ' -X\\--\1.--- ' , . • • ■ A L....._ .. , ... . . .', ' . ._ , • I " f �'�I L1 O , 4:1 f �A�f" ,A► Ar ,I,►4 I I II • L 1 _ • r P n• . k � ... ��.. �� �M� -� ,. .. ... .... ...-.....»-.,,,...,.....«-F„»�.—.,.....-.-.-H...+,a»,-..aa.,:+.i:.....+.1'.'S.,.I..,:ww.r�,..ux:......+...........«..»...M.s,r-:,...:..,..,.,....,,+. . INDIVIDUAL-GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ,, . :, , : . GREENWAY DEDICATION , KNOW ALL MEN BY; THESE PRESENTS, that ' ' ' 1 W do hereby,dedicateHto the Public fors Greenway purposes the following described real premises in Washington County,' Oregon: I , i. ' sag. A Ac.1-161.) f ,)-[ , a ' To have and to hold the above-deacr:Lbed and dedicated rights unto the Public'. forever'for the uses and purposes hereinabove, stated.' , , The grantors) hereby ;covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and the • propety is free of all liens andencumbrances, they''have good' and legal right to grant the rights above-described, and they will pay all taxes and assessments due and , owing bn the property,, y' The amount paid for this dedication taA . „ . � IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s)'', has' (have) ',hereunto set 'his (her) (their) ' . hand(s) and seal(s) this day 'of' , 19 _ (SEAL) , (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL),EA.L ) STATE OF OREGON . . 1 COUNTY'OF WASHINGTON) ' 19 . Personal ap ear ed the above names d , ; , , . „ , who executed this instrument and each of them acknowledged to me that this instrument was executed voluntarily 'a.nd freely: IN TESTIMONY 'WHEREOF, I'' have' hereunto set my'', hand and seal this day of , 19 , tdota:ty Public for Oregon (NOTAkIAL SEAL) My,Commission Expires: • Approved. as to legal: description this day of ' , 119 D . a+ T tle. 4' • Approved th.s day o!f' s i9 � ', ' J. n E'PAgtTMENT OF COkMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,. IA Ii _ __ 4 , 1 { 1I i i i i • i i i °4.. 1 ' w.u4•. .«-..0 a .-,.r...-).:..J .a..,.IkJ,xV t.-rM.f✓. r..lFr..-a ru r t:..r,r i—.-.rrr rlr.w e. .N ...a .r r n I .r,rn V .."Y.;=,. rx`.S.a».r.-..+uM.�r n._....:L......r.r.:-Fm ' .tl>w Fk.l.4 +—Ii..,.Ix.....,..r..4mii..M..,Fr.:n'+h•I.:....r.,..:4..-..-4.. ..tnV.4,W-wa....-.wm».....r+».ua.0 a x r a.n.n.0 4 WT �'•ll LI.VIIIt.{111fYI.w.ww�MO.r:rw..w. - ..r.•. \ . 5r!,,-r384 553E WE 'WELLS" a ASSO. 4/re'/es lo:51 9E14 , i/7-'" November 3, 198' • LEGAL DESCRIPTION • FLOOD FOR �. D LAIN DEDICATION, 4 To THE CITY . OF T I CARD Commencing, at the, Southeast corner of the Northeast one-quarter '! of Section 34, Toaarishi p ,11 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette ' I Meridian, in the City of Tigard , County of Wash.nt tan and State r, • of Oregon, running thence West 110.20 Feet along the South line 1 of said Northeas ., ,one-quarter �of Section 34;' thence South '...3S° I 1,' West 533. 10 feet to the center o of the County road; thence East t along said centerline of sai'd County road to the center of Fanno 1,', . Creek's thence up the center of said creek in a Nor'thwes'terly, direction to its intersection with the East ,line of said Section • , a4; thence South: along the East 1,i ne cif said Section ',34 to `t�the I place of beginning. , EXCEPTING IhG T IER RO h that portion deeded d to Ralph M,., and Thelma M. 1� r , Brown, in ook �C7, Pa ge 460, Washi ngton Oount y ,Feccrds. I ( • ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described property; - I ' Lot OOMMENC I NG at the e "VENTURA t Soufiheast corner of ' COURT" . a duly recorded subdi vi si oh situated in the Southeast, one-quarter ect i on S4, S4?: Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Ui l l amet t e l X ' Meridian; in the City p f Tigard.,, Count 64 Washington, and State ' of Oregon; thence t .0°31 '00" E. � along the East line of said "VENTURA , ��r� �C1�,s'taI"1cC?��o'� '214.62 feet; thence 1.eaVl f Ig :said • . East line l, 8.189"29 00''E. , a distance of 68.64 feet; thence N .Z.>a° �t E« ,' f � �s • 4 , " a cants of �01a �. distance* Sb feet;a thence ' a d i stance of 104. 9' feet; thence 8.37 02'56" , a distance of 1 ,">� 33 feet;, thence '8. 01.° '�'�50" ,. ," a di .&anee of, te. 6 feE>ist, ' " W thence q a stance c bbd k4 feet; thence . 4 ,�G+ �4 . -, s . dS.x 8s9a4n9 e 1;o 74t .d4i G t f ene , of th eCn8c8 9 S.fe 7 p3 t O th e Wn.'p: S a 44cdistance. , of � i r 1 3 1 .h fee t to a point 30.00 f eet 'from t e centerline of S.W.. ,b � , NarthDak oa Street; N.89 o. e oo"Ua. 30.00 feet Northerly , • ', ' bf a nd p ara :x el to said centerline, f a d%st�nce of 3 80g 3S feet to . the point of beginning, Conta :na ng.. : 141,4 .Y sgua -e feet; more b't• 1gS r. r / �f ti, • .'....,.a-.n.•+...._I ...... -�..�a._...»,.//..M+.,« w�.,N ..,.l...i...r.v.«ww�...,,. +...,.��....•., .., .a..�,....r.:4..,,...,.•_.....u....,u,,.,........,..,..n,a...r 4 ,.w,..l.,-.m..�r�....N..1.r..'...H,.........,.:.G...-... 1 .a .a.F r.�„ " u:.:.}...*.'1:wu, .i�.l..:,,r.+w..a4.a+-+i*r,ui.r,:w,,.l'J4«.M:4.�.,J+:;:•:I:LL...,.1.4..«�...t.ca�4.:4t,..Wn. .rr I ` µ aw fix... ;i ‘A./,(Iv!A i2. r Y w �. NN ■n `',. 1 , gip . \\N.'', '''\\:::\\::\:' 4x. r-rA7'E Eno W DED/cA 1U m s-,. N N w .�" �� w K \ , :\J "^^ '`4, V t xX t "M • 4 • ., N , N.„,,,. \\„ \\.\\ , \\\:,,,, N. N, N,,,,,\\,\N.1/4\ \\\:‘,. \ „\\ \, „ . /\ \ \\,:\\'''' \\\ NN41/4\,\\\\\\:S\\\\ \ ,,,,, \,,,,\ ::,, Nt,,N\ ''‘\ 1: N4 A -rA ....:. 1 II I S ^ ,* 'a" ',? I r , ,,,. L C.S.M.COMPANIES 8315 , ARK S T.' r PORTLAND,OREGON 97215 • PHONE 252.1478 I , r January 10, 1990 I r • II , • Mr. Keith Liden Senior Planner city of Tig.rd 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd,. / ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Dear Liden: p , , , / Re: Letter from Jerry Offer, Jan. 5, 1990 jr Little Dull Mountain Thank you for meeting with us on January 8, 1990 to look at i . ,,. the damage to the apartment project as veil as review the letter, from Jerry. During our meriting we discussed a number 1 of issues that have led to the letter from Jerry. During our . '; meeting we discussed a number of issues chat have led to the �I. letter from Jerry. The first concern was the lack of communication from C.B.H. Company to Tigard. We were under the assumption that our Arborist, Terrill Collier, had kept you informed on the problems we have had with the trees on ,, . our project. mr. Collier dial make visits to the site to help 1, ,u our superintendent resolve some safety problems with the mr trees. This informati on was not forwarded to you because r a there was a lack of direction from C.B.H. to Mr. Collier. l'. Laurin _, 7 our meeting write During n, we agreed that M� . �.� ., l�c..r. would wx .te you a preliminary Lree hazard report immediately and follow up ; " - with a more in-depth study. It is important to doge that due to Mr. Collier' s recommendation to remove trees because o. .t potential safety problems, C w 1. T. Company undoubtedly saved 1 ; adjacent. properties as well as our own property from further i' y" damage resulting from, the recent storms that have developed �,, t� I this week. f t • Secondly, we discussed the approval to occupy buildi gs $ without having the entire project completed. you agreed to y l permit us the, occupancies buildings that were completed and approved by the building inspector, provided that the area ,• immediately adjacent to these buildings was substantially:I completed in ,terms of landscaping, paving and lighting. we , currently have been granted occupancy from LI.v.e- building iI inspector for buildings 1 , 3 . We have also '"1, I ., g 2, and � have soI rec.. -.wtwved �' d . final approvals oft buildings 18, 20, 21 and, 29. fi CEwwED PiiiitiNilia 1990 " I r 1 III 1 1,.. ,,o, , , . , - . ') .' 1/4''''''''' ' i' , , _ I w.,rn,Y.uJrP..«.,r.,.w...t.n,. 4,.....,,R.4.r.....w_r.n.« „r.wrw......: Y...a......,..vl... .,.. _., -_ - -... .«w... I.M,-I.....N4N..n..,.JY..r.J,w,J..,{.Mw...m-...w+.i.•1...A.«-,4..u+Jh....NN-.w_....Our..U,.a..A«•..»..,....Y....wra{.J..,.wr4•.Lu«..x:11..1 r - - ._, _ _. .y J. }• I iii i' . r . • • • Mr . Keith Liden January 10, 1990 # • Page '" ti Unfovtunatelyr building 4 has received major damage due to °a' ' tree falling on it . As soon as we have cleared the debris • , from the storm damage, we will proceed on I finishing the remaining buildings. As of this date we have basically stopped construction and are waiting for our insurance to review the damage. I ' I , • Thirdly, you requested that we present you a time line for expected completion of the remaining buildings. Ne had . agreed to defer) all of the miscellaneous Iconditions to the ' f :issuance of our it building. Since the storm has delayed our completion scheduler we are unable to provide this to you As soon as the damage can be assessed and construction resume, this completion schedule will be sent to you. 1 • Lastly, we agreed that replacement of the fallen trees will ; • be mandatory. The size of the trees will be determined on what is normally availabic . The serer"ies will be the same 'as dX what was lost. In some cases we might 'provide 'a grouping of I • trees rather than one tree in order '1;o stabilize the 1 landscaping to avoid what has happened in the future. P � p�' Thanks again for seeing us at such short notice. ['Please give' me a call should you have any questions. I I • Sincerely, i • • e _ , n 1. Winstead, A.I .A. r Project Coordinator cc: Craig Haskell a I , I I c Bill monahan Terrill C o l l i e r • • I r I I I - J • r Isr r I III I I , I 1 } • ,� ` '$, . ' — e 1„ x . , , . —....--,—..-----. — —-; . 149 Ill 11141iii X . , ■ '--1114CLIA, 1 ' 4 . ... January 5, 1990 art OF TWA RD •, • OREGON 9 0 Steve Winstead \ CBH ComPanies , // - Cypress Inns , 8315 S.E. Stark Portland, OR 97218 ..,.. , . Re: Little Bull Mountain Apartments . Dear Steve: Our Building Division hae requested. that I inepect the improvements at the . 1 . Little Bull Mountain Apartment complex at 15001 SW 109th Avenue for the purpose . , of determining whether the current state of site improvements is sufficient for , , \ the City to issue certificates of occupancy for several of the apartment buildings while work continues on the remainder of the site. I have found numerous deficiencies in the state of these improvements with regard to Community Development Code requirements, conditions of approval of the Site Development Review request for this project, and inconsistencies with the site plan submitted by your firm. The site is not ready for occnpancy. I have asked Building Official Brad Roast to not issue eertificates of occupancy for any of the buildings on this eite. No structure on this site may be used or ,r■ occupied for residential u ni: se u11 the City ha e issued a Certificate of , , Occupancy (Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.18.010.A). Brad Roast has informed the building inspectors that no final inspections are to be 4 conducted for buildings in this development until the Planning Division informs him that existing problems are corrected. . On my visit to the project site on January 3, 1950, I noted the following deficiencies: , ' 1. Fencing with a minimum height of eight feet was not provided around the dripline of all trees proposed for retentiOn. Fencing wao required by , - the Plarining COMmissiOnse November 29, 1988 final order and the tree ., removal permit issued on March 8, 1989. Several trees proposed for retention were noticed to have been scarred by construction activities. ' . Fencing shall be installed as originally required no later than 330 PM \,. - -, on January 10, 1990, or I will request that the Building Official issue a stop work order for all construction activity on the eite. ■ , 2. The City Council's odtober 24, 1980 order regarding this project required that a minimum of 150 trees that are 6 inches in diameter or greater within the developed portion of the projeCt be preeerVed. Many " of the trees slated for retention by the various alto and landscaping plans have been removed. i?c reference, we will rely on the site plan printed on January 17, 1989, and revised by you on March 2/, 1989 as the _, , , , ...,_ official approvea plan ae I had noted or the tile copy immediately after your correct Lens, In particular, I have noted the absence Of a number Of trees iodated to the north of building 21 and between buildings 22 and , . 23. I would like to walk the site with you and Hob Maany, the consulting arborist for this project, to identify how many trees elated 13125 SW Hcill Blvd,P.0,12.ox 23397,ligord,Oregoh 97223 (503)639-4171 - -------- — , i . , 4 \ . . , ( . . W r '' 'N' • u a Steve Winstead January 5, 1990, Page 2 N= for retention have been removed and how to best protect the remaining \,\ trees. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted which provides for replacement of the missing trees with trees as large as are available. P g g Replacement must be on at least a one-for-one basis. S. The Community Development Code requires tha t one covered parking space � , be provided for every dwelling unit. Because.', carports have not been completed, it was not clear whether each dwel?,ing unit for which, certificates of occupancy are requested are etovided with covered 4 parking. Please indicate to me how covered parking will be provided to these units. 4. Uncovered parking spaces are not Marked. Especially significant is the / abbence of any designated handicapped parking ng spaces. Appropriate numbers of designated handicapped parking spaces and, total parking spaces must be prodded for the number of dwelling units to be occupied. Designated handicapped parking spaces must be marked by signs rather than just pavement markings. , ,: 5. A significant amount of mud was observed on the project's roadways.' Introducing resident traffic to a project that is still under construction increases the likelihood of mud 'being, tracked onto SW 109th ' 4A. A pavement cleaning P must implemented.the e. Building be Avenue avement cleanin program developed, must be approved �� by h `1.ding Aivision, and must be P+ d. ':t may b� necessary for the CAB Companies to post and to City ma y be z; • incurred in order to ke ep the public street clean. 6: A banner. stating "Now Renting" was attached to one of the buildings. No sign permit has been issued for this temporary sign. 7. Iri addition to the sign, I have also noticed advertisements in The • go nian advertising the availability of apartments at this e sitp + w i uuneleer t me how the a partment s may be available for ren t��when � _ oec upa nc j permits have not bee n issue d for o r an y o f... the buildings, lding s : Building Offic ial Brad Roast an I would like to inspect e d a�l buildings nJanuar y 11° 1990, to a ssure that mine of the buildings are being , ,, occupied for residential use without a n Occupancy Pe r�itgxavang been issued, Please contact me to set up a time for the inspection. The above is not intefded to be a complete to ].isst of all pcSssible deficiencies ' e '� to the suitabilit y o f hbuldin g s �r o ecvpancy: My observations were made du a brief visit to the site, / me to set up a time f. and the Please contact for s to inspect t , treed an p u � he tr '. e let me know when the fencing is 1 t . . i buildings, Pleas alle,i�, �.iouric� the tree' ' ti to be retained: g r ' , .01 i w • . r'1 ''. „ �, ' ro' .,A..,..»a.,.,., _..,.,..,�, .....rc._ti...ca..«..a. ,..,..� , ., ........ ......:.tii„r_..�...�,.,.i,�,�.«.........._.,...... ._....»r� �.�.,,la.,.._s_.�.,__... +.�W:�. .:r�u,«cw-.;...,�.,,M...a.b.r'�rk»•.'d,-o.,u,.,,„-.- - ,. «.,,<.. ...LL ,. r•. • • • • • • Sincerely, r f ex, evel p ent • I Planner II , ti C. Guardian Management Corp. C: Brad Roast, Building Official C: Coy Humphrey, Code Enforcement Officer C: File SDR 88-17/PD 88-04 • CBl.jo R t • • • � r � I II • • y • h .\ • ' . . ., . , . . . . . . , .v ■ ..,.. . „ 0 I, I • ■ I .. , . DEC 06 '89 15:55 CBH COMPANY 503 252 2451 .. 0 P.1/2 . •, ( , • , . , . eii,ii.toMOANiOt . • golitt.STAiik s r. , , .. ittnri,,ANbe oritooN 024 FOot■IE 252.14ra ' , • 1 ,,, , 1 , ,.,., . . .. • 4 . . . , i . AtfOtHli.t TnANaHlatliON cavio al-tEet , . . , . . ., . ............ . bAtEi perdwitaie 4 iziff.„,,„,,,, ,... — . . , ,,, TUI .........,,_____L„,.............06" .n.........---,--------------------------— „146 'W-':5etg 1%441)691e day alt: iliao,,A0gP _...,....-----.---------- ----- ---- 0 . t .,...4,1••■■••■•■■.,--,...”-.....4,-.......` 4.............. . . a.. .4., 4 er•-•-.....A.Ane,...-Amoi117•-•■•••...... •, 0.....---....... —...“,•,---*—'..,---. 4 ---a''"."--" i ■-• isENT lb ----- ,. .,• , 0 600.1017 ... -- , „-------- . ,,. .• • tAtilt,li c%frptiok, 191:),A.,,).gy:T/11:2_,..,,_,,,,„,„...,..„..,,,,„,...,...._......,..,......_...._„:„„........,............... ,...,...._..................—..... • ..„„,,..____________.00A.001 ,_ 14441° roare.........6.4•44,.....rrr........1,...... ••,.....,.......”.............. ., ''''.• .''''''''''''''...' /. ...“,...,,,,,i...........-14■44,..■Aoir, '..... . . . . . Ottati , roik 0 252-24si tyPA1500 iNN0 , . , . , e4Aer• iftextene„ epeoiti, gr. MVO . Wilte Aimed ilie tilHiltalti .......24............0,..”*A.J.4,4..A44.,........,A .Ailiorir...ALA y.................4.41rtm.......,•■•• , ',.: MS igetiialti 6 AntiritaiVidt4 . •i. .........;.,-.......-- . ,..........„......*,,, ,...........A.44.,......,4,••'—•`' ..". .."... .' A•. 4 .......—,,,,,..._.....-......,.......-----,.—.....„.,. , / .....,,,,,,,,,,..a.,,.........,--ww.................4o At tO rOLLOWi V* 1_,U011‘jd bOvt.14 gOtEt# , L 31 ■ , , ti you bd mot ptbtiVO, ALL it-J, ft.w 0,Aotti t4,,leAti t1 ,47, ., 11-,1 1 . , uNotAgttiNIED At it10J) 251-iiilti (pYPOgtIg H14,, itiHttlAtEL - , ' tHANk VUO4 • . •,ni / Jf , roi ' .', itt • c ! • i I i ., f L JnJmn. .-_1+4«Ma...a+.......JS.�1,-......4n.�...«r['..1t1.,.•#Y+•+.. .L-,J...tn.uwarwt,.......-.n ..r.. w'�'° ,. „_:n.,.,;,..,...•l..�..t.,.wn...•....w.....a..Lr..I.�....n.U,lr,...,.1.�tr4:.......,A.,l-....•J SM,I..:r•«,.....i••..,-«c�...,rl.......�.»..,e�,w.a.a,� .A.,,,........r.,...n-..w...a[..nn.....�......l...rr�.,l.v`.•,.+..�..,.......r 4.«,.Au.,..i. .+....., �, DEC 06 '89 15:55' CBH COMPANY 503 252 2451 P.2/2 r' ,.. � r BB�0 � u 1 , •ift 1 r f • „J P { '.. ,,,, T • r. • �r. , - ., , ' �; ., i 1 :2.,t4 iropf:4,— ‘ „ _, ,, 1 �, �� . ' . # . i�i 0�?j , , ,e,Atirr4 e { 1 , 4 . /6 0 At41.0” . 1 i. + r I ,.r. -4' , iiiihip eoA .1 , . y d' , d r a I f`y F L ' � .` A "'er 1 • BH cOMI'AN$E ' ,p ► L i +),press Inn ' 1 ,Sof t.1 eIx'd y hied to b ild,11 better value "rEoNEN VtllhJ� TEAb A.f.A, 1 , . project Coovdirraibi 831588,Siatk FAX 5o3 52. 2481 bi{ar.d, 7ri(1718 HOME tt).1 632 5322 • ,11 i I I r 4 I , ..r • „' 'i .MN,.,...h1,.er M.:U. ..1'xn .1.-.:.,...»1.✓•..+M..»...,.M.,J.,....,+,_w.::;..n:._....tw • •.,a..,.s. r...e.aar.e v W,.+.'».,rwa+.m.,1..G3lUSiJ.v"SE4e.-.e1A.rr • 1305 r`a e 3�5 G ntree Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 December. 7, 1989 • I I Mrs Stephen Winstead, AIA CBI Companies 8315 S. E. Stark A° Portland, Oregon 97218 e Dear Mr. Winstead: , , • Your proposed fence design is acceptable with the following modifications and specifications: 1) ” 2x4 top rail to be standard or better cedar. 2) 1x4 or 1x6 fence boards to be tight knot cedar or equivalent fence grading. 3) 4z4 pressure treated posts to be 8' on canter. 4) Fence boards to be nailed with galvanized nails and not stapled. 5) Fence boards to be nailed tight together and not spaced. By this le tter you are e authorized I to install the fence subject to the design submitted and to include the above specifications. We hope this will be accomplished in the very near future. Sincerely, • Forell ell L7.A B. Lind ! cc: Roy Hawmerly, 14807 S. W 109th, 'Tigar Oregon d� o�e . City of Tigard Planning Goumiasion, Attention: Jerry Offer 13125 S. W. HAll Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 • • . ii ...v... ,a,..«.,..1..,...... »... M,,...L..,._r..,,l...,m,,..,,lvl,,, -Ili,.,,..�..�.,._�. ...,_., ,...._,-_._m.« .,r.....,..,...„.„..,...... ..-.a....,. ». ..,� .� _ DEC 06 '89 1 a:52 CBH COMPANY 502 252 2451 r•c../a . ig ,,,,,2>t4 740:#.-------- , i , , i • �> ' \'9 M) 4 tai i 1......+1 r k IrT(I i 1 I , 1 �, I 1 I I • ,, t' 4, io , . ,°o icy At 1,t4 , l�f 7 I 1 •1 � I Ili sr i oiltit • lj ,y, ,„.....,0 4,,,,,f,t, . . „.... 0, ,,,-, . ..i. , ... r I I 'r ,,,• d 1 1 ,,,40)- ••••n...rr• ” � R d1►'/`* L�irJ+! ,..• , , 0 ' . 1 , .� .., diem .., � may' r II ,'''11 �}I' ' , .. .... P�wrM ' A r Yi11.^.. /'• ! ' I- r r. ...—/:Y 1 N i} • 111!1. . . te.. 1 11,11 1,4,1.1, w AI. Or 4 {' W b " 1 CYOres5Itln4 I it 1 I , ..: 4 I 5�trs�Cwy had to build a �t�r l �i ,1' } -15N vi/IN,�, EAC�;�, A ..:..yl j dU a..: � Ptb 9Ct Ct1bP 1 1lbr ` i HeAci Oitide: 50J-t,52,1474 " sots S,t.tt6rk, O'A.X 503i,252 0d51 f I Pr rtl4atd,OA 7210 I I 1 HOME 503-692+022 i'. I I w .a �i R i .. ...,....,,._,.j t..,,.,1,«._..,t_... .i1 ,,,.4:.,•.a..,._ ,-....x.....;.«a.„.,ua...,.......,... ...,.,-.-ay._,..._.......,,•_..,.....,.w:.......r........._.A:...,•,L.';-w;..at..., «w.,,,..,Ia....,-.w`' ,.« ,..w...'+:4V.3�«:+...-, wwx«...••,.a.,..se..«.« r.a....w.,i'..•:.M«514;.i1.,:.«'.,.- S..«,.....-._ .n._.ti1;=u,..::...:ti:..f• :. .. 1011iiiitt ' CUYOflIGARD RD December 7, 1989 OREGON • Ray and Leah Hammerly 14807 SW 109th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 14. J. Forell • 1305 Oreentree 'Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 , A.B. Lind 244 Greenridge Drive ' Lake Oswego, OR 97035 , RE: Little Bull Mountain a n AP artments Fence Thank you for calling to my attention the situation regarding fencing between ► your properties and the Little Bull Mountain apartment complex. I apologize for the City of Tigard not following through on the requirement that the fence ' prior to the issuance of building permits fOr this project. I be :installed r�.or e have again contacted Steve Winstead, the development's project manager, • ) regarding the need to have the fence design approved by the abutting property owners and to have the fence installed as soon as possible. I have asked the City's Building Division to not issue occupancy permits for any of the • project's's bu i in gs until i1 ' the fence '.s installed. • : Please let me know when you have re vi ew ed an d approved the fence plans to be ' provided by Mr. Winstead. Sincerely, tgerr Y Offer • 'Development Review Planner br Fnc. "o C. Ste ve Winstead, CB H f c Brad Roast, Building Official File SDR 88-19 , 7' t \1 13125 SW Hall Blvd,RO.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639.417 • f 1 P • ..,...-k_s. .a«--. _...._.,»«,�...,....�,-«11�..v..._�..».....J".,,�.,»n .Yd....u,......,,.�..... w.J:,..,:... 1 �..,.l.e.:..i.A.w w4,,......li i,».f%' ». + - µ Decem b er 3, 1989 Planning Commission , City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall St. 1 Tigard, OR 9722.E . File # SDR-89-06 {,� NFO No 6 Dear Mr. Offer: Our property at 14807 SW 109th abuts' the Little `". . Bull Mountain apartment complex. I wou.i.d like to affirm Mr. Forell and Mr. Lind 's request to fulfill the agreement to install fencing along our common property line. I [' ' You may not be aware that durin g the course of the construction, subcontractors trespassed on our. I ' f property for the purpose of using our water for drinking, Washing up and cleaning tools and equipment. i , In September, the hose had been chopped in two - probably from machinery - and we came home, to find the end piece and nozzle missing. ' Mr, Humphreys was s contacted during t he summer regarding this complaint and he assured me that the situation would be corrected. Nothing changed. Nor, did we receive any communication from the City or developers: S am disappointed that our rights were ignored. If the fence had been installed prior ito construction and, workers used the water line on the construction site, perhaps there would have been no excuse for trespassing on our property. The apartments have had occupants since early Nov'ermber. We hope that these concerns can be resolved soon • • Sincerely, j'. IttinfED ,t Rai an• Leah Hammerly C 19499 14807 SW 109th Tigard,,' OR 97224 • p ...,..0».*..,-...».......,.. t._.«.,.., .,....,..,._....«.Mi..i...:iw:w:rw..,..».a., »....,e.... ,.a.. ,....,.,i. ..,,.., _, ,.. ....._„u......«.«...,•:..u...a..ow„w.,....w ,.......h.. x,w..,u_,..,. .,t«.«,w1F'._. ,:y+r,..:..a.....1:,..+....».4:,.,,li.....,.- '..... ..,..,....h.iii.».;.,,.-:»:•...•.., ...., ..r,., December 1, 1989 • Planning Commission . •, City of Tigard 13125 S. W. Hall Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 .,..' .,4411$ 4 19es ; EG Re: Your file No SDR-89-05 NPO N'o 6 U ' • Little Bull Mountain Apartments - 15001. S. W. 109th Avenue Jerry., Attention: Se Offer Gentlemen: We are the owners of Lots 3 aid 4, Bramble Bend, aka 14815/14817 S. W. 109th • . Avenue. Our properties abut the easterly property line of the subject project. A s the apartment buildings and improvements are nearing completion, we contacted e apart. ,� . the architect, Steve Winstead, r some two months or more ago to determine when we - ;might expect to receive the designs (drawings) for the demising fence to be I installed on the common property lines. The, same are required by the City of Tigard Final Approval Report. Mr. Winstead said the matter had slipped his mind, but he would draw up something and send it to us. We have heard nothing from , • him. Considering t h o lost privacy factor subsequent to the removal of so many trees,s, and the relative closeness of the, apartment structures, the need for sight t obscuring fencing now appears greater than might have been anticipated,,r • At the City of Tigard hearings we attended, the attorney presenting the • applicant's petition, and the project architect, verbally agreed the fencing , • would be installed at project expense along the entire length of our common property n.e l�"ttrther, the adjacent r+owne.rs would! have the privilege of ' ert 1.�. p approving the design of the proposed fencing. Thus we entered no objections to the proposal. It appears itipp rs the City �a. ' final a' � val. of the fence�to�tw 1988 has �� � '�,�� ' . . _ ty of ,t2,gard s £� approval report o p 21, mitigated the adjacent owner's privilege of appro o options as set forth in Paragraph D.3. on page 10 of said report." The same paragraph g occurred.installed ,. occupa ncy requires the fencing to, be inst p�;ior to issuance of building permits. Obviously that has not occttrr �Perhaps�.the author�,�i�itended to say oo Y` ��` � In any even t; the developer must shon apply for occupancy permits. We would like v � � the fencing � p cope with and very much to have th g as quickly as possible thus preclude any necessity p t for o assistance to cope h a, problem we neither want nor need. • r r a ,,.,«__.._..',_.._ ._..,..„ ,., ,,.,,a; .,.,;.J6:.�.......WJJ... ...,•..>.,w,,�.. ..,....,...,.._.M......w.._..�.._�..,.�w..,....rte;»..•...,..,,.,u:«_....,., 1• ' ..xis+«..x+....a.;1;.;_..,'..-aav«.H.,,i.,.J,..,;.a...,i4...+a.tlaµ�.i-,.«M-.:v.u..m,.u.1+J..M...,Fr'rAl.,!u.«,tw.-n,:,)iu-•.w..,r+„I».•«,.wn..,L..Iw..ru.J:h�..4. ' Planning Commission g December 1 City . � � T rd � of Tigard g hage 2 A copy of this missive is being forwarded' to the Architect, Steve Winstead, in the hope we, other adjacent owners, and the City of Tigard will soon be furnished M' appropriate drawings or fence exhibits upon which an amicable decision can be reached. Your assistance and consideration is solicited and appreciated. I , , Sincerely, /4 '1 11? M. J. or F e 11 A. B. Lind '' I' 1305 Greetitree Road 244 Greenridge Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 g a on g �Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 cc: Steve Winstead, CBH Co. 8315 S. E. Stark, Portland, Oregon 9721E Itay J. Hammerly, 14807 S. W. 109th Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 • • • i r t'.,....di.x a,. ... ,:...,, v........... .. n. ,w. .,..... .. .,.x ,.to uwi..w...n.. ,. M ,,.e ., 1 .., ...,...,. � ..•i••.• ••• ., »,..,,nM ....,. r,..,1 .. •,w.f.... .,,. ..,,.. ,,. ,.....,,., n,. »..c., ... 4 • . ' • 111111111111111311111111111111111111111111=m0.1, ' . .., ' • . , . . ' 1 . •,, . , . ., , .,,,. . er PRUE.—" T ' r- . ,.,' liRCE SERVICE • I , The Tree Care Company , , • ,.. ,,, oa CA..',ion of Oregon Tree Service Company March 31, 1989 . ' • . . 5550 SW Rosewood * Lake Oswego 0 Oregon 97034 , 4.,.., 11EMEORANDUM . . ' '..;:, • . To: Steve Winstead, Q.I.A. Project Coordinato'r • ' , . . a . COH Compnies . . • . From: Bob tlazany, ASCA * 133 . Consulting Arborist ,1/4..., ..- f. . ' • Pruett Tree Service ,, s • , Re: S.W. 109th and S.W. Murdock - Site Review . , . . , .. . • On 3/30/89 I reviewed the site relative to the installation of tie H protective fencing as required by the City of Tigard. The fencing . . i • contractor WEiS not chil, to get onsite due to the conditions existing. They , . ' were able to access to install the north perimeter fence and that has been •1 n : • completed. To facilitate the fence installation and debris removal I ..\ , ' ..-.N , , --, , • contacted Jerry Offer, Assistant Planner for the City of Tigard, and ,,,, , . suggested the following to expedite the permit process for the , development of access to the site. The issuance of this permit would be , contingent on , I A . , ...., .. , . ' ' 1 6 Maintaining a thirty foot (30') buffer from tree or groups of trees .-; , where possible and practical until such time as the semi... . fence can be installed. , . . , 2 Where maintaining this buffer is not possible or practical .... 0... , . , penetration into this area would be under the direction and approval , 1:: of the Consulting Arborist. • p H, . I . 3. Under the direction of the Consultirig Arborist„ root pruning may be : ., required to minimize damage from any roet zone intrusion, .._ .:, 1 : : i8 I conveyed th infOrrnation to ,L,:erry [lifer and he found ho apparent , . ., problem with this approach and Will review it with his supervisor, This will allow for the continuation of this project and assure the Maximum protection from root zone intrusion until such time as the protective ..„ . .. fencing can be installed. , . ' • ' . - i --- 244,084[1 6 35.3916 6 693-0088 Morto NATONAL BEAVERTON PORTLAND VANCOUVER ,x'47 . :‘ , s ASSO0fA11014 ' ' Serving,tht eh tire Northweg. -eottitiOr. • • , , , '0 ' 4 2 ' t ' , •' • . , I), • o f , , . r`• .v,..-,,..._.,—......«i....',.._..,.1X:....,..,.. . Y • • ✓ n.rY. _ � .. , . .1 .. ,...r. .. 1 ( .b.. . . .. 1. r1. . •.. . • Ir • ■«.. • F/A, , („ dw?t n Y ,' C - Ems„ . ` t: . ' . ' , I 7' 14;• ' It'll' I I TREE $ ERVIC ∎w r r i, �, The Tree Care Company y, ) ' I ., a a Division of Oregon Tree Service Company , :., 55.150 SW. Rosewood •,Lake Oswego * Oregob 97034 ` 'li March 28, 1989 1 L ,� Winstead RECEIVED , To; Stele nstead A.IA. ,� : 1r . a R �, Project Coordinator nator MAR 311989)7074. C3H Cornpani es it From: Bob Mazany ASCA 4' 133 .� I Consulting Arborist r ; : ',.t� , PruetTree c� r 0 �. �' Service „,. '`., ' ,I Re; S.W. 109th and S.W. Murdock Logging 1' ,• , On 3/14/89 I conducted a site visit to review the logging, had been 1, ;�° . '' ,,, ' .started on 3/10(89, with the logging contrator. The contractor;and his il ' ' - ,,'H.. empl oUees understand what is required to minimize the damage to the , r / ,' ,- trees scheduled to be retained and maintain the i ntg ri t of the site o las� ' the integrity t.'f. ', ; much as conditiohs Will allo /. g , I re-visited the site on 3/ 15/89 having obtained a copg of the landscape �'' c , , plan which indicates the trees to be retained. Work Was progressing well i ,, • •. in spite of,extrernelg wet conditions, with care being exercised to protect ' • • inviolate areas and indiVidual trees to be retained. 1, .. , . On 3/22/89 I reviewed the progress With the contractor and foiJrid the ' . .. „.,, project approXimatel 90 complete. One tree was inadvertehti rerhoVed'� 1, that was to be retained. This was apparentlg due to the marker tape being 1, 1 .. , �. 1 removed during the preceeding weekend as had been done on others: This I • • 1; tree was in a location which was to be a verg narrow island and ma9�have , ' • ' ` ', needed staked. I r � n d to be removed at some point after curb locations were stake M . I ,;4 further au thori 2e d the two trees, 10” , . , q.�' additional on�il tr . removal of W a ee both under i : diameter: Ono Was tagged, even though it Was dead, and the other Was , �!� �� tall With a sever�-e lean to Ithe east over a cleared areas posing a e r k ;,. potential for hazard.' l • r x ; . eased l on r .observations during these si to vi si is Woul d reco,mmer d the following gl sope, of consul t� n�9 services to �r�otpct� end l�e p nti a�t _�.�I ' .� for fai L re,ti the 'trees t e to ned: 9 r i �b D ' I y :-iNl .,..,.w.I.a,� s�.r.'Ywµ p.y+. 3i'Ib-+rn4.v"" 4!"T V , , 1w.1,r .`�4, "?.c.r, : N j u d 653 0088 c k , �.. �r 6�5 391 � ,.}}�� it ,� • I 1�� . T.. �r��,wA�n �r��x�����:� � �. � � � � �XV t# 0k p�JRTIANd �t+�tNdCoUVot r � 4+„ AkBORI , »�'� y ', :. l A 5 S C I C 1 A t b t r 1 «� � t. ,,,' , Srtvlrig the hw st �I,: r � � i�tir� �t�� �. : Obi � r I , ad� V. ..,,,.., :..«......., .. ..,.,. , � r..., ,. .._. .. i... .,,.., ......r ., ,. ,. .. ..1 r,I., r �� r.r.. , n j i .I 1 .' .,.. .u.rc,.,,.._, ..r_.,,. 4« m,,.,I„,....:1................ .4,.w,1-,..,....w,..,L..„..„....„...-.,r,..,«,....,..+.... -u..,....._,.,.•...,..i.,.......A—....,w...M...-,,,...,N...n M..;:, ....,,,rA.,.,,,'„d,,,.—:,,......."I...,—..,..-JIL.,,,., ,.--,...,v-•r,,—....,'„,../..'.lih.....r4;—,,,.w_.+,,..«r..v„w rn { ...mn.,,...L.,:. ...«,. t• , Q 11. , Conduct a haz rd tree survey of the site with particular attention ' 1 ' ', , ` being given to individual trees and edge trees surrounding groupings . , . of trees left standing. ,. ., 2, Direct' and inspect the installation of protective fencing as required It b! the City of Tigard le:16° semi-permanent chain link to remain in 6y :.1 place throughout the duration of the project. ,1 3. Review gi adi ng plans to note where(grade (changes may inpact 'root .t . .P' 1' :,, zones and submit recommendations to minimize this impact Or I 4 ',.. . recommend additional removals when this impact will have an 1 ;. • adverse effect on the safety of angparticulary tree. ‘'' 4. ' Review staking of site 1improvements le: sewer, Futilities,' clearing limits con eWuction limits etc. , 1 • '' .5., Subrat theraputic care recorrmendations far.the trees to retained ed •N . !' w►i th a suggested time table for this work. . . ., to addition, the Consulting Arbori st should be on site at any time there 18 �, I'r ' be root •. and recommend least damaging in approach to to b�... �at1e intrusion i on q recant d the 1 � g g pp each �: • , ;. this i ntr'usi on. I trust that this memorandum and consulting scope of • services will meet with your approval. Please contact me when 1 my . be of further assistance on this pre ' r I ' r ei , • ■ J , . r t r I 1 . I I I 4 fi I,• 1 i r,i 0•! ',ti,, ra',i11 V N,,1^`,•! ♦ 1,■p, p , 4 i {, , - 1 • 't .. • • A i� 3125 �'. LVD. 4 i 1 . . ,.,., P.O. BOX 23397' MARE), OR 67223 1 � (503) 6139-4171 . OREGON . ,,, 1 , 3 ~Pc 'E- .i. :�D - _ PPI)i ...a__� jtj ai4R1.59' .p..) Soi 3 Vtir( 4, t...4 rGr/0t� JP-RP, OF:RE72 Ii0t3 "-P1- PI,/3'72-4e0 y — PRue77'___LITZ?„E—E: j i ',Vi C L A1., ,f 1, M",7, . , `.r. -1. , .1 "` /y//�{� /4,•f,, e,C04�'" f„ /,, , f ((p,(pyfy/{ ,_, ,,,,,,,.I, 7.{q�,'�� !.T!f'.,y,,I `y„ i'",, ''4" ,/ALE' •'�.' LV ^."' �•,N l✓, ,',,..u..,.....,,,' 4+,'.is �( I' .,(',1.,- I,P� ' / 1u/',' �VY�I'i,� /� • M'.���iw+.w'' N ''''',‘el''1� i .�F,�WM1,;V,,'♦��Mi/f 1Mw+.S.i• , ��I ; :: 'My^wf^.'�'4.'w M�'•�A "^lin..f � IA*rtr+�...{�My.!.,M' � �.�, ` � "''r..rww•'.w.. !. I•- ��'y! 1 it I '�, d�" y� �� ,, ` //�(�fry� �}+�M'��'r / I (���111„J{r�y Y r r/,���t'y�7M Y (' - 4 / Y 11�) 1\l' 'f;�.'r '�, M+ 'I. 4, �q aJ� ,,"W/1Y1 y f 'F/1,� .I,1iM.M 1,W Fes'�Ja,� f.,� d � � �.I� ,6- . � �a .,�±t,f�.,.��w�.�..�.:....,..�..:-..L� ../� ,,, ...u..�. ;. ..ti�•'.�--„�...�..,...;.:�....,'�..'... ti '!�ti .K..,,M.,.� ...r ^ �', a, , 11 �' 1 ,j „,.,,,,,Y „r-'•. 1 ,r r,-�} ,Y'•'� Y. , ,may : I1,4 e. !!t 7AV f.+W,�.� 1 c'-- vit V 1-1Z8'7 5 t;/Y1'Ll� + l(f, O 6-110 k,"=-1 I4)) ,....�1;f ''/,( P r j.....i;, !/4 f '' r Ai.l n I--.17:131 ml 2t. IA26"14 V d,1 6'' 1 i• A "' e rc. r , . '4x'!''16 r' HE 126 O ff/ 51,1 4T(1 i)5 Ab ,r 7 Y x Al 1 ,. OF ' R,i4.A-rq 1181 A nt d.041 ow 77 i -- • r F-m:?NC iihrl-i 4 1?1/t)/41W fl (614t' 141-1 i 1T F& r .. I ` 1- '�; ” M.. , "+ �" 1 �++ ,y,. ' X .,16 f/'4'.t, •"`r�. ( 0�!`�,044i1: y74.6 4r'. �`''i!” w/U e-i :0_,F- A-E. 4,; 1 -6 e'4'"14' /' 11_'�i�(�y� I) r.Wr. w i� tr' ' q . "p.,<.J f�dufF��r i?t4 r, I Sw„G.,ww_ni...".^w,�•n..+�(h.M1 4ir' yw .,--4,--,,-1-, J' r l "*""*"'-'4"'""''' I 1 r Ff pJ 1r,w.r 4� 1�lll G. r*',,I, I ( ' 1 ‘-eiGN h0 - d.— .w-� - hS �*•4;y! "^" �».4. � „ ,lra,i:04 ,r . . [ - .ua.4»w. rk .� � .1..f� 1r;t. M 'I REP_ ,_ a, . I: ” fi ,'E �v w Q1..r e a r tC 1 . ,... „,,,. A60A-)6 r,,- - -11 /00/el-i-f-ER,ki ilsioutiuoil,„. . t-. ..2771E-, sAirE* - 6 t 1 1 i, 1l-L , , � ��"'0b''� '1f)r'*1�K'tk'li''7't w"'It''�'rS 7c•�I �'71'lk� � 1�l'l�f'1�'0�C 7� �'�'N��*�1 H P A �C T R A !,�� �; R9 1 '1' T A t_ Nti E iVl A .__._..w-,.....;,, ._... 'y� r.:P E ft4JIty w7 A 1) N OF DEPT: ma PAGES ti m /r r Y ,./- ...1______—,-, e , . ' / � , / �P ,, KEEP PINK COPY FOR YOUR t GU ..�� • C,n.�.�..;�__...r._ ' FAX,�; `* „1 I l�b�� 4 .. Post Thrnd ax transmfttal'memo 7671 CtiNAL 1 1 I {,Fly♦r .,,... 'T , r I e 4 -J .. It Y �� h I ` /I:1• 1`TI '4} ♦ I r /- . • ,\C, . I 40' . ' 1 t J' •f. `:. G 7l, �` J Iii . C - r 'Pi 11 i,II .1�'� 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. . 64 .f • 299�7 .R,1„�1►,..A...� i I CITYOF TIGWARL) TIGARD, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 OREGON ' I TO: .- FROM: , j(A) ( tiRi6M N3, 4 Sa,k)5 C.btar C666/0 6, _ rje:O , M( ' 'aa r,- / _y -- ''pu. rr T - J vcc 1161S07,- hL 101 'r , 177...".".:'' ,77-7": f i„ ^� C it r, �A 4, , c k,t ''', . ,, 1�. ! ' ; ;' �' w. .,,. , I Y I t �{ .I � . 7 i �Y � J , " ,ii/ , t ,+ , f ' ; , 4 . te f ` l l v. ,. � './3 6�5 e' [v�G pm / Y,: 7MM �'' , ',ir t. W/ . I'C �704US-t 7• . . ) w....,. , -,. ,,, l ,-.nir,,,+"rW --,,, , ,---• Ntw . ----- ),,-- -,-, 4--,-, ,---d+-�++ '. ''' ',,,:;-,.0 0,0,-/ ikEt5" '' '45-11t'4j,;) 'lb '''ge: Ro(-7. • 71.E 1-17-85 '211,,j1(, C", E. 0 .D 4411E5 0,i/eV '' '21/V `s'Ce " Me- / 1114 `G..4%L0!1')1 6 !')! 151 y I Y �' '� � � , 1 '.. To5 5 �,e6, r 11I,47,4 /0 it) 4. 0 • , �ucr�ra � �.r ' 12,1/0-ley' 1� 1181 /4kt # E-e /44e)8-,,, dp,4u)r>o o O F -fC-E ,, V'"W, !(446 (, &-f.4( / -.ww..+ -.W�.J,,.`r--wvw r 111 • M l . ,� (t/iri/ / 14)114 /', rci 4 ) e7e/fir PP - 1 LL dE ' '! + :,r..«+.+-'.n.,'.w+di,.."»:fer4.w.�w.r+::.,�i,..:....4:,....� ar.�.r.,J,.1.w:r.+w.r+..« .-, ...«w,.:..n...-6W •wp , .r pgjNor TO ' '' C+�(z/,?EN '',, (�a I I Tf��`1"'� '�rJU'v�7ilft'G 7"l ' ' 14)6174 t'li.'..::' '4 R(;..7(e 416 ' '. I 77416 '; aleYee,./A).,,,L. _-0-E_LALE',/ ' 1 ,;,Et.:::Z:5 1) 6'16222L1-1-,0 ' ✓. O ' I, - - ,/.,+yJ jy 1, L�� 1 r l `{r I err. ,i , (�I 'Y n, '.. 1 . -- •"'7i �+" 1 (.( jF ✓ a ,,, rn:.ui:+.r,.++�..,s,':.:1 fwt:.,'u""'..i; 4.,,.�*"."'''',a�'',.+"'""fA.,^,C"-"'-' 1! , ! i ,' „ �r, 11 I I ,rF 11 t•J . 1t' �, .S"it ..+�;q::...'?a I'/ ���,�.i r-+x�F'a:.,..a ) ' ,r'..,...u:...us,;:.,m �.., ,,, i..r, 7f, �. , Jlr,8 ,/J/� :idW4 4,,.. r'u' .,. \r,ae,i...,.:..,�.1iY�,..e4k L''. ��''' it 't ., I! - REPLY ( / clef./�=�� r 7, Lt / /� e/A/ i /-'i-1.� he (110 ; ktICr_ ! AAJ(�yJ, �y(1�/�If�//�,/'!�/�,/�/'/��.1}I� [/F'���((+�/1 ry, )/y /i ��..yyy��.ryryry /) ��+'1'�,�'{ {,�/�.�,+..M� q,�,wJ, . 6 TT-4e' VP 11 _' "ICJ, F •�"1 AJ a M�.I�+04 'r, / 12R�y, ,'//7/,7'g' rir./I^'^ ,.I' ., , • , , 6cox.) As ,o-651(31..E--- 4F--E_L2g...._2_E. ebdoektriedv.) 01, .. 77-<.,:e-&-- , /vi e� L / 1 o I I� ' 1 a -----•+rr,.,.Inc.....a.......:. ....:...:.w+...,,..,..1n...�..„.: w......,_..r+w.,_..... , `1""-�'- �.�\ �� Ct�iTC L ,'�V1'y. M..L)�G/„ly.,ruw„yii,J�Y .w,ww1Y111MWI1, LwN.AM�4 MY-i"M .' . EIP PINK COPY FOR YOUR .PECOAC� J W � ,�� PL8ASF RETURN E,11r��J �►��C1G1�N�#L COPY'WIT�1,'REPk!«Y�';fC � '� ORIGINAL Z • , . ., ' . . ■ • 4e.'44 .4 ;1. . PRUFTT , TREE SE ICE ' The Tree Care Company Divkion ol Oregon Tree Service Company • 5550 SW Rosewood s Lake Oswego s Oregon 97035 • • F e b ru a ry 28,, 1969 CE11-1 Companies • 4 0315 SE Stank Portland; OR 7216 • 5' Attn: Stephen Winstead AIA ) • RE: Proposed Development - SW 109th and SW Murdock - Tigard Dear Mr. Winstead: It is my opinion, based on our site visit of 2/17/8 , that many groups of trees and some individual specirnaris can be retained. This can be accomplished if extreme care is exercised during all phases of this , • .• development. My review with the clearing/logging contractor on site would indicate that they are willing to cooperate in any waij possible to minimize damage to the site during the clearing operation. The following . • 1-ecornrnendations, if followed, will further lessen the possibility of ' daniage to vegetation scheduled to be retained. 1, Groups of trees and individual trees to remain shall be protected by n temporary fencing, single strand wire on temporary posts cleat-lq marked With flagging tied to the Wire at five foot intervals so i$ to ts." be visible for some distance. 2. Felling of trees to be removed shall be onl into areas already clear • of major vegetation or into areas designated for clearing ie: road rights of wag, building sites etc. 3. Sidding of logs to loading areas shall be confined to designated roadwags and trees scheduled for retention ehall hot be used for log • • skidding pivot points, • 4. The Consulting At-borist shall conduct daily site visits to monitor the clearing operation and be aVailable when problems arise Which • , are not covered in daily site visits. ' , ..40?uu tre • 244-0840 41 635.3916 • 693.0088 mtmatti, NAtioN,41 BEAVERTON PORTIANO VANCOUVEit " T AREORIS , solving the entire NorthvveM, I 41Peointe Assocoolor4 - FA X4 635-1524 , , • 1'u 1.,— .pa.r...-.�}... ..i.4.... .Nf/',...E.I.I.. t,`� ."r r n. ♦r«, i.�.,..r�.... .xi....I a.u..�..v«,... _ J'w+..F« ....+...». , .nl «.,r,.wu .....NYe1.nV. ..r.�i..i4x.- . ...-.. ,..».d.»k.:.J..1..i.. vm--»«.. rF..Y. el.r�l.:..1.w-.1.L..+'.ek+.n.rl...11u.l.-...a. :4.v'.i�nni..a „+....A. .r. ra 1I 1 5. All site work shall be under the direction, inspection r approval of • , the Consultirig IArborist w "� r • 1 .r r� a This p� _ �irrlirlar 1 r �, ►►_►r t is based on the 7r��f�ar rrs ti►_►r� available ►�l_�r irl� this site visit and reflects only references to this information. Please contact m! if further information or clarification is required ,/ r 7 ru1 g 'y'or-s : i. PRIJETT TREE SERVICE ■ 1 • . Bob Mazany. ASCA ° 13 ' jt:; Consulting Arbaris 4 c, CC: City Of Tit are v 1 • w • c ■ 4r, rr Ir r rlr d+i Ir / fig I,' u . 1 � I' �r 0 I r1 T , S t • - «.,,,.— a«a,,.n. .........,.14..,-...,....0..... ............,,ie..t...._xm.u..,..ww..,.J,., t.tl..:.._.,i,—..,,r....,_..,..,-.-,.._._...,,.u. ........a,,..,,.,.,. u._.e,..,a i..«..".,,. ,.....w......,.,.....,.....,L.n .,._..»_.,....,..,.,..,.......,,._-1 4Sti:....—._..,....«..,.., n,,,,.,.....r.1,..,. ..a.a..,.wa.., . ._ � L f r r TIGA ,.x . RD PLANNING • � � NNx�TG COMMISSION �•,�, �, ' :� FINAL ORDER NO. 88 15 PCB`,� , A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION , . FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 88-04) , SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 88--17), AND y VARIANCE (V 88-27) REQUESTED BY SCHUETZ (CBH CO.). The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public , 1' ,, hearing on November 22, 1988. This review was prompted by an appeal of a i , Director's decision to approve the request subject to conditions. The li i Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and cone)ucions noted !' • below: A. FACTS I I • 1 . General Information 1 CASE: Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review ' SDR 88-17, Variance 88-27 REQUEST: Site Development Review and detailed Planned. Development 1 Review approval to construct a 130 unit apartment complex on 1 a 12.66 acre tree covered site. Also requested is ' r/ Variance from Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 which requires apartment complexes with greater then 100 : � dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. xhe J applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be served by one driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Mediutr, Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) (Planned Development overlay) j APPLICANT: CBU Co. OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuetz t ' 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Cloge • Canby, OR 97013 Red Deer, Alberte ,, LOCATION: Murdock side SW n1C1M t Avenue at the intersection 1i AcW }yA t ( T 1 10AD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTH 2S , '� Tax to 400 and 500) f' 2. Background. Information O d� �-' In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1-81), which included Tax Lots 400 and 500 of Map 251 10AC, to r ' all ow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units units per acre) with a recommendation that all development on th ee lots be brought before the Planning Commission as planned Unit developments (PUD) and PTNAL ORDER NO. 88- 15 PC PACE 1 r � N t r (ey ,4 • , ". / . . ._ . ) ill' , . , t , .••1 " , . 0 i- k.„, r- . . , ' ' i. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior I • ' (3 removing trees in preparation for development., The site plan i and landscaping plan designate an adequate number of trees to be retained in the area of development as directed by the City , Council. The plans also provide for appropriate measures to be , employed during construction in order to protect the trees to be , , 1 .#0., retained and the neighbors trees. Perimeter fencing and fencing around trees to be retained will be required to be installed prior to the issuance of site work pe,:mits for the development. ' 1 ) The site plan also provides for all trees in the western I ' one-third of the property to be retained except where necessary . to accommodate the proposed sewer. j. will l be satisfied . upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of , the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection' to the existing sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and . c., installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on SW 109th Avenue. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior I . . r, , to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for 'I- , the proposed development. ' E. DECISION T ; The Planning Commission approves the detailed plan for Planned t Development PO 88-04, Site Development Review 88-17, and Variance V 87-27 subject Lo the following conditions: , 4 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO , . T ' 4 THE ISSUANCE OF SITE WORK AND BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: KEITH 4 LIDEN, PLANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 4; GAR? ALFSON, ,., ' ENGINEERING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 5 THROUGH 11. • . . 1. A revised landscaping plan or addendum to the present pla shall be n submitted for Planning Director review and approval. The plan shall provide specific information on proposed perimeter buffering along the northern and eastern border of the site. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a 6 foot tall chain link fence and vegetative screening or 4 6 foot tall site Obscuring fence at t17e option of adjoining property owners. The fencing 8hall be installed prior to commencement of any site work, construction, or tree tutting. The revised landscaping plan shall also provide t r details on a minimum 4-foot tall fence enclosing the swimming pool ■ area I ., 1 ... . q. , 2. Pencing with a minimum height of eight (8) feetsh.q1 be intalled around the dripline of all trees proposed for retention priot to ■ , any construction on the site. The fencing shall be inspected and . . approved by the consulting arborist and Planning Division prior, to permit isstancg, Any later land cleating work within the driphnes • ,... I ' . , , 7 , . r.,TikrAT norwil NO, 884. 15 PC - PAC8 11 . , ■ 0 (, t t ! Ai...s,.:d..s,....w..u...d.xln.L., -a,FU...w•ma. -.- ,,..11.. • La k v.. , shall be performed by hand. A qualified arbor i. ;t shall inspect the ' site at a minimum of two times per week during construction to ensure that the tree preservation program outlined by David F. McConnell, dated October 31, 1988 (Exhibit "A") is ;follr'ved � �` � 3. A tree removal Permit shall be obtained prior to any tr ee remov al • issued .. foYb► , f"4 :..n ...«m .:);.h.J . . do the hat sermits wa.l�, not be �.ss site. Removal er YY . !t ..y•. - trJ .4 't 14����{ d s t 'e Z. trees • e an•s a• A.:, an. ! ,rs,•t a ti srt.. .r .tn,a.. , c.. . -t r :r r.<. 4. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for a minimum . , , of one hundred and thirty (130) covered parking spaces. 5. T h e single drivewa y connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic f, ,� report. 6. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement construction � plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate,e.., stamped by a I Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be . submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final plans. Said plans shall include installation of a 5-foot wide f ' . concrete sidewalk along the site' s SW 109th Avenue frontage. i 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has approved public 1 improvement plans. The section will require a 'WO% 'Performance ''_ ' '1l' Ausurance, or Letter of Commitment, the palyment of a permit, fee and ,. :, ) a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer ,engineer is , agreement. Also the execution of a street opening permit or � nt. Also,�r ,, construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or +' concurrently with the issuance of approved public it pi'ovement 'plat s. ' 41 . 8. The applicant shall for roof and parking lot to the public storimater drainage s ystem or a pp rove& on- si e sy stem designed to prever t increased runoff onto Pacifi c ic Hi�g h way{ ..w 9. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part 4,. of the Public Improvement plans, Calculations and a topographic , map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary seder service area shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement•plans. �' �. Calculations shall be based on f serviceable I u11,. development of the area. . 4 bra Oregon f Care • 10. �he� applicant�nt � shall obtain a � permit �� from �the � State c � g � �� - �. Highway bi�'ision, � to perform work within� the �right-of-way,: K�f� � � � , a' pacific Highway. A copy of the perms shall be provided to L►" d, city Engineering ngineering Office prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit, t 11. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking tot and k ' roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as f part of the public improvement plans. i . trINAL mmum NO. 88., 15 PC -- PAGE, 12 0 A4t , : , t . ....,.. •emu, , M 1 'J • i t l I i" ? ,,.... +,.,,,.,.a�.M,u,..„,,. .:. ,a..r.,.,a,»... i.......,.•N...,......,»....., - ry,sir d-.a.,.wWi-w.n-w..lr,.1..».1......k�lu.N^.w ,—.,..wµ..+..,.;Au,...,•..>a,.rd...w.+n•1iMLk'A.:....,, W�[]_... h • ' PRIOR, TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT. FOR ANY. NEW BUILDINGS ON THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. (STAFF CONTACT: KEITH LIDEN) ,. 12. All landscaping materials, permanent fencing, and other propost;rd' site improvements shall be installed as per the landscaping and site plans. 13. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.11.4 of the Community Development Code. xl THE APPROVAL SMALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. • , It is further ordered that th e applicant be notified of the entry of this final order. •q , PASSEb, This rA / day or , by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. , '' s A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Comtlission br/6765D • • . I • FINAL ORDER NO. 88- 15 PC PACE '13' :t, ' it t a a• •7 • a f1 d w • ' Y -* . , . _ . ,. r--- , . . ,, 1 . n- i (4 k.\ t . . 4,„, . 111*:mit, ‘ki\l'i I,' d • )it‘- �1 .., ‘ 76 ' , kePr 7 --,4 F: F 9 144 At\ 10? 1 ' 4k,11,..\\°,, ,ro ' MEMBER NATIONAL . `W., ARBORIST * r. , Off. = ., s • A55OC AT;ON' 10335 S.W. 85th Avenue • /7, • Portland, Oregon 97223-8806 • , r 244- , ' t"* 31st oF October 1989 ,:, CBH "Company ri • , 8315 South West Stark Street r; Portland, Oregon 9721.E ; i,� Attention: Card Nase 4 .. , Dear Sir, At your request I have reviewed the trees located at the '' 1 . • proposed building site on 109th Avenue . This visit was done to give a letter oF opinion , g' pir7ion as to the .trees present condition `,; and their chances For survival during and Following construction . S eciFil✓ali� I • was asked •iF it was possible to p y p . save no less than 130 oF the existing trees, and what criteria should be Followed to. 'accomplish this . In response to your questions I can report the Following: \ ,r. '' - 1 . The existing trees and Flora on this lot seem to be in ' generally good health . Aside from what appears to b minor storm damage, they seem to have no outward signs , oF disease or insect problems at this time . In my opinion you should be able to save no less the 1'30 y .. trees in question . ' 2. .would be my recommendation that no construction oF It wou ruct�on o , , any kind come closer than the dripline oF any trees ,I marked on the blueprint to retain . Moreover, a cyclone Fence or equivalent should be installed along I the dripline oF the trees to be saved, by ” professionals, on a semi- permanent basis , eight Feet f " . (8 ' ) in height, with no gate, well ahead oF any ;' ' construction The Fence should remain there until the construction i.) completely Finished, and the landscaping completed , IF in some instances you must I come closer to the tree than the dripline it would be ; \ prudent to have the Consulting Arborist oversee this " '' operation to give the trees the best chance at survival . This person should also inspect the 'Fences ' " as they 're installed to make sure the proper distances . r are observed at all times , „ xk, grecrr ''44.'' ' , 1 FrJ��'r!j 1. I - 1 t E A �. a dr ''‘,07,0 MEM9EJ4 NATIONAL ARBORIST . ,>P ASSOCIATION 10335 S.W. 85th Avenue . Portland, Oregon 97223-8806 • 244-8975 • CBI-( Company f 31st oF October 1908 .Page ;two } 3 . When the land-clearing segment oF this project begins , care must be taken not to compromise the Fenced oFF areas . It would be prudent to create a main road into the area to localize traFFic as much as possible. When it comes time to do the clearing within the dripline o the trees to be save~', it must be done by hand as to l not disturb the grade or compact the soil . I , Li. As with all construction there will be some • microenvironmental chI an g es with respect to sunlight, wind exposure, and general air movement, which will cause some stress on these trees . However , iF the distances above are observed and the trees are given proper pre-and-post construction su pervision by the Consulting Arborist and his advice r` is Followed, the prognosis should be very good. The construction work should be monitored by the Arborist and the post construction maintenance program set up by that person as well . .. I trust the above is suFFicient For your needs as a preliminary overview letter oF opinion with respect to the " """' subject trees . Please let me know IF you need Fut'ther inFormation relative I to this report , Thank you very much Yours For The Care OF Trees, 5' David F . McConnell , Arborist D F M/d i try I. I r. I , I�• t ' Y t :,a.,.tt.:«..,.,. .«:4i,...,.r~,. .. ...,.....N., ,.,a,...,. ..iti._......., i..«..-.,....L...........a.,,.,,.,., ,....,:.....14:-.4u,+—.:,,,._..,c.1,:...?,,..,.rr.,.-,M.....a,.,.,..r,..,—'..,2..4.4..,.......«.t..,r../fl... .,,,...,:..a....,+,,.i,.........L,..,.'.:,,,:I.v.:... ...........:4S,d.»_ .:. s;c�,...t;,-.....,....;—.,....'......i.v:. ...',,, , ' 1' ,,4 a iY.`►iiiiiii0 . !w 8315 S.E,STARK ST. , PORTLAND,OREGON 97216 PHONE 252.1478 ,, March 9, 1989 . M John D nnand ii '8260 S.W. hunziker Road r` , Tigard, Oregon, 9 7 22 3 Dear John r It was a pleasure to meet you and your family { y Y r famil on Mardh ' 1, ' 7r 1989. Our meeting centered on the type of fence, location of the property line and overall construction scheduling'. We . decided that a 6 foot chairs link fence would' be provided the ertire 1entheteen the pr operti .s The fence wou d hav e a ' ,barbed finish at the top link. We also agreed to'I as soon as the area. was logged that the fence' would be erected. Jerry Offer, City Planner said that we would need to ha ve thi s in ' before vine started our foundations • Once the trees that are scheduled.' for removal along the �, north property line, the actual staking of the property ''would ' . be more visible. We agreed at our meeting to ' take specific t, / care in the location of th'e fence posts. The hope ' is to try f ro.pert l ine,. f- , to avoid trees that happen to be right.' on the p � Y �, Last1 , we appreciate your sensitivity to our y . ', construction schedule. The original Planning Commission , ', conch bons stated that we had to erect the fence prior to any Work on the site. We agreed that you would allow us' to begin ! to log prior to the fence being erected. We will attempt to , log that portion closest to your property first so the fence.. \ •• Would be erected as soot aS possible, r If you have any questions or concerns please give me a ' pall . Craig Haskell', our superintendent, will be ' giving, you pY his project phone number as soon as we're Set up on the site. ' Thanks again for your cooperation. ' , �' g ' • „tea n. i Sincerely, r° 4; . /.2 , , „ ,01‹; ,,,,, . . , , ,*"..„----) ' . ( ' ' ' � f ?,,'s•J it '„ ' 1 r1,14,1-' t , -- , , , , ,l I J nc L 'wV � •� a�V f fl,:tit,,,' '. Y , J � 1[ , , 4,,.,,,,b, (,,,,,,,1 e 1,,k,,),,,, YL 'f I r o� i tr 1 r u Copy' tt '; jerry' offer � t, a ''" ��, � r 4;cv V • • . • ■ • Ord(I 8,2 Final Ord - Site Development Review, DR 88-17, Planned, Development ,* PD 88-04, Variance V 88-27 Schuetz (CBH/Tod I DoKanter) IMP° #6 - Resolution No. 88-101 8,3 74th Avenue Development Policy - Resolution No. 88-102 4 11 After discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to amend the resolution as proposed in Agenda item 8.2. William A. Monahan, Attorney at Law, submitted a written request .., dated October 24, 1988, to modify the condition to require submittal of " a detailed plan to the Planning Commission. He proposed that • ' Section 1, Item 1 be deleted and the following wording be inserted: 1. A grading plan for the developed portion of the site. Cross ' slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately percent, where possible. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote of Council present. 0 Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve - the Consent Agenda, The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. , 9 PUBLIC HrARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 88-63 ZONE CHANGE , ZC 88-09 TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 233 NPO # 6 • e .' Request for a Plan amendment from Institutional to Meclium Density t, • Residential and a zone amendment from R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 unit8/aore) to R-12 (Residenttal, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres, Location: Between Tigard High School and Cook Park, east of • 92nd Avenue (WCTM 2S1 14A, tax lot 100) . • S. a. Public Hearing Opened b. There were 110 declarations or challenges, c, Summation by Senior Planner Liden: On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewod a proposal to amend the ' Comprehensive Plan Map from Public institution to Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-4,5 (Residential, 4,5 * units/acre) to 1-12 ( esidential, 12 units/acre) for approximately 4 acres located south of Tigard High School, The Commission concurred with the staff's recommendation on the - proposal and also recommandod approval, d Public Tottiffiony - there was hone, o, Recommoodation by Community •Development staff: Approve the Si proposed amendment as r(commehded by both the Planning ComMission S. and staff and adopt the staff report as findings supporting the approval, f. Public Hearing Closed Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTLS - OCTOBER 24, 188 • , • . ' 1 .4° ° S r 0 • " • . ,,,...• .+ . ,w. oµ ;,1._.,,....... ..„,.i.-...k.-«..a.:..««.:.t,-.....»i...ti......ww.,..A.. ,.....,•..,,,i,i..,.aL1.M,.ti...l,,....i.... . ' MEETING WAS RECESSED Flr ,,.37 PM. ,a„ lr ' `, `y' MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:50 P'` r: x APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING� - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IE� 5DR R��1 7 P L AN NED ,ti DEVELOPMENT PD 80-04 VARYANCi: 88-27 SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANTER) NPO #6 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions fora request of 'a 1:30 unit apartment complex on 12,66 acres zoned R--12 (PD) (Medium ' Density Residential, 12 unit;/acre, Planned Development) Also, for a Variance to City regulations that require three (3) access points on 4 Ct. development of over 100 units to allow orie access drive, Location: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTr; 2S1. 10 AD, Lot 3 ., 8802 and 281 10 AC, Lots 400 and 500) . • a. Public Hearing was s opened, �` , that his la �r challenges, Legal Counsel advised w 'one �. C b� Declarations }'.F firm had represtrited the applicant i,n other jurisdictions Ho i ' advised this would not create a conflict of interest. c. Summation by Senior Planner Liden:: On September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission appr:ved a proposed apartment complex located i ,, on 109th Avenue south of Canterbury Lane The applicant appealed , { the 'decision because of Imposed conditions of approval, y:• The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development. The property, as zoned, • would be permitted a maximum of 152 units r.�- 130 units were I proposed. n f The Applicant also requested a' variance to allow one driveway ' q where two driveways wore required by Section 19;1.08,070 of the ! ' Code. Based upon the way this section is worded, one poul.d II;4 - ., conclude that two or three driveways U" uld be necessary, ' TYa • staff interpreted the Code to rqui e two driveways tt development of this size. The Commission approved the variance for one driveway but limited the development to 100 units. Concerns were expressed regarding access,, buffering for adjacent properties, and preserving trees c"rn the site and abutting cr' idte parcels. Staff reed with the Commission that these issues i' should be adequately addressed; however, staff did not view, a , -- reduction ir6 density as ari appropriate method for dealing with i . the conker ns, It appeGar✓ed that the problems which surfaced at 1 . the Commission hearing could be dealt with in other wads, such at f requiring two dr veway fl of =ar er' it i involvement s r i c in ( • the site design; tocxt xcatior of th e location and orientation of `I , the apartment bu:il:dtncjs; and determination of the methods of 1 : buffering to be s,ssed, 44, %; 8oriior Planner Lideh noted the steps fora Planned beve,lppmer►tr, 1 ) A conceptual plan submitted and, if approved 1 d:4. 2 A d�tai detailed plan submitted, i ' Pace 7 COUNCIL. MXNUThS — OC'TOW R 10, 1908 I • - ,fir , ••. ,...• ',. ,•.•. .•. .•.. « .. .••. „...• .,.. , ,... ....,.,.Y a ,1• • n q Senior Pla0 er Liden noted that a letter =►tdd been received and submitted to Council from SimmCo Properties Inc. (Michael McKenna, • President). This letter noted concerns about traffic implications n • for Canterbury Heights and Panorama West Apartments, i • d, Public Testimony PpcOPO NTS (Appellants) • o Bill Monahan, 12290 SW Main, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, introduced Carl flaw of Ct3H Company, Jae Percival of Murase Associates, Gary f . Katsion of Kittleson & Associates, Brad Schleining of W.B.1 Wells, , disclosed that he i : and Roger� Rauch of Rauch piestral<, Mr. Monahan �liscko h was legal counsel for the applicant and that he had formerly been l the Director of Community Development for the City of Tigard, 1 • Mr, Monahan advised that he had sent notification to the. Acting City Administrator concerning his representation of CBHi the City's Legal Counsel gave consent to Mr. Monahan's representation of CSH, Mr. Monahan advised the issue before Council was an appeal of a Planning Commission decision after a "hearing on Septembers 6th when CBH applied for 130—unit apartments in the little Bull Mountain' f • area off of 109th. The Planning Commission approved the application but limited the development to 100 units and one access to the site. The one access was .a variance request. The j decision was being appealed for the following reasons: } j 1. The applicants were requesting 120 units which was less • than what the :allowable number for the present R-12 zoning with a It Overlay. . ? The Planning Commission did not ash; whether the applicant • '1 • would be willing to supply two access points if 130 units would be allowed 8, The fencing and bufferinc.1 requirements placed on the site • were far in excess of the standards of the Community Development Code, 4. The condition that the detailed plan, landscape plan, and the tree preservation plan be resubmitted' to the Planning ► Commission was an excessive step which would delay the I. 1 project and be detrimental to the applicant, Mr, Monahan reviewed the proposal with the following point,,,,, highlighted i. o The project consisted of 180 units (29 residential structures) on 12.6 acres of land on Bull Mountain. He referred to a plan f on display which had also been submitted to the Planning C,Ailriission, Approximately 4-1/4 acres of the site would be } left in its natural state, The choice in building type had `; p been made to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as ► • possible uw Page S M•- COUNCIL MXNU 11S * OCTbp9ER 10, 100 .c r . . , ' . .e . ....., .. ,., , a., ,aa I , a ...al. a.sa. ,a.... . , —a,. a. ...— ,- .....—....— ,- e ' . o The pra*L.sal complied with all City reqeeeremeni.:s for the type , ' . . of use. :, ,.. . Carl Nase, CBH Company, 8315 S.E. Stark, Portland, Oregon 97216, - e displayed pictures for Council review of another project which he , , H said illustrated the type of building and landscaping proposed. " He advised that measures had been taken to save as many trees , possible. Rental projections per unit were estimated to be about k, $500/month. Roger Rauch, 4800 S,W, Macadam, Portland, Oregon, advised that his , e. firm was a comMercial real nstate brokerage, He testified that • ' CBH companies were known for their quality developments, , , Joe Percival, Murase Associates (landscape architects & planners), 1300 N.W. Northrup, Portland, Oregon, advised that the existing ' , trees were a valuable asset for their project. Over 100 trees had ' " - been identified to remaiw, however, it would not be known until . , the final stages of the grading plan exactly which trees could be . preserved, Whore trees canhot be saved (because of roadway and ,, . . building construction) replacement trees would be planted, He . outlined where the existing forest would be pr v esered, I , ' Mr. Monahan referred to an aerial photo on display, The actual • ,' , non-buildable acreage consisted of 1 ,2 acres, He believed the _ 0 Planning Commission erroneouely aesumed the applicant had asked .• for a density transfer from non-buildable land. Mr. Monahan recounted the zoning history. Prior to 1081, there .. e wo wre t zones in this areal R an -4 d R-3 . In 1981, several property owners successfully petitioned the City to change the . ' zoning to A-12 with a PD overlay, When the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1988, the land was made R-4,5 (again with a PO . overlay) , Last year, after the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan , . . . application, the Council approved a density transfer which rezoned . the site to R.-12. The Council added the condition that they would • ., • review any Planned Development in this area. The Comprehensive Plan identified this area as a Goal 5 Resource r ,;„, for its scenic views. The Plan speaks of preserving as much of , . , . r the treed area ae possible and Mr. Monahan reviewed how the , developer would meet this Goal, . Mr. Monahan advised that the Planned Bevolopment process was in the Code to allow flexibility for a developer to make the best use of a piece of land working with the natural landscape, The adjacent properties to the north, south, and east were all zoned R-12, Ho reviewed the nature of eh o the adjacent properties, . .. ' , , . Mr, Monahan advised the applicant had appled for 10,8 Units por , , . . acre (130 Units) , Deducting the 1 ,32 hOh—bUildabl0 acres, and hot asking for a density transfer, the actual density on the buildable land comes to 11,84 units per acre. The appiicant was asking for , • 1 . ' a clustering of buildings, which would make optimum use of the site in tA Planned DeVOlOPM0ht (Pa) concept, The Plahhihg Commission deliberated at length and voted three times, Prior to ' . ,. .. , Page 9 ... COUNCIL MXUTE OCTOBER 10) 1988 : 4 . , . '• , '' i ' . . . . , . Y .7--.....:'•,. ._4...„•. ...e.,..... ._.,...._..,...........,_ ..a- ..,,,n,a. _ r............+„ ._, .,......_- .....«,>.w.....x a:, .-.......u»........i,_,«......,.._a-u.._..t.._»,..L.,....•..a.,r..»..,.4...,.a..._.I,,.L,...�«.,_,, -tu�l,.l...'A"m.M..«......,....•o .,..«i................... „.i k.'a..,..!..h,. ....,.......,,.,...».,.........f.-. f • f, the final vL , the Chairman made a staterri°ter t that he felt that the property could best bear 100 units with one access. The , Planning Commission Chair had advised that he felt this was a t unique parcel which should be given special consideration, owl motion was then made to approve the application with 100 units,' because; there were too many buildings on the space which was • available to build them. Mr. Monahan advised. that it appeared ' from the meeting transcript (.page 55) that there was a miscommunication that there was a request from the applicant to build with a density transfer from non--buildable land. j : Mr°. Mortahan alleged that allowing only 100 units on this site violated the density allowance' for an 'R-12 zone and the PD section of the Code. He said it was also a violation of the intent'of, the .'„' Comprehensive Plan in this? SEE section. ` . • With regard to the access requirement, Mr. Monahan advised the applicant would be willing to put in two access points if deemed necessary for 130 units. The applicant had not been green' the • opportunity to o advisc Planning Commission of this. Gary Katsion from 1<ittleson & Associates, Inc„ 512 S,W, Broadway, r Portland, OR 97204 testified his firm prepared the traffic impact analysis at the site at the request of the developer, One access f, drive would work well in the area because the traffic on 109th 'was i' --r -, small. The site would be expected to 'generate approximately 90 t new trips during the p,m, peak with about 300 new trips throughout ' the day, With the development, 109th would be carrying' between 1,500 and 2,000 trips per day. He said the most ideal site for r the access would be across from Murdock Street: because it would have good sight distance in both directions and the number of I conflict; points would be limited. . Mr. Rats ion reported that the Oregon Department of Transportation 4 , ' (0D01) reviewed the traffic' report. 000"1 did not see any } . significant impacts cheated by thr.s project. Sri fact, ODOT • mentioned that the intersection would be si'pna1i 'ed some time next ".7 � ". year, Mr, Katsion outlined the following conclusions: N , One access would work well from a traffic capacity ` standpoint The 30 foot width which was recommended Would allow, if" —. anyone was stalled, space to get, around' with emergency f vehicles, . w. Options at this itch for a second access` Would be . limited. There wa.l, just under 250 feet of frontage Oh 100th and the most logical place to put a seta G�n a, c�" r r s would be as far to the nerth as possible. Another second access option would be on Pacific Highway; howover, it ;! would be highly unlikely that ODOT would allow a second access on Pacific Highway when there was another option available,'' — over 900 adriiti.ohal cars could be 'added to the intersection without affecting capacity, a +a A • Page 10 — COUNCIL l �x�UTw — OCT7��FlC 1988 • ^ .._.�_.....,.......,.... �..__-.4 _ .___... .. ..,m .,_...... ..,,..»._.. ..,....y._._,. .r.,„_....,.,-_.i..•...:,i..»_.. _.,,,,._..._,..a. ,.,,, u:.,........._.a,.._.c...:,n,..m...w.,.....,._..s_....,.�.w....»...,.,..,.. k......�..,,......,a-.,.,,.»m.... :s•,V• , f,, , • �� "Tore was discussion on street width and traffic patterns, • Mr. Monahan advised that even though the Planning Commission recommended that one access point be restricted to one hundred a, units, the staff report was in favor of a variance for one access' point for the 180 units. Mr. Monahan noted a major items of discussion at the Planning • Commission was the fencing and planting concerns, The Planning " :.. Commission made i R a condition with which the applicant took issue, .� • This condition stated: "Additional perimeter buffering along all . but the western border of the site, Said perimeter bufferin shall consist of a six—foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a six—foot site obscuring fence at the option`of the ; adjoining property owners," The buffer matrix did not call for a • six-foot fence for 2,300 feet around , . : h r d tht� periphery c f an � 12 p p y 1, �;; multi—family development against other R-12 developable properties. Mr. Monahan noted that the Planning Commission required that 'three plans come back to them for review (i,e, , detailed, site plan, ' landscape plan and tree preservation plan). Ho requested the . ' plans ,, reviewed and approved administratively by staff in order to save time {;�• M . Monahan recapped the points of the appeal as follows: • o 130 units would be allowed within the existing zoning; . " ' 0 With 130 units, either one access could be allowed because the variance criteria had been mot or a suitable second access should be determined, Xf a second access location was deemed ' • necessary, then the two -plea would be moved', o The tree preservation plan should be submitted at the time the final grading plan was prepared. o The fencing and buffering condition should be modified, ,' o The final decision on the plans should be made by administrative action and not sent: back to the Planning • Commission. . tisct ssion on process followed. Legal CoUnsol responded to a question { posed by the Mayor with regard to whether the Planning Cotrrtnission had 'z the right and authority to limit the number of units, Legal Counsel 1, ., advised that it appeared the Plannirtc Corinission, as a condition of the variance, limited tho units to 100. This would place a large burden Oh the City, if they were to adopt; the Planning Commission's basis for limiting the number Of units to 100, t ' be sure there was evidence in the record that the Planning Commission's concerns could only be tnet by reduction in Uni tS, Lengthy discussion followed concerning the density issue and the intent of the Code which designated the area as a Rt overlay, Brad Bchlt i,ning, Engineer with W,h, Webs & Associates, 4230 icy_ F► emont, Portland, OR 9721 noted that more trees would removed in 4,"" single family developments than In multiple family developments, } ■ Page 11 COUNC.fl. MXNUTS OCTOt,r.1 10, 1588 • , .. ..,.. .ra,.. a.......... ... .u._.,,., .....,,.._ ,,,....,.,.... .,..,.�,._....,,•..,,,,,....... ._,...�.. ._.,..,...M-,,. .,.,r...,i,..,a:{..,.. ..„...._,,,.M,...,,. .. ..... ._.,...,,w.a_..w.,..,,.,,. ,�..1 ,... ., .......� ..,....,,w,,, ....,.,......,.._ ^' , 1; Opponents: � � k,. ' II o Ray Hammerly, 14807 S.W, 109th, Tigard, Oregon 'advised he was an „ , adjacent property owner. He had attended the Planning Commission . meeting' and believed that the primary concern was not the 130 units, but with only one entrance to that many units. Mayor discussed with Mr. Hammerly the alignmen't of the entrance at Murdock street off of 109th, Mr. Hamrnerly advised that a squared intersection which would also be a four-way stop would not be , , inadvisable, ' Mayor noted' that two accesses onto 109th to the site may not be j beneficial, If the single access was aligned with Murdock, them �� . . people traveling on 109th would need' to only be concerned with one intersection" rather than two. . Mr, Hammerly was concerned with emergency vehicle access with a single entrance, , With r'egar'd to fencing, Mr, Hammerly advised he was satisfied with � ,. the applicant's roposai as to which areas would be fenced coupled r fp proposal with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the ' fencing be at the adjoining property owner's' discretion; 0 Edna Annarrc , 14600 S.W, Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, testified j : - •'. she was speaking on behalf of Jack and Katherine Aire Annartd who owned adjacent prloraerty, Mrs, Armand distributed to Council a map highlighting the area owned by Mr, and Mrs, Jack Jack Annarrd, She . advised that the property owners would like to be treated a$ 'a t,' single family residence since this had been a single-family' residence for 50 years, She noted that the zoning j head changed several t:Lrds CA ' the years, „ , Mrs, Armand advised that t hey would like the developer to install • • a six-foot high chain link fence from 109th to the bluff~ and that she would ,prefer at least 20-fort setbacks e, Council Comments/Questions, Council discussed the following . issues: o Differences in requirements between R-12 and single family :' ..4. . eitor Pliny}er Li!ten noted diff�el�&.noes zn s ;,P �ckl ruirleti�ets� if tee ahuttg property weorledned singe fahrx .y, the stk�aa: requ r r tents wou d he' O feet. (Mr 1 I. 1onah�&rf t�mtncented �ti.hat the Armand house was actua1iy ore a lot ), . 50 feet: fr1+gym the apps icant+s pr p r' y Brie w 5 Tate aetY�+ ►c4< i� quiremet is between two C�-�.i2 ; or es properties would be ; feet, o A tree protection platy -- Staff and Council members noted i t u early process to determine specific trees which �. would use saved, but pr�c,cedure could he �outlined''� wherein the p`� • optimum number of trees would be preserved once th . . development lorrelt was to that point, 1. age 12 COUNCIL MINUTES 0CT0SER 10, 100 m Y d'� r , b��ti y� „, n 1 r i II .. ,w ..r..1.. «... .J...r,A+.u...,.+......-„,. .. ,.....,a,.-.....n.,.....a._J.,t..•...«,..,....r....J...r.._.r.....•..s..i.....,.....-. ....._...r•.. .»,. .r.,Sit:i.r.._a«.».........rv....,..-n•«...,-ti,J..e..G..,.. 1 • • o One ac . s versus two —••••. Sr,. Planner ..,•:a•Lden advised that an emergency access would not be as good as providing two •. • 4... driveways, Emergency accesses 'tend to get filled with other • types of barriers, City Engineer rioted that a second driveway, after reviewing • • :•e.° the traffic study, was not necessary from a capacity standpoint, The single access should either line up with C Murdock Street or be offset substantially from the Murdock °. . intersection, Discussion followed on two accesses with it being noted that ' • the Fire Department had been notified, Their response was : • that they would prefer two accesses; however, they did not j • t. require two accesses, - ! „t More discussion on the access question followed, Mayor noted that a 30—foot wide driveway would probably be adequate even if there were an accident at the interse ;tion. f. Rebuttal Comments — Appellant . m Mr. Monahan noted' he had talked to Mr. Gene Burchi 11 of the Fire Department who advised that they would always prefer two accesses, but one access at this site would be acceptable, Mr. Monahan noted 225 parking spaces were proposed; 195 were ! • required: "Thus, if there should be a problem with grade, there was flexibility to deal with this. I w. f, Public Hearing Closed. g, Community Development Director summarized the staff recommendation (see memorandum from Sr. planner Liden dated October 3, 198$) , He • advised the issue before CoUncil was the policy determination; j; Was the Planning Commission correct in limiting the number of f ' A units to 100? �• • Cotrmunity Development Director stated, in his judgment, the Planning Comriii8sion erred -w they did not have the authority to limit the number of units, The development should be allowed to go forward at the 190 units which was less than what the zone allowed. To do otherwise would result in downzoning of the , property. � Community D evelopment Director advised that if Council agreed with the Planning Commission, Couneil action would consist of : simply upholding, t ion.• disagreed with n _ • C Ong i�hte�.r dews If �,out�cxl .,lr"eec.! wit �l.a rtxp.l . •, : • 4., r Commission, Council should review the conditions of approval and '; '•"r selectively modify or remand the proposal to Planning Commission, j He suggested an option would be for Council to advise the Planning a Commission concerning guidelines and' policies and ask th.. Planning Commission to work out the details • Pt ge 13 — COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 10033 .� •r i r .K � I _„..., i .,,....,.C..n ... ..._..,J.,, , _...,,_,..,w�.., ., ...>,.., r • ..:.,_ ,,...». ., .-....:.�3,..._...,...u._. .._...t,-,.....,•...,.,"U ..»..,,.,..;.-it«.«...,.... .:,., ,+M..,.......,...U,..., ,.:-.w,..,,:„xi..,.nom,...-,.,..".... ,-..a r u .. Community Dt ;:�1cpritentt Director outlined the .su'�s: �. • 1. Should the proposal go back to the Planning Commission as { suggested by the Planning Commission? 2. With regard to the 'I fencing' requirements, Community Development Director advised that the Planning Commission probably overextended by requiring that the entire site be fenced. y � , , , 0 , Should t7eI number of units allowed be conditional wit h the number of driveways put in? Community Deveiopment Director . advised that when reading the final conditions of the Planning Commission, he did not see that tie even though it „. was part of the discussion, Planning Commission did agree on the variance and said one driveway would be adequate, and he also agreed that one driveway was adequate for the site. I I I I Community Development Director r ecomnendu d i I I I Deletion of the 100-unit restriction, Addition of a standard on trees; that is, specify definite direction} Modification of timing of the landscaping details was not recommended (,1 The steep slope provision at specified J y the PI rri t g Commission should remain with the guideline, "not to exceed Final review of the details should be done by the Planning Commission, h. Applicant Comments Mr, Monahan toted concern about timing if Council should decide that this pro rosal must be reviewed by Planning Commission. He advised that five out of nine Planning Commission members were present at that hearing, The applicant would have to take the , time to educate 'those Planning, Commissioners who had not reviewed , Y the a p p lication the first time, Then, after this the Council r would still require alreviewi n I I 1 I I 1 I I Council deliberation: Council reviewed the following issues: ,/ 0 Should' this be referred back' to the Planning Commission. Cohsertsus war,l yes - but an (automatic second review by Council y y would not be required Council would retain the option to • pull up for review on their authority, Page 14 — COUNCIL MI UTS bCTOB R 10, "1000 • ' I ', i it 1 1. 1 • 1 I .}r • - . ±rJ r i � w. • . I' x l .l r .•. ' d .'�' I rn r r .r. ., Yr •4 Y n � • O A fencJk,,_ould be required along the nor Ager1y border (adjacent to Annand`s property) from 109th back to the bluff (drop—off) . The fence next to the townhouses would go all the way to 109th, The requirement fora southerly fence would be r' eliminated. . o One access driveway was acceptable, Consensus, after discussion, was that a 30—foot driveway width, as proposed; '. •• r 2. was acceptable. o 130 unity, as proposed, was acceptable providing there was guarantee there would be no future s ubd i v i serf and additional r •• units, In response to discussion and questions by Council, • Mr. Monahan advised that the developer would' be willing to. . . indicate that the 4-1/2 acres to the west would not be' developod within this plan, Part of the plan would be that those acres would remain in their natural condition and they • b' would not request additional transfer of units from those acres • Legal Counsel advised he could work with staff to' create language which would limit further development of the parcel. Two representatives of the Planning Commission discussed with Council the advisability of sending this application hack to the Planning Commission. Community, leveloprcrtt Director . reminded Council that there were details not on the site plan that the Planning Commission specifically advised they would r, . r like to review (i.e, grading at no more than 6%, plus a " detailed tree protection plan) , Tree Protection Plan .- After discussion, it was determined that in the portion of the property slated for development, at least 130 trees, 6" in caliper or over, should not be damaged r or removed, Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor E:adon, to sustain the appeal with the following noted: Changes to the Planning Commission Final Order No, 80.10 PC as follows: Page 10, Section 0, DeciSX0h, 8t The fencing and buffering perimeter language should reflect that fencing would be required on the northerly property from SW, 1O9th to the , bluff (the sharp drop—off), and fr''om 1O9t ► behind the townhouse property, •, Page 10, D+ becision 4 3)"has a maximum " would be changed to "has a Maximum imum of 130 units." Page 11, 0, Decision, 5) — Planning Commission to 'review a tree protection plan which would provide that every effort would be made to save at least 1301 'trees (as a guideline) Ors the developed area of the lot, Further, the following wording ' change would be inserted: , l gage ��� — COUNCIL 1 . M��U S . OCTOfL$ 10, 10 �Q� • „„, o..... ..,....,.,. ,. .,,. ,,. ,,. r • • • , -..,+., ✓....•_,... «.:............ .. .:....,. .`,. .-. ..I ...,'... - . .. ........a..,, ,.».,....•.... ...,..•,..-, .. „...,.........N.. ..,n..«............,,1... +, l t. ,._.,.a......a.,w ..,n)«.,.. x«.w•a,. .«.+ .. «.n.w w .. 1«4 :•a Change from �- 4 "The Commission directs that the arborist use extreme caution in the protection of abutting property owner's trees. " to "The Commission directs that the arborist 8ha111protect the ,q.. abutting property owner's trees," Council would waive their automatic review of the plan, subject to appeal or call up for review by Council. • Motion passed by a uni:animous vote of Council present. 4,, , 9, 74TH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY DISCUSSION Tabled to the October 17, 1988 Council tweeting. 10, NO PARKING DESIGNATION -- SPRUCE STREET a. City Engineer summarized this item, Staff had received requests from several citizens for parking to be prohibited next; to the Spruce Strut entrance to the Fred Meyer store, The manager r of the Fred Meyer store indicated support for a "no parking" zone near the driveway entrance, Substantial replacement parking was 4i available along the Spruce Street frontage of Fred d Meyer and ina the Fred Meyer parking lot. City Engineer recommended that parking be prohibited within 100 feet of the driveway veway centerline. • b, ORDINANCE NO, 88-80 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C, 1 O 2 8.180, • .. PRO1..II8ITING PAR RING ON A PORTION or uW SPRUCE STREET AND FIXING A Err'EC1 EVE DATE. 11, • , Motion by CoUncilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, ! to adopt Ordinance Nor 08-30, Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present 10 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 88-26 - POLICE DOG a, Chief of Police submitted to Council in their meeting packet a, proposed ordinance which would clarify the effective date with • regard to Ordinance No, 88-26, > I b, ORDINANCE NO, 88-82 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 08-26, CLARIFYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHEN IT IS UNLAWFUL TO TAMPER WITH 'I ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN, ; EMERGENCY c, Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor 'ohnson,' to adopt Ordinance No. 88-9 Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council presentl, .,.. pp page 16 - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10; 1588 ;. t t 4j REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • TO: DATE: l . FROM Tigard Planning Department '��1' ''J �L.A 'Fs=t .,�I /14// � , AriAE.1J .,S, RE: Pp 88-04/ V 88-27 DEFAMER (SCHUETL) For a planned development approval of 130 -apartment comp ex on, . acres zon-. R- PD Me• um .e, nu.ty residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to ,, 4 ~ City E uiations 1iG equire access poin s on .eve opi'"aTot over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue•and ' S' Pack A x Ay 1'1�` PTO W"TECTES• an. •A o 4 I 11 Attached �t, your review. Frloan ttackaed is the Site Plan ��d applicant's stake. erat for yo information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation .ill be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. li' you wish t__oJJ Comm L t on this application, we need your comments • by kAAL / , 19 88 . You may use the space provided 1, below or attach a .separate letter to return you r : s t above date, please 'phone the staff contact noted below with - l • Your comments, and confirm your comments in writing as soon as :possible. �'�ti you have any questions regarding this maLtcr, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 9/223. Phone: ' 639-4171. F tDvC76 .. i.. . ;, ' STAFF CONTACT: •' 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. f ' Written Comments: ,r • met' . , - naCk. 0,7144,0E- • r � � � ..� � .._.. � � � � � mow.., � � � ;,, � � �4�� T Name of Person Comment ho 410. ;Phone No. ' 1"t/.y4 • . • ' i' .. .CIS' �'' .• f w. .. .. - "�. to... , f4 , yL,„_ii.. a ■ ' i • 5.3 Pie NNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDI €38-17, . VARIANCE V 88-27 SC I(IETZ (DECANTER/Cam) NPO # 6 • A Est to construct a 130 units apartment complex on a 12.66 acs tree covered site. Also, a Variance to allow the development to served by one access. ZONING: R-12 (Residential 12 units/acre) ', , TnCATIC ; SW 109th and Murdock., (WC,IT4 2S1 10AD, 8802; WENN 2S1 10AC, 400 and 500). Senior Planner Liden reviewed the history of the p mposal and City ` ° ' Council's directives fe : the proposal, Discussion followed .rd what was being debated. 0 • Bill Monahan, Attaonr, 12 290 SW Main Street, representing 9 ' reviewed wit, had been Wised with City Council and that the .°.' applicant is doing to preserve the i s. He requested that condition ' number 12 of the staff report be changed to require construction of sides prior to occupancy. • '' Senior Plater Liden suggested incorporating condition amber 12 into i • I' condition number 7, 'as the intent is to assure that zanies would l d be i ; .. .• available for construction of the sidewalk. 0 Brad Schieln.:ing, P,.E., W. D. Well s, reviewed the changes made to the ; development, since the previous proposal. I' o Steve Shapiro, -landscape Arch. Vase Assoc a, reviewed the landscaping .c? 1, plan and the location of the trees in relationship to construction grading. Discussion followed. s'. d Mr. Manahan 1'eviewed er ing cbr:ern4 and requested t3at the fence be constructed after permits have peen received but prior to grading. • ` Discussion followed r,{ the tine frame. ! y o Dave IvIcC,onnel, Ar iri•st, :lt iithqalker Thee Care, reviewed 1, t:he report he had submitted. Discussion follamed regarding the report. ' it, o Discussion followed 1. gar h h time the Abarast should on i, the site, carports, and drainage. y SIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commissions was that this proposal was preferable over . A' the previous pmoposa . Discussion followed regarding ng cc nditions of 4..A . , approval. , ' \ I * Commissioner E� moved 8 C sioner .sett seconded to approve �nt P i 88-17 �1at�ed. �velca 93� ! 1DeEr'el'��t �i ark " �',• Variance V 87-27 deleting condition iii •r 12 of the st f report +, Conditions 1, 2, and 6 of the staff teport as follow;,: ', ri' 22, 1° i • ��A �� C�78���C�` :1fJ2'F.� •- �' ,:���..• - 988 ::. P,X4E 3 o * S0.7 : ' , , i . I H i I 'Oi 0,7;1 . ' " • - : . y / ..' . I , • , I r''.^ .:4 „-_ T''..H U . 1' �. '., p LI E T 1- .1^ P.E E -_• E P. ��. I C E I H r.. F.a�. 0' `,.. 1',"\ F r .. . ., , 4 T R: E S E R V 1 C E 1 ‘2'... . •. . .. „ The Tr - ,.„ ,., Dlvislort of Graf;an Tree SG,rvlte C mpatiy 5;�►0 SW Rosewood * Lame Oswego G Oregon 97035 t': a February 28, 1989 . m C81-1 Companies , ,F 83 i5 SE Stark Portland,. OR 9 218 ..e Attn: Stephen Winstead M RE, Proposed Development - SW 109th and SW Murdock - Tigard • Deg,- :1r, Winstead; I t is my opinion, based on +fur site visit of 2/17/89, that many group of • • tees and sonic individual specinans can be retained. This can be 1 , accomplished if extrenile care is exercised during all phases of this development. My review with the clearing/logging contractor on site ;I. would indicate that they are willing to cooperate in any wig possito,e to • minimize dki atge to the site during the clearing operation. The following recommendations, if folloviedol will further lessen the poseibility of I: . darnage to vegetation scheduled to be retained, ^ , - 1 . Grroues of trees and individual trees to remain shall be protected to e. .. temporary fencing, single stl'and wire on ternpordr y posts clearly ., marked with flagging tied to the wire at tive foot intervals so as to be visible for some distance, w 2, Felling of trees to be removed shall) be only into areas'°already cle•,ir* . f,..r of major vegetation or into oreos restgrated for clearing le, roed - . s.• rights of way„ building sites etc, ,,, . P ' .p 3. Skidding of logs to loading aieees shall be confined to designated • roadways and trees scheduled for retention :shall not a used for l log ', " skidding pivot points. 4, The consulting Arboriet shell conduct daily site visite to monitor _ the clearing operation and be lava 1 ffle when problems arise w rhibh are net covered in daily site vi s t ts. M ,I rr, 7 244µE)84 4 63503916 0 693 008 , i, Emogi �t �r eke, i ptAVEAYO l PORTLAND VANCOt:Ytk , a it.:` E m p 0T 1 I Serving the entire Northwest '444t r,, I 1 . r yr' fir•, 'J"t r .l4 :�' . • M Y, „' - . • ' ^ .. ! •• k'"o 2 - . T H 6 P v' L 17,1 �.'�i. ��'r ]3 r�''.,t✓ "t...7,',. l� •r �" , k�pG ,u , • t[ � � l � Y t pit� � • . I eau 5, MI site work shell be under the direction ig'1 e t on and a prov i1 of f the Consulting 4rborist; This preliminary ' t is based on the inf atio n dur-irkg, th site visit and reflects only references to this information. Please t,�nr`�tact I me if further information or clarification is r qui red, very Truly Yours PI TT TREE DERV C Ilr, li Bob ivlazanyo ASCA # 133 A Consulting Arboris • I e. I ;'. CC, City of Tigard ■ P li y.. Ir • • • • • I , I I I I I I „ I ,I:......,...._s...' i.,..,w.,. .,...,.» ,...,+:._.:.•, :._.,,,_, a. ham.+.n..„..Y. r. ,...,. i'.. w1...w:r,...,u.,.. ..a .-,._ .,..,+.,e„: ,.A.....:1 Uaw.a+l,l.... —, ,..u........l+w».. la...r. a r.x....+..a.J.....M+.a'«,x.♦•A.I.A..,.'1TM1' :1-xN..-..z.l. • • A • • 1 A revised landscaping plan or addend= to the present plan shall be sa .tted for Planning Director review and appal. The plan shall provide specific information on proposed perimeter buffering • • I i alo ng the northern and eastern border of the site. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a six (6) foot tall chain link fend and vegetative screening or a six (6) foot tall site obscuring fie at the option of adjoining property ovine s o fencing shall be . 5 installed prior to carimencement of any site work, construction, or • tree cutting. The revised landscaping plan shall also provide details on a miniiw , 4-foot fence enclosing the switrEnfrig pool area 2. Ferring with a height of eight (8) feet shall be installed around the dri line of all is for �: tend P ion P rxor to any constzuction on the site. fencing shall be inspected and awed by the consulting Arborist and Planning Division prior to permit issuance. Any later land clearing work within the driplihes shall be perform by hand. A qu i1i.fied Artorist shall inspect t t site at a 'tannin= of two times per week during construction to ensure that the tree tion program outline by David F. McConnell, dated October 31, 1988 (Exhibit "A") is followed. • 6. Seven (7) sets of plan and pofil e public t construction , plans and � (1) itemized estrted stamped by a ister� Professional. Engineer, detailing all pied public 'improvements shall be su} pitted to the Eng zing Section . and profile nr� _ sets � of plan. � plans shall be submitted for l fora lam. s include Y prior. Y� antt�►.'� of final plans. Said installation p hall �.ryclude a on of a 5-fciot wide oorAatete sidewalk along the sites SW 109th Avenue frontage, Motion carried unanimously by Conrnissioners present. ,0 5,4 Z( E ORDINANCE Al+ EST ZQA: 88-02 CITY-WIDE • Request by the City of Tigard to an Title 15 and 18 of the Tigard, .4 •, Municipal to streamline regulations i ons permit pracsasig procedures and : is. Senior Plan r .dam reviewed status of .tams This s will be cant c�ang+�d ,� : - to� the t proposed to be • a. hearing. Moen.,.alcoved and Commissioner Rosba ro u ghseconded to table ble 1tei a 5.4, (ZM. 88-02) to 6th Planning C�nxs o n hearing,, Ncta®n carried unanimously byx�i ioners present. ,4 � I Ahr . 'T: Diane M +d'el• Secretary A.-1rxdna,Ed Moen, President • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE'S - NOVEIBM. 22, - PAGE 4 1 I ! 1 • I...., •I:He ,.. ......, .,..A,..1_- ..M.... e ..a.....ei... .,..... ...e .„w ..w. ,.,.......*..., .+..,.u_....,.... - ..t-..,.1. w,d.0:...a,.,_M...., ..i.._.i... ...... .,4y.w.,....:•..L;a r,.,.......in tr n n....+e x,.._.A:4,,;.+..+; • • Y STAFF REPORT V ; i NUA ITEM 54; N • OVEMBER 22, 1988 7:30 0.M. TIG;Arp,D PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARID CITY HALL -- TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. • D OREGON 97223 1 . Gerfra� »n o"ra t x n CASES Planned Development PO 88-04, Site Development, Review S)1 .)$� 1� Variance anCe 8E -�� . REQUEST Site Development Review and detailed Planned Development uelopr+lent Review approval to construct a 18Q unit apartment complex on �a 12.66 acre tree, covered situ Also requested is a . Variance from Community Development Code Section 18. 108.070 which requires apartment Complexes with greater than 100 i dwelln' g ' units to have��'��at: least two access driveways, The � applicant 'requests that the proposed development be &110 e°' to be served by one driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) e (Planned Development o v e r l a y)a APPLICANT:LICANT: CI3H Cis, OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuetz I, 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby; OR 07013 Red Deer, Alberta , LOCATION: West side of the Avenue SW 109th at , . ,. u a �intersection with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 2S1 10AD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1 1OAC, Tax Lots 400 and 5OO)' ' I 2. kiac;k round Information In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 181), which included Tax Lots 400 and bO p. � '• GP .w �' Tax and 50a � ufti Map 251 106G, to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High' Density, 20 units per acre) with a recommendation that all 'development oh these lots be brought • before the Planning Commission as planned unit developments (PUD) and that the density in each case be reviewed, as a Portion of the review process, The City Council reviewed CPR 1-81 and remanded the i s tare back to the Planning Commission for further review after giving the opinion c . that density �y (20) it -� acre sr�st" 1e in relation otiC1 to ' r "�properties included ine req uest Upon rev ie , an A-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for the area The Planned Development .,PD ) over�la. was attached to the zone designation, G overlay i i F STAFF REPORT — PD 88—o4/80R 08-17/V eg-21 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE A n / ! - l • Js f fi s the Land the 'c - � Comprehensive ive Plan was ackn .edged by . When t.17r~ Tz.�ar�,�.•W- (' r �. � y ,• . Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1983, the majority of Mountain, as the site is known, was redesignated Low Little Bull �► � ' . Density Residential and given a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5 units/acre, Planned. Development overlay) . In December, 1986, the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Alber•tson's Comprehensive.: Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the I' Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road'. and Pacific Highway, This proposal' requested redesignation of these properties from High Density Residential to. General Commercial.; The result of this decision was the j. ' removal of a bout 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Mule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that ' S Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's Urban Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of ' redes ignation of sufficient residential' land to higher densities to , make up for, the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Tax tots 400 and 500 were included in a 24,9 acre plan/zone redesignatiori from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 (Pt ) zone to Medium Density Residential/R- 12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull ! Mountain area that was part of an approximately 60 acre redesignation to higher densities , The redesignations were' approved by the City A Council in April, 1987 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)) Ora September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the present apPlication in close to its current form. Tho Commission a,Troved the conceptual plan for PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, and V 88-27 subject to certain' conditions, The approval of the Variance to allow one access point where two would normally be required was tied to a condition' that the number of dwelling units allowed on the site be limited to 100 units, The Cotilmission's decision also required the applicants to submit: a dotai led plan for the proposed development which would: 1) reduce the • number of unite on the site to 100; 2)reduce parking lot' slopes; 3) provide details on site landscaping including additional perimeter buffering and fencing; 4) provide a detailed tree protection plans and • 6) correct other deficiencies of the initial site plan, I' The ,applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council on September 21, 1983, The applicants appealed 1) the limitation on the number of dwelling Units to 100; 2) the linkage of the approval of the access variance to the reduced number of dwelling units; 8) the requirement of submittal of a detailed site plan to the ComiirissiO n for further review; and 4) the ,application of fencing and planting conditions that the applicants asserted exceeded the standards established by the Community Development Code The Council reviewed the decision on appeal Oh October 10, 1988, The Council upheld the Commission's approval of the application subject to conditions but amended several' of those conditions tot 1) allow development of 130 units oh the site'; 2) to specify areas of the sTAr P krPO T - PO 88-04/8DR 88- 17/V 08 -27 (8eJ HUETZ) PAO: 2 N i , perimeter that ;t be fenced; and 3) to dirk that the arborist's �. plan for tree pr5t:;ection to, include provisions Far protecting abutting property owners' trees In addition, the Council added a design guideline directing the applicants and the Commission to save at least 130 n developed '� lorf.i u 7 e�of � the inch caliper or greater within thk.. proposed portion o s i to The Council upheld the requirement i rernent that the • • applicant submit a detailed site pin for Commission review, ' , 3 Vicinity Information t • Tho subject property ie surrounded by ,properties zoned R-12 (Residential, 1.2 units/acre) on all sides except to the west across Pacific Highway, Properties to the north and south also are subject to the PO (Planned Development) , overlay designation, Abutting zones on the west side of the highway', from north to south, are C—G (General Com"..,.:retal), C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office Commercial District), and R-40 (Multiple Family Residential, 40 units/acre), The , city limits of King City ` are adjacent to the southwest boundary of the properties. 1 e. The development pattern around the site consists �` p primarily of • multi-family', residences to the north and east; commercial development e across Pacific Highway, to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels covered with tall fir trees and underbrush with one single family residence to the south, A single—family residence Br ce on a 3.8 acre tree covered site is located immediately north pf the -site, Four duplexes are , located immediately east of, the southeastern corner of the subject { Situ ; ., • ; SW Street•�• SW 109th AU�.riue .arid .�+W Murdock qtr eet it7 the area of the proposed development are fully improved, 34 foot wide streets functionally classified as local streets, SW 109th Avenue currently dead ends aippreximai e1y 200 feet south of the site. Right—of—wayi fur a possible , future connection, of 0W 109th Avenue continues southward through a trees covered area until it meets the gravel southern segment of 109th Avenue whith is located on tho south slope of Little Oull Mountain: , 4, Site Information and Proposal Description T'ho proposed apartment complex consists of three tax lots, Tax lot � 8802 it 0,56 acres in size has 240 feet of e Oh 1 9th fr�s�ritd �W C? g , Avenue, and is zoned R-12, Tax lots 400 and 500 combined total 18.1 acres and are zoned R-12 (PO) . All pae cell are undeveloped. The entire' Site is covered with 'tall fir trees, The site slopes westward , from 109th Avenue with the western one- third of the site sloping steeply to Pacific i•tighway, The compl ex applicants e propose to develop a 180 Unit, . 20 building apartment Oh i_ site, All units will include two bodroorns, All buildings would be two stores. except for one single story building to be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue The 41':',, .' applicants request E ite Development Review approval of t:he proposed site plan, because the parcels are designated with the Planned ' STAFF RLi O1T — Pb 88-04/80R 88-17/V RCS-27' (SCHULTZ) - PAdC 3 ' • . r 2,1,::( + r ' o • "�, K n Y Development over' zone, the plan must be retk .ed by the Planning Commission, The site plans currently' before the Commission is the detailed site plan which is a refinement of the prior submittal. The buildings would be arranged around a roughly triangular shaped ' driveway with 8 buildin . and a swimming pool located in the center. They layout l of the bu:i.ldirgs and internal roadways has been revised from . the initial 'plan in order to preserve a greater number of trees and to . limit the amount of grading; In addition; few er buildings would uld be c ' .� located alon g the northern site b un cia r y than has been previously � , proposed. Thirty-five garages in 4 buildings, 95 carports, and 95 uncovered parking spaces would be located'along the (driveways, Because 1 . the development will for the most part retain the existing slope of the / . , ' parcel, the internal driveway and parking areas will be steeply' sloped � in two areas, The development would be served by one 30-foot wide access drivuaway from SW 109th Avenue. Community Development Code , Section 18,10 ,07O requires res that, an apartment complex with 130 units be ' i served by at least two access driveways, The applicant requests a ' Variance from this standard, The site plan and landscaping plan show existing trees that will be retained, The applicants have indicated that the plans attempt to retain as many, trees as possible, including the area at the center of ' the development. The dense forest on approximately , the western ono-third of the site would remain undisturbed. The 'landscaping plan and a se p a rate letter from iimbwalker Tree dare submitted with h the plan : provide directions for tree preservation during construction through fencing trees to be preserved prior to site excavation, avoiding construction activity within the drip liner of the trees, perform site • clearing within the driplines by hand, and having the consulting Ii arbor�st moni tor to o r construction of fects upon the tree's throughout the , . • construction process. •' The site plan proposes that sanitary sewer connections for twii ', . buildings in the northwest corner of the site be made to an existing public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue, fiarlitary sewers serving the ' , remainder of the buildings would connect to an existing sower at the M Pacific of � ifac Highway and Canterbury Lane., A main 1ir1c '' extension would be constructed by the developer~ 'from the existing sower to the site's pacific Highway frontage, Anti eight-inch private sewer lime would connect the proposed development's collection system with r the main line extension, dddeartoUti een oosdoerd ra viincar e go e t o woof ttulp d h e. t a:p e l iWd iaect d h'n rtsiy u t of u gto h e dac n i tse xh hi a s b tg►islg itn h s u rol poglch y�a.cfll oidun,r e irr si' tnot h r W i 1, .*.''..‘: ''.: . /1' c1w0a9rctu oey v uti ofaa rnru rd l, i,r arAk on uuneg pkeadfte rie ns tg tdavhuyandlp1xanni iytg tdrriwn istlwhl i e al vbse ebrts e u emd oisdt to d Poprrwloc a voiihn die f watt thhel development eni so that no portion of any of the p ropose d buildings will be I located more than 250 feet from a hydrant, • ',, $TAi"F PCP0RT. ""' PO. $8w-O4/Step 88--17/V 88-2.7 I(3CHU .TZ) -- PAGE tl M1 aP ., a y.. , r r r 5 Agency and (10;,,, Comments "I"he Engineering Division reviewed the proposal • and offered the following comments • 1, The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous trees, The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Highway. 2. The apartment complex is proposad to have one access to 109th Avenue opposite to Nlurdock Street, The Community .Development Code requires one access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore, 2 accesses are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement. One access is requested in order to 0 limit the impact to the trees on the site and due to the restricted frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue. sides of�the��si:re�.t' except along the street with sidewalks on St�eet 3. 109th c 34-foot Wide curbed str ept al frontage, lights also exist on the west side of the street. 109th Avenue street improvements currently end south of the . site. Existing right-of-way allows'' for possible future extension of 109th Avenue y to Naeve, Street. ' 4, A Transportation Impact Analysis for the ,apartment complex W as submitted with' this application, The analysis evaluated the impact of the proposed development on 109th Avenue' and also on the 109th , Avenue intersection with Canterbury 'Lane. The analysis concluded that the traffic generated from the site will not significantly impact adjacent streets or interfere ' with the operations of the ' 109th Avenue and Canterbury Lane intersection The report recommends that curb r� e utilized for the site's rb 1rn s b returns p . driveway to improve accessibility into and out of the, site. 5, Stern drainage is shown as being collected on site from the roof and paved areas and discharged^_ into to t he forested C a e� at 5 locations, Each discharge is noted to consist of a velocity . dissipatnr, The velocity dissipaters will slow the ''discharge of storm water but I' will not diffuse the storm water. The storm water discharge will still be concentrated in a channel, Discharging the storm water into a diffuser will spread the flow of water out. A trench filled with clean drain rock would best provide the necessary diffusion of the storm water, • 6. sanitary service the intersection r � sewer ser�vit..e xs available intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway, A main line extension will be required from this existing sewer southward to the proposed developlrient. The extension is proposed to be installed along • Pacific" Highway to the site' s frontage and then up through the forested area to the development, r.;.. a r REPORT - Po 88-04/SOR 88--17/V gl#�-27 SCkUETZ PACC.� �' F111 YY 1,1 �. 'r w y « 1 .. -.._...ui-...i.... w...........,a......_.-.. .....,......w..wr.uL.,.,....rt.h,Mm...-.0•.. :, r.. .w. .1[;. The Building Div1c_ an reviewed the proposal and o"any ,rod no comments Tigard School District 23 J reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments; At the " current time, this proposed development is in the • Templeton Elementary and TWality Junior High School •1 attendance areas, Both schools are experiencing enrollment pressures ' and would have difficulty housing the children expected to come from this development, especially if the ' project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September, 1989. Because the school district anticipates the need to make significant changes in its elementary and junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 19°19.90 e school year, the developer of this project, if it is • approved, should make no commitments regarding where the children living in the proposed development will attend school until those decisions are made, . • Washington County Fire District #1 provided the following comments 4, regarding the proposal: , 1. The Fire District would prefer two well—spaced access drives ratherl than the single access drive proposed, , 2. Driveway grades shall not exceed .' percent, ft,' 3, Fire hydrants shall be located no further than 250 feet from all portions of the proposed' buildings, This distance may be incr°eased to 500 Meet if automatic fire, sprinklers are installed , in the proposed buildings, The Tigard Water Di strict reviewed the proposal and commented that proposed development will need' to be served by is pumped water system. A pumped system is already in place and is adequate to serve the ,' proposed water system, ' The Water District provided additional technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect, 1 I The Oregon on pt ate Highway Division reviewed , the proposal and commented that ho adverse impacts on Pacific Highway were anticipated other than ;. temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary sewer extension, Intersection improvements including installation of a traffic sighal at the 'inter�secti on of Cahterh�ur"y Lane and Pacific Highway are scheduled for completion next year, With the improvements in place, the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated without impaeting traffic on Pacific Highway,' The Highway ' h,r`,vision also commented that a permit must be obtained prior to any the right—of—way for installatioh,of the sewer intersection,• work w�.i.h�.rn i.N►r.. ra.gNet { No other comments regarding the detailed plan were received. I I r h r r Irk r r I I I I r stol.r' k,—.PORT Pb 8 —a4/SOR 88-17/V 88-27 ($CHU .TZ) * PAGE is ' ' ! 1 r ... .. �,., '• r. �. .. r .. ..I ... ......r.,....,. i , ,) k) ,. I • • • C. ANALYSIS c y W. The proposal for construction of the proposed 130 unit. apartment complex conforms with Community Development Code. R-12 zoning district requirements for type of use and permitted ; density, setbacks from t� , property boundaries), maximum site coverage (8O%), and minimum site area landscaping (20%) , The proposal complies with Site Development Review standards for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patinas or balconies), shared outdoor recreation areas, vision clearance at the driveway/road intersection and site lighting. The site plan generally 1: complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although ' modifications to to the plan will be necessary. The site plan also must be revised to comply with requirements' for drainage as noted in �„ , Comment 5 from the Engineering Division. These deficiencies and the requested access variance are addressed below, Park its The required number of parking spaces for this development is 195 (1.5 spaces per 2 bed room unit) . 207 parking spaces would aa provided thereby ' satisfying this standard. 130 of the parking spaces ere required to be covered (1 per dwelling unit). The site plan provides ,' for 35 garage parking spaces. The original site plan also proposed ' " t parking spaces. p to r 95 carport arking s aces. No carport spaces are proposed under the current plan. The plan must be revised provide for a minimum of 130 , covered Jarking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.020(n) requires a minimum of one handicapped ed parking space for every 50 req tired parking spaces, or Portion thereof, ,The site plan provides for Your handicapped parking spaces, This standard is satisfied, The site plan and " • p grading 'plan � have� been redesigned since the �� �'� • . Commiss'ion's initial review of this proposal in order to reduce cross i 0, slopes in the parking areas, Two 100—foot long areas of the internal access road will', however, have grades of approximately 15 percent. No ' . parking will be provided in these areas. The grades in those areas will satisfy the wire District's request that no road grades of greater ? than 15 percent be permitted, Landscaping ! g p „ fired element �i.te Development Review 1 ��� landscaping plan is a refit, omens of a 5 application, No landscaping plan Was submitted with the original conceptual site plan reviewed by the Commission, The applicants have submitted a landscaping plan with the detailed site plan currently , • under reiriew, The landscaping p lan p rovides for eight pin oak tre es to be located along the site's 109th Avenue frontage, This satisfies the Code requirement for street trees, The landscaping' plan also provides " ' for a variety of trees and :4irubs within the development to serve as parking area trees and landscaping for the outdoor living spaces surrounding the dwelling units, The site plan and landsoaping plan '.� chcs greater also designate 146 existing trees with a caliper of 6 ir� or � • within the area of the site ;to be retained, SixteenlofIthese existing I 8tAFF REPORT — PD 88-04/SbR 88-17/V 88-27 (8CNUETZ) PACE 7 1 I , • r i ( trees are note4� As "type �II" trees which haC conditions such as • proximity to buildings or paving which may result din the rued to remove .' these trees. The retention of at least 130 trees satisfies the Council's ; direction to attempt to save at least 130 trees in the ,. developed area of the site, The `land: capinq plan calls for protection of the trees; to be retained as directed by the a rborist's letter, primarily through fencing the ririplines of trees to be retained to keep construction effects to a minimum, That and the, other tree protection ' measures should provide :sufficient protection �. a The site to �p la n and landscaping plan do not .provide de for fencing of the site as directed by the City Council's final order. A letter to the (: City from the applicants', attorney, however, indicates ,that the ' applicants will be providing fencing as approved by adjoining property , , owners (November 4, 1988 letter from William Monahan), Details regarding the fencing � to be provided should be submitted to the City �� prior, to the issuance of building permits In addition, the site plan and landsc aping a ng pl�ns �o not provide information on fencing around the swimming pool. Code Section ■), 18.100. 100(c) requires that swimmingl pools be enclosed with a minimum 4 ,�, foot tall fence' with a self—latching regarding �e - a :e'o Details re ardin the fence �Y to be provided. shall be submitted for staff review prior to issuance of , building permits e Access , The site lan proposes one 30 foot wide . access on Si 100th Avenue ' p C :Section' 18,108,070 of the Coda requires three accesses for a multi—family deve1.opment serving 100 to 200 residential units. The applicant requests a ' variance from this standard due to 1) the limited . , , access opportunities resulting from the limited frontage on 1�W 109th • Avenue . and 2) the steep slope on the western third of the site making ' access from Pacific Highway difficult to develop; Code Section \ 18, 108. 150 provides for the Commission to allow a variance to access requirements if it is ground that', s 1. It is not possible to share access; \,�� • 2. There are not other altrrlative access points on the street in question or from another street; r • 8, The access separation requirements cannot be met; ,, • 4 J The request is the minimum variance required' to provide adequate u .. w 6. The approved access . or access approved with conditions will Y result in a ,safe access; arid 6, The visual clearance requirements of Chapter ha pte> 18J102 will be met, r 8 , a u i f STAri= R POt T PO 88 O4/sb R 88--17/V 88-27 (SCHUrETZ) — PACE +t 9 it • 1 _ is 1 There as rtca ap;, W t,unat.y for :�'ac�panghareui « »:Ces5 with cadaacent, parcels . Other parcels which f oot on SW 109th Avenue east of the site c"`" are already developed. DeveluplAnt of another access on tax lot 8802 N would provide little if any congestion relief on SW 109th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections. Another access in this area would also require relocation of at least one proposed building It thereby necessitating removal of additional trees elsewhere on the site Development of an access from Pacific Highway is impractical , because' of the expense of constructing a road up the steep slope on the r � � � p western one—third of, the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic values that would result from removing trees in that area, and because of the potential adverse traffic impacts of n access entering Pacific ' is Highway. The proposed 3Jµ»foot. width of the driveway (24 feet �.a the f . � g y p p required width) and the utilization of curb returns and development of the driveway at the same grade as the street should provide adequate ''' and safe access. • C, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION" The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard' Comtnunity Development . Cade Chapters s 18.54, 18.8O, i86, 18. 100, 18,162, 18, 106, 18.108. ,, 18. 110, 18.120, 18.150, and 18. 164. , The Planning ommission has determined that the proposal, with g � modifications, is consistent with relevant portions of the community 7 . Development Code based upon on the following findings: , . • a. ' Chapter 18.5 (R-12 zone) is satisfied because ' the proposal r c+�nf arms. with i Use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R- 12 zone, Multi—family residential development is a permitted use in the R-12 zone. The site plan proposes development of 180 "dwelling units whereas the R-12 zone W ould allow development nt of 152 units on the parcel, All setback and building height standards are satisfied, b• Chapter 18,80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the detailed site plan is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as required by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay Zone, The conceptual plan has previously been reviewed by the Commission, , cl. Chapter 18.96 is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate distances between multi-family residential building to assure privacy to residents and adequate light to all units on 4 the 'site. d, C hapter 10,100 (Landscaping and Screening) will be satisfied upon resubmittal of the landscaping plan providing y y, for perimeter • fencing in accordance with the CoUncil s direction and fencing around the swimming pool in accordance with Code standards, I I 8TArr REPORT PO '88-04/800 88-17/V 88µ27 (8CHU8'TZ) — PACE 9 J• • e 4 e. Chapter 14 ,, .02 (Vision Clearance Areas) is, atisf ed because the I r - - revised site plan and landscaping plan have appropriately'' limited f landscaping and other site improvements within the vision a clearance triangle at the driveway/road intersection to heights f .• which satisfy Code standards, . Chapter 18, 106 (Off-Street Parking) will be satisfied upon . Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that provides for a minimum of at least 130 ,covered parking spaces. The site , is plant satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking . . spaces provided and provision of appropriately located designated ' handicapped parking spaces, g. Chapter 18, 108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied . • because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access anct egress for the proposed use and for general a � g p � p circul�•,.ti,on on the site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one access to serve the site, whereas the Code would ;norms .11 y require !' two accesses for a development of this size, is . •erstified as previously discussed. h. Chapter Chapter 18. 12G (C;ite Developnienteuiew) is satisfied because the detailed plan will provide for the proposed buildings and other r, site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees 1 . • as practicable'' and to minimize alterations l �to the site's , topography and drainage systems The site plan also situates,;the ' buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the propos,-�•a t, dwelling units and compatibility between the proposed development, and adjacent uses. • 1. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the , applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to rencving trees in preparation for development. The site plan and landscaping plan desics,,at:e an adequate number of trues to, be ' retained in the area of development as directed by the City , Council, The plans also provide for appropriate measures to be 6 employed during construction in order to protect the trees to be retained and the neighbors trees. Perimeter fencing and fencing around trees to be retained will be required to be installed . , prior to the issuance of site work permit; for the development p The site plan also provides for all trees in the western , . one—thiir^d of the property to he retained except where necessary, to accommodate the proposed sewer. j . Chapter 18,164 (Street and Utility 8 t.andards) will be satisfied ,, upoi app roval of public improvement p lans for and construction of , the proposed exters ion, of the public sewer alone Pacific Highway, ;i a connection to the existing sewer in 8W 109th Avenue; and installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach 'on 8W 100th ; ' Avenue, Approval of public improvement plans is required prior ' to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development, • bTAr~r RE'Ot T - PO 88-04/SDR 88-1IIV 88--27 (BCHUETL), PAGE 10 , , r ` e • D. RECOMMEIlIrr')ATION .y. The Planning Division recommends approval of the detailed plan for Planned Development PI? 88-04, Site Development' Review 88-17, and Variance V 87-27 subject to the following conditions — THE FOLLOWING CONDI'TIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO .THE ISSUANCE OF SITE ' WORK AND BUILC`)JiNG PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS 1(El'I"H LIDEN, PLANNING . DIVIBION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH Vii, GARY ALt"SON, ENGINEERING DIVISION, ' CONDITIONS 5 THROUGH 12 1. A revised lands'capirig plan or addendum to the present plan shall be submitted for Plannirig Director review and approval. The plan shall provide specific: information on proposed perimeter buffering along all but the western border of the site Said ; perimeters L, buffering shall consist of a 6 foot tall chain link fence and vegetative' screening or a 6 foot tall site obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners. The fencing ; shall be ' installed prior to issuance of site work or building per-.v,I. The y revised landscaping plan shall also provide details on a minimum 4-foot tall fence enclosing the swimming pool area, 2. Fencing with a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall, be installed , around the dripline of all trees proposed for retention prior to ,. , 044 ary construction on the situ, The fencing shall be inspected and , approved by the consulting ar^borist and Planning' Division prior to permit: issuance, Any later land clearing work within the driplines shall be performed by hand, • A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to any tree removal .. • on the site, Removals permits will hot be issued for trees designated as type I trees by the 'landscaping plan. ,a. 4. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for a minimum of one hundred and thirty (130) covered parking spaces 5, The single driveway connection to SW 109th 'Avenue shall be designed l in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic" report, 6, Leven (7) sets of plan aric! profile public improvement' construction , plans and one (1) itemized construction 4:-.ost estimate stamped by i ' Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all prpposecl public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section . for approval Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans r sha1 l be submitted ror preliminary review prior to submittal of final plans + Y. :onst ructio� of proposed, p uJL public improvements shah1 hot c o�menp� , , until after the ngihooring Division has approved public improvement plans, The section will require a 100% Performance Assurance or Better of Commitment;, the payMent of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer I . agreement, Also, the execution' of a street opening permit or r conMtrUction compliance agreement s h al l occur prior to 0 r conr;:ur^rerltly with the '`issuance of approved public improvement plans, _ r � � — ) r , 1 �r aw I" � O�r � Ai~ r �. �` �� � l�/V �r3-�7 ,Ch�UE L 7 .. T MACE l i t,ul • i n I' ` 8: The applican ahall provide for roof and par ... ig lot rain drainage to the public 'stormwater drainage system or kyy an approved on—site • system designed to prevent increased runoff onto Pacific Highway. . 9. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided• as part of the Public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm. drainage basin and sanitary sewer , service area shall be provided as °a supplement to the Public Improvement plans. . t Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area , 10. The applicant shall obtain a' permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of--way of Pacific Highway,, A copy of the permit shall be provided to the ! • City Engineering'� Office prior to issuance of a Public Improvement 4 Permit:: , �� The proposed d p a vat e y�o a r� d and maintained p arkin g lot an d , roadway plan—profile arid cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. 12. The applicant shall install a 5-foot with concrete sidewalk along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. RIO r, P2 10 THE!I. ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT OP ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON , THE SITE, THE F'OLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL DC MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF . THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF CONTACT: KEITH LIDEN) r • ft' 18 . All landscaping materials, permanents fencing, and other proposed ' site improvements shall be installed as per the landscaping and • . gir site plans, �• „. 14. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the erection of an identification 'sign. Sign location and Size must be in accordance . with the provisions of Section 18,114 of the Community Development NN Gode THE APPROVAL SHALL .DE VALID .l.,r EXERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE rT . PR C At ;Y: A 's, iy s;O�: °.a r lanner APPROVED c into LPlaner , . x r pp FI STAF REPORT — °PD' 88-04/SDR 88-17/V. 88-27 (SGHU TZ) �u PACE 12 �y u I n Of. C • I 4 II i0* 0 /Ob. , i 0 , • • . _._. 4 .. Ix\kilr\il %(CA '''' „ , .Q ' 0/ " ' ls \t3,VB - , November 1k5, 1988 � � 91''''°'31‘ ' ' li,r.).P.FU 11 'i ''''i.'illiiiiLi Al J J '..1 11 Planning Commission City of Tigard P.O. Box • 23397 Tigard, Or. 97223 Re: File # PD 88-04/SOR 83-17/V 88-27 - Schuetz Dear Sirs: t As the owner of 23 condominium units at Canterbury Woods Con- . daminiums across SW 109th Avenue from the above referenced • proposed project, 1 would emphasize the traffic flow and/or . increased traffic hazards at 109th and Canterbury Lane and Canterbury Lane and Hwy. 99W. Both intersections have blind corners. The present traffic conditions during, the day on .`; both streets are 'becoming more congested and hazardous. n z b Lieve the applicant should propose less i ensi yy and at , • lea?-it two means of egress be provx .ed to reduce traffic im- •�pactin:g 109th, Canterbur Lane a, d HWy. 99W. ,� Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, . b". , .40.`v 4;1 "------- II eter . o . H �.n PBH/land . r, , d 1888 SOUTHWEST MADISON ', PORTLANb,OREGON W205 PHONE: (50 8) 228-2800 - f e, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON c. e RESOLUTION 88-101 Y I A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE BOTH A PLANNED . DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (PD 88-04) AND A VARIANCE (V 88-27) AND ALSO TO REMAND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (SDR 88-17). THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL'S ACTION AMENDS CERTAIN OF THOSE APPEALED CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES THE DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. , WEREAS, Tod DeKanter, representing CBH Company, applied.,;for site Development i Review w approval, Planned Development approval, and a Variance to the ,Community � Development Code standard for number of driveways °required for a multi-family . development of greater than. 100 units; and ' 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on September 6, 1988, and approved the proposal subject to several, conditions including a condition I ,I' a that the number of dwelling units be limited to 100 units rather than the 130 units proposed and also including a condition that required the 'applicants to ' submit a revised site plan for detailed Planned Development Review; and , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council } b the CBH (';,Y, ,�;u pan on rounds that 1) The Planning Commission did not properly ,. �' P y grounds ) g' v . apply the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code - CKapter 18.80; 2) that the number of, units allowed by the Commission is inconsistent w; th ' the intent of the Plan for land 'zoned R-12 (PD); 3) that the imposition of certain planting and fencing regdirez dents by the Commission exceeded an ' the standards established by the Community aeuelopment. Code; and 4) that the findings contained in the Commission's Final Order do not support the ,decision as the applicant has. fully satisfied all applicable sections of the Plan and Code and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on October 10, 1988, to revieL the Commission's order relative to the proposal; NOW, THEOEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that j 41I� Section 1: Planning Commission Final Order No. 88-10 PC is modified as follows at D. - Decision oh Page 10, DECISION ' The City Council grants conceptual approval of Planned Development Pb 88-04, Site betlelopment Re view 88-88-17, and �. Variance V 88-27, A detailed plan shall be submitted within one year, for Planning Commission review, that includes the following: �. 1 A gr&ding plan for the developed portion of the site. Cross u' • slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 }r. 4 percent, where' possible, �r The single driveway connection to SW 109th Avenu e shall 1 be . " ' , des irtned in cornf'ormante with the recommendations of the . applicant's traffic report; RESOLUTION NO i 88- /O) � P ate;'e ; a J YM' 3. A landsc " 'n plan shall be submitted f Planning Commission „� g p g review al"� approval: The plan shall avi�de location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material. � specific p r As a guideline, of this plan should preserve a minimum of 136 trees that are 6-inches in diameter or greater within the developed portion of the project. The plan shall provide for f:. • M a street trees along the site's SW 100th Avenue'.'frontage and for • ;.... additional perimeter buffering along the northern border of the site from the bluff near Pacific Highway to 109th Avenue. The • eastern boundary shall also be buffered. Said perimeter I : buffering shall' consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a G foot site obscuring fence at the • '• option of adjoining property owners. Said fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits. � an 4. A revised site plan shall he submitted which 1) provides fora . minimum nimum of one appro riatel y sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces;races, a r k�. ' 2) relocates this proposed sign outside of the required vision ,' ';;11'''' clearance' area; 3) has a maximum of 130 units; and 4) provides 1 for a fire hydrant to be located within 250 'feet of .all first floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings '` are to be provided with automatic sprinklers. • 5 A detailed tree protection', plan shall be submitted for Planning • Commission approval which includes locations and types of trees »., to be retained, an arborist's recommendations for methods of protecting these trees as well as trees on abutting properties °� . during construction of , the proposed , apartments .;and also for � � r a trees. ,.•: A. rtta�.ntertance of the long-term health of t,hc., The _ Commission directs that the arborist shall protect abutting ; . • property iwner's trees. the trees to be saved shall be r' protected during, construction fencing or a cans a�n 'hy fend similar m�` approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing, or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of 'this condition. Section 2 The City Council waives the automatic review of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the detailed plan subject to the Council's right to call up the decision for review if such is deemed necessary. t; PASSG This j day of OG/-v , 1988, c' Mayor - City of Tigard , A11Ii i''t beputy Recorder - city of 'Ii' and I PR9k Et-A ",;CO FORM - Ci ..y. fecor�dei ', • . fanttc. b��rl 7571G is VL rS OLU 1 ION istiO, 88- t � . Page r . r I , I d • 1 f' TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 88 — 10 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT T REVIEW, AND VARIANCE (PD 88—O4/80R 88-17/V 88•.27) REQUESTED ED BY FLORIAN AND ANNE SCl'•IUETZ. . • «.. •«....«.M•w4.«:«««rnw«w«««..«««« «•�..«W«...««r«.•««w•.«.«..rr.i«« '.l •�....«r«Y«««w.r•M.•«««.{«••M•M.w«r«..•..w..•wN•Hr•«�.•�.r«wY«.r.rM.r ' The Tigard Plan nirg Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on September 6, 1988, The Commission bared its decision on the facts, , findings, and conclusions noted below:) I I A. 1=ACTS I , • I I I I 1. General Ih•fprittata.r:>>t CASE: Planned Development Ea �1u mctt 8 �0� Site t a , p 1 1• 88«W17, Variance 88r•.27 REQUEST: Site Development Review and planned Development Review I ; approval to construct a 130, unit apartment complex on a 1. 12,66 acre tutee covered site i Also requested s a variance from Community Development Code Section 18,108.070 which requires'' apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least 'two access driveways, The applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be served by one driv eway. 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density fesidentia] • a : -12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 PIS ,�Onll~1tIC DESIGNATION: R« ( .d ? ( ) I , (Planned (Development overlay) APPLICANT: Tod Dekanter OWNER: Florian and Anne S chuet:z'I 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson 'Close 1 Canby, OR 37018 Red (Deer, Alberta • LOCATION: West side of ,W 109th Avenuy at the • with 8W Murdock Street (WCTM 281 1OA0, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1 1OAC, 11, Tax Lots 400 and 500) I I I 2, ack round : i7t�c�r1rt�fo i «......Nrf..«rr1w.«.w1f,Mww • •1f{f xn 1981 the Planning Commission a pp c uec a Comprehensive Planl Revision (CPR 1-81), which included Tat Lots 400 and 50 0 oMa81 1OAC, to allow a zoning designation of A O (High bensi y,' �(Map per acre) with a recommendation t�at a�l development Yrn� tn t O s O lots be h r au h t before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit bi tie1opmeni s (PUD) and I I I � « •4 i h .. IM / ♦ L W V 88 1.0 I C PD 88 0 4 �UR f38 1.7f � 7 I-, I� O DLR { I FINAL r1 R NO ) fl i I E i I I I I I I I I I � ' 1 n • • . each s reviewed as 1:i.on of the review �, ' �a�.. b density].�; c..�a Gh l':c , that the er y �' process The City �,ouncil revie?wec' CPR 1-81 and re,,,Anded the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review after giving the opinion " • that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in ,relation to properties included in the •request. Upon review, an 6..-12 (Urban . . Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for the • area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone I designation. , When the. Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Land �Conservation and Developments Cbmrissi.on ' (LCDC) in 1983, the majority of Little , Bull Mountain, a8: the site is known, was redesignated Low L:. ;';,, i.:.' Density Residential and given g� a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5 (PD) (Residential 4.5 unit s/acre, Planned Development overlay) . In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to w• the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for chancing the , Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southe ►st Cor'ner. of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested redesignatiort of these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial . The result of this decision was the r �« potential multi—family housing units from Tigard's a,' • rsemoval. �of about� 400 ��raoten y .� intventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (brown Administrative Rules, Chapter� 660, Division 7) requires that i ; Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing r'dehsity of 10 dwelling i + i un:�ts' � per ��� acre on vacant buildable land within thy. City's Urban Planning Area. The Alber't; on's CPA was granted on the condition of redE signati.oh of sufficient residential land to higher densities to w. make up ��for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. ,`„• 'fats lots 400 and 500 were included in a 24,0 acre plan/zone , . 1C 1 redosignation from L LU Density t y Residential/R-4.5 (PO) zone to Medium • Density Residential/R-12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the"Little Bull mountain area that was part of ah approximately 50 acre t edesignatioi ' . to , higher densities. The r deli nations we approved by the city , c, Council ih April 1981 (CPA 87+ 01(A), xC 87—o; (A)) i 8. Vicinity,W Ipforrt,mt ion ± R . The subject p ae J x s surrounded ou ded h y properties L oreG R-12 , (Res idential, 12 units/acre) 01 all sides except to the west across u , • Pacific Highway,, Abutting zones on the west side of the highway, from I - north to south, are C—G (General ��Cottmmercial), C,-P (prof" ssional/ , 1 ' '.' idtttanistr�ativeifiico Commercial District), and « h(7 (Multiple Family ' Residtan :ial, 40 units/acre) , The city limits of Ring City are adjacent ti to the southwest boundary of these properties, i , The development: pattern around the site consists of multi—family :1: residences to the north and east:,' commercial development across Pacific Highway to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels covered with tall fir trees and underbrush with one single family residence to the south. ' r' or — j� C * �PO 88-04/80R 88-17/V 88-27 SC'l1ULT�r _� PA( " ht ( pp y ��yy jj�� ryry {{�yy y 2 * Q y 1i •, r '.t''' • 5W 109th Avenuo — ,.J SW Murdock Street, in the , :a of the proposed development are o ,..,.ally improved, 34 foot wide V,'crreets functionally ' classified as local streets. SW 109th Avenue currently deed ends approximately 200 feet south of the site. Right—of—ways for a possible , ' future connection of SW 109th Avenue continues southward through a tree L I covered area until it meets the rr: gravel southern :segment of 109th Avenue ! which is located on the south slope of Little Bull Mountain. �' . . . �, 4 Site Information and Pro osal Description�tion . _ .,,."..„,.._.. .". �". .".,.w._."".. .._"....,...".. The proposed apartment ta complex consists i f three tax lots. Tax lot t h I 8802 is .56 acre is size, has 240 feat of frontage on SW 109th l Avenue, 7 , and is zoned R-12. Tax lots 400 and 500 combined) total 13, ,1. acres 'and �I are ' zoned R-12 (PD) . All parcels are',uhdeveloped. The 'Ientire site is covered with tall fir :trees, The site slopes westward from 109th I i . Avenue with the western one—third of the site sloping steeply to I • Pacific Highway. i building p I ' � �� � "f.h,e•��aPpl irrar�t r,s^opcses� to� develop a 130 unit, 29 apartment• � r complex on the site. All units will include two bedrooms. All 1 buildings would be two stories except for on e single story e` bui lding to� � � � 0 . be located° near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The applicant requests Site Development Review approval of the proposed site plan. Because the parcels arse designated with the " Planned i Development overlay zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning f , . Commission, • , , '�,� I T e buildings would be arranged around a roughly square driveway with ' ti ,A 6 buildings and a I swimming pool located) in the center, Thirty—five' I dA garages ir, 4 buildings, 95 carport, and 95, uncovered parking spaces .along the driveways. Because�-: • � I would � be' located .� y use� �the development will 1 I . r • retain the existing slope of the parcel the driveway and ` ' �t l� parcel, y pdr . rrg areas ' T. l',,, will be steeply .sloped, The development would be served by one 30-foot wide access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. requires Comrnubit y, Deve1Opment Code e ' section 10. 108,0/0 that an complex with 130 units b e , •served by at least two access driveways. The applicant requests a ,� k Variance from this standard. . . The site plan shows all trees ew s that will be retained,, The .: applicant °hat indicated. that the plan attempts to retain as I many to"i t ts I' as possible, including the area at the center of the development', The I 11 donee forest on the western approximately one-third of the site would ' "•,,,7. , ,,, remain urtdistUrbed, ^ _ a° I proposes I The site plan that sanitary sewer conncctxols for throe buildings in the northwest corner of the • site be made to� an existing I� pghiic sower located in SW 109th Avenue, Sanitary sewers serving the !' 1, remainder of the buildings would connect to an 'existing newer at the ' I , � intcwsection of F aci+fit Highway and Canterbury Line, ' A ma:i,n line ' cxtens,ion would be constructed struct�d by the developer from the existing;sewer to the site's pacific Highway ° frontage,', An eight—inch private sewer I line would connect the proposed " I� velopril:wrt s collection system with . the main line extension, ; FINAL 0Fta l CIO; 08— 10_ PC ".+, Pb 8S-O4isok 88-11/V '08-427 (SCHUTZ) ,"u PAC1` 8 ( ` a' t r I +., w ...., .u...•,•., ...., _„ . .•..R.,,...,.,... I.. ,.. ,,... .., .,• a, ., ... ,..• •.,.,...,_ „..,.. •..,u. _....> .., ,. i ...... ,•..,.,, .„„,.•.. ...,•,.. ,w,.,. v ..,. ...,.,.._,,. ... ..,,• n r r • . A r ,' Storm drainage �w d be provided through catch „ ins located in the driveway and aar ,•,„� c areas draining r. „ tor �a t.,� • �' y � I n� ar c. � a. r�i, �,� to a �, m ,ter detc.n�:Lon pipe system located under the westernmost portion of the driveway, with surface discharge through a single pipe to the forested area on the western portion of the site; I Water, service to the site will connect to 'an existing supply ?,ine in SW 109th Avenue An existing pump system will be used to pruvide water .. • circulation, Three fire hydrants will be provided within the development 5, Agency qnd NPp Comments They Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments 1, The submitted d s at e plan shows a proposed 13 0 unit � d r t ent • complex ex west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous . trees, The site slopes to the west towards Pacifio Highway, 2. The apartment complex is proposed to have one access to 109th Avenue 0000 site Murdock Street, The Community Development Code • requires one access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore, 2 accce8se8 are required by the Code. The applicant has requested , ” variance to this requirement. One access IA requested in order to limit the impact to the trees can the site and due" to the restricted frontage width of tho site on 109th AVehUe, . :109th Av en is a 34--foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on both except sides of the, street trtcd pt alorig the site's frontage, lights also exist on the west side of the street, 100th Avenue street improvements currently end south of the site,' Existing • right-of—way allows for possible future extension of 105th Avenue to NaeVe Street, • C A Transportation Impact Ana l s i s for the apartment co m iex was ;submitted with this application, The analysis evaluated the impact of the proposed det/elopment on 109th Avenue and also on the 109th . Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane, The analysis concluded r', that the traffic generated from the site will riot significantly r impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the • ; • 109th Avenue and Canterbury Lane intersection, The report recommends tFa' t cu b returns be utilized for the site s ; driveway to improve accessibility into and out of the site. 5, Storm drainage is shown as being, collected oh—site into a detention • pipe and discharged through a flow o w control device into a 10 inch outlet pipe day1ighted into the forested area, This method of • . storm 1.t w w discharging the orm drainage is not approved since detention of • ., storm drainage water is riot permitted and the single discharge point will create erosion on the steep forested area. FINAL 000tii17 No 4 ;88— 10 PC ww PD 88,-,04/r;rbl 88-17/V 88-27 ( CHUl~TZ) PA( L • . o n • • ` ,� , An alter�natit ,�.', JOuld 'be to discharge the st:or�;� irai.nage at several 4' •a, ' locations an 6 cr. install an energy dis,sipat >~.�� at the end of 't:hc. �. 1 pipe to prevent erosion, • • 6 Sanitary sower service is available at the intersection of r Canterbury Lane and Pacific -ighwa y, A main line n e extension will be required from this existing sewer southward t o the proposed . , do velopn;t nt,, Thee extension is proposed l to be installed along 1 1; , Pacific Highway to the site's frontage and then up through the l forested area to the development. The proposed parking lot . is shown with cross slopes of 10 to 12 p cK_nt for approximately 100 sta1.1 . \ornal design pr ac "ic s 1 limit t the cross slopes on parking stalls to '6 to 6 percent. Cross, ! . ,u slopes of 10 to 12 percent will intake getting into and out of a i vehicle very difficult, The steeper than normal slopes have been • proposed to reportedly limit the impact to the site and the ,a N. existing trees It is staff's recommendation that the parking ' , ,�. li difficulty created by the cross slopes be reduced. ���,,I . ,,,: 1, ''l , t The Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no cOrsments. ;. Tigard , School District 23J reviewed the proposal and offered they [- following comments; 1• ° At the current time, this proposed development is in the • Templeton Elementary and Twality Junior High School . . , attendance areas, both schools are experiencing enrollment „0, presatres and would have difficulty housing the children S • p ed � to come from this development, especially if the expected � I t, project is to 'be completed and/Or largely occupied before ,'• .' September, 19891. Because the school district anticipates , ,l , , the need to Make significant changes, in its elementary and , junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1909-90 year, the developer of this project, if` it make is 'l approved, should ro i e a regarding where �h� f children living in the proposed development will attend (' I � school until these decisions are made , I 1� . Washington CoUrty Fire District #{. provided the following comments , regarding the proposal 11 The Fire District would prefer two well-spaced access drives, 21 Driveway grades shall not lexceed 15 percent, I�. 31 Piro hydrants shall he located no further than 250 feet Y-, 1 .� i' �t from all ; � 1 �� Y ; ICY buildings. distance � p. thew si o This inmayli.be , w ., � r la'or io►ts t�f I aosc� increased to 500 feet if automatic `fire sprinklers are installed 1. in the proposed buildings, . The Tigard lOter District reviewed the proposal and commented that , proposed oraosc.d developm�.a nt will need to' be served , �y pumped water system,� • I , A pumped system i s al ready in place and is aderiate to, serge the i, proposed water system, The District also commented that it appears lCllfAL ORDER NO, 8c — PD 88l04/ 0R 80-17/V 88-27 (SHuwE I ( Ii 1' i I k, 1 1 • e, .....,..-,.�,...A-.lr. n.. ,1. ... . .. .,. ...4 ..t __.!'i ..... .... .... ...d',. 1.4 ...,. .... .......,♦.s„i,...,.._..._. .,.a .... . , n.w.v... Q) • o • that a di �tr � fire t e h/dr a nt will be net, ar y to adequately dc%iu.a:opment. The Water District —provided additional , technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect The Oregon State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and commented , that no adverse impacts on Pacific Highway were l anticipated other than r : temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary' rt, sewer extension. Intersection improvements including installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury L"anr•. and Pacific rya . I Highway are scheduled for completion next year. With the im provements in place, the additional traffic generated) by the proposal can be accommodated without 'impacting traffic on Pacific :Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a permit' must be obtained prior to any work within the right—of—way for installation of the sewer intersection. �. No 0 0 t er comments w er r e received. ! C, ANALYSIS I I " the p p cd 130 unit apartment , The proposal for construction of ru os complex conforms with Community Development Code R-12 zoning district ° z requirements for type of use and Permitted density, setbacks from a.a property boundaries, site coverage (80%), and site area landscaping (20%) , The proposal complies with Site Development Review standards for privacy', private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), " . 0 shared I outdoor recreation areas, and site lighting The site plan ' generally complies with Code standards for landscaping' and parking,' although modifications to the plan will be necessary, The site plan a also must: be '' revised to comply with requirements for drainage and vision clearance' at the driveway--road intersection. The deficiencies ¢', Q.• of this proposal and the requested access variance are I. addres ed below. parkin ' s �s this development is 195 The required number of parking space.. for p i (1,5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit), 225 parking spaces l would be provided, 130 of these spaces aro required to be covered. The site plan provides for 35 garage parking spaces and 55 carport parking ' spaces for a total of 130 spaces, The plan satisfies., these r requirements. , The site plan does not, however, designate apprr,oprr,iately. sized, located, and signed handicapped parking spaces, Community 'Development , � °1.0 requires a minimum of one handicapped Code parking space for every 50 parking spaces provided, The site plan must be revised to provide at least five appropriately sized and located j° designated ra -c d handicapped parking spaces, These hese paces should be I . I constructed in a manne r that minimizes� tN2" slo pe The grade of the proposed lot is steep and problems will be experienced ' getting] in and out of vehicles, parked on cross slopes of up to 12 percent. The slope of these parking spaces should be studied further and the effort made to reduce the grade problem as much as possible, I. I I I I I I I I rIi11A1w 0RD1:.R NO: 88— 10 PC ,- Pb 83 -0418OR 88-17/V '83-27 (SCHl1C.:T2) PAOL 6 , • i � III 1.. 1 I I I n I . .,..♦.. r. .I.. ..,...i) ..,.,..«,.,«,,,,.,i,h,,,. .. .,__..,}__.,..JL .�.ni.n,r.�J.�'r k:u ,.x8arr,,,r .ma..-.....J.n....m.._»,,..n-.-,s.e,.nrn_..m..,,,.,....w r..,n _r«w.,«...F...w.n t_a rNJ.,i.. r ,, .-...sv�tt Landscina ' A landscaping pan is a required element of a Site Development Review application. No landscaping plan was submitted with this application. Nevertheless, the submitted site plan provides adequate information to determine that the minimum site area landscaping requirements (20%) will be satisfied thr~oucjh the retention of existing trees, The • . retention of these trees will also serve to :satisfy perimeter buffering requirements, with the exception of a 180 foot long stretch along the s:,,te' s southern boundary. Only one existing tree would be retained , along this stretch. Six apartment units would be located in this area,. A landscaping plan will need to be submitted for Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits that provides adequate vegetative buffering in this area. Where possible, additional trees should be preserved along the east, south,and north property boundaries In addition, the landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site landscaping materials for the entire site including lawn or ground ,cover materials K Section 18,100,035 of the Community Development Code requires that street trees be provided along a site's street frontage, The submitted site plan does not show any trees that will be located along the site's SW 109th Avenue; frontage, Street trees need to be included in the required landscaping plan.' Vis'on Clearance ALgas Si na cl' Community Development Code Section 18.102,030 requires that a ;riiangular, vision clearance area be maintained either direction from , the intersection of an access drive and a non—arterial street. Objects within this area must be loss than three feat tall. Trees are allowed • within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight • feet are removed. The site plan proposes a sign that would intrude a upon the required vision clearance area No details are provided, regarding the sign's height, The sign Will need to comply with the vision clearance area height 'requirement or else be relocated, A sign rF permit must be obtained prior to erection of the sign. hrainage The 1981 Master Drainage Plan for the City of Tigard dis '«rages the development of stormwater detention facilities. The Plan also discourages the concentration of, storm discharge onto undeveloped surface drainage areas, The site plan proposes collection of parking area drainage into 'a detention system with a single discharge onto the surface of ' the western one—third of the site The proposed drainage system conflicts with the recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan. The applicant will be required to redesign the storm drainage system in conformance rmance wi ti the Master Drainage Plan and submit the drainage t.h system design for Engineering Division review and approval; } 0 FThAL OliD R No. 88-. 10 pp w: PO 88-04/SOR 88-17/V 88--27 (SCHUETZ) PAGE 7 • ACCE 3 5 � The site plan proposes one 30 foot wide access on SW 19th Avenue. k; section 18,108.070 of the Code requires three accesses for a multi—family development serving 100 to ' 200 residential units, The r ! '� applicant requests a �variance from this standard 'due to 1) the limited access opportunities resulting from the limited frontage on SW 109th ' Avenue and 2) the steep ste p slo:) or the we stern third ��f to site making • access from Pacific Highway difficult to develop, Code Section I , 18, 108. 150 provides for the Commission to allow a variance to access % • requirements l if it is found that: 1 1. It is not possible to share access; ., . 2, There are not other alternative access points oar the street in 1' ' question or from another street'; • 3 The access separation requirements c annot he met; 4. The request is the minimum variance required 'to 1 u provide adequate access 5. The approved access or ►cce p ss approved with conditions �will• 1 result in a ,safe access and 6, The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. i ' .. There is no opportunity for developing shared , access; with adjacent parcels. Other parcels which front on SW 109th Avenue east of the site , . are airoady developed. Development of another access on tax lot 8802 1 would provide little if any congestion relief Oh SW 105th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections. Another access in this • area Would also require relocation of at least one building thereby necessitating removal of additional trees elsewhere on the site, Developn'ient of an access from Pacific Highway is impr^actical, because of i, the expense of constructing a road up the stoop slope on the western I i, one—third of the site, the impacts on Wildlife and aesthetic values 1' 11 M W C that would result, from removing trees in that area, and because of the � �`�, potential adverse traffic impacts of an access entering pacific rl Highway, The proposed 30 foot width of the driveway (24 feet is the required Width ) and the utilization o f curb returns and development of ,A- the driveway at the same grade as the street should provide adequate, #„ and safe access, Removal of the sign from, the required visior+. ' clearance area will improve the safety of the intersection, The Corm,rision is concerned about the number of residences served by only one access and the fire district' s preference for. two driveways. . It appears that unless the number of units is reduced, adequate and l safe artless cannot be provided by only one access,, i. ^I 1 4�1 ���.i� l !o Jyrrlr"t CONCLUSIONS „ Code relevant e ant criteria 18n 8o this s case are Tigard Community Development: The � µ� t , 18,g 18, 100, 18,162 18, 106 1.8,1.08 � Y I , 18,110, :. '4120, 18,150, and 18,164, N 4 w t.INAL oRtAIR WO, 88 w PC .� PD 88µ-D4/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SC!•4UC1 Z) PAG8 8 • • } • .. � .,,. - ..,,, 4444. r +V a s frr,6 ,I e • .b W , The P].anriing C ,_,,,fission has deter-mined that ..„!h +. proposal, with C • , modifications that will be submitted with the detailed plan, is ' cons istent with relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the following findings: a, Chapter 18.54 (R-12 zone) is .. satisfied because the proposal • conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-12 zone. . ° by Chapter 18,80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because they tin as required a C Commission the plarinin Ce.mrn •� .wed by q proposal is t:e. be r<'eva. y J by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay zone, To '," protect the intecjrc ty of thy! steep, wooded parcel, they Development shall be limited to 100 units. ' . . because the site plan provides for c. � Chapter 18.96 is satisfied � • appropriate distances between' multi—family residential buildings , to assure pi ivacy' to residents and adequate light to all units on , the sate. 1 1 ! , • d Chapter 18,100 (Landscaping and Screening) will l be satisfied sf iec upon ' , ,,'. . � submittal of A landscaping plate and approval of that plan by the � Planning Commission. The plain must detail, all proposed ' site $ I landscaping including ground round covers, street tries along SW 109th FJenuO and site perimeter b u f ferin g• , 1 0. Chapter 18, 102 (Visual Clearance Areas) will be satisfied upon Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan that . re=locates the proposed sign' outside of the required vis :on • clearance area. • , Chapter 18+1a6 (Off—Street tree • Parking) will b� s aY �t x d l p • • planning Commission approval of a revised site plan trat provides for a minimum of at least one appropriately sizes`,, located, and sighed, handicapped parking space, The 'site plan satisfies Code requirerent s for number of total parking spaces provided and a , • b number;of covered parking spaces, , g, Chapter 18,108 (Access, Egress, acid Circulation) is satisfied because the site plan provide for safe grid efficient access and ' egress for the proposed' use and for general circulation on the Y • • - • slto despite the site's constraints' of steep slope and limited frontage on ;;W 109th Avenue, The requested variance to allow ohe t 4 Ices; to serve the site, whereas the Code would normally require ;, two ac ceases for a development of this size, is justified provided the development is 'limited to 100 units } h, Chapter 18,120 (Site Development Review)'' is satisfied because the �. plan will arovide detailed ra � for the 'proposed buildings and other site'µimprovements to be lotted so as to preserve existing, ,rees u ~ and to mihiMiZ'e alterations to the site's topography dr'r'#ir age syst000 The site;; plan also situates the buildings so as to light for the proposed Idwelli•hg uiit.s and )` ��, �.vac end p ,�t�i�v�.d e for ►^ g p r privacy compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses . II , i�x111c�1,,,' bpl�Iwl� 1110+ 8f1—.�a:,.�.. PC 117 99-04/800, 88-17/V 99-2/ (SCI-IUI.,TZ) 'PA a • • i. Chapter 1$\, .a0 (Tree Removal) w ill be be cau s e the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior r . ,: to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, .' driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the area of actual development that will be retained An arborist's I, F report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must he submitted prior to the issua .ce of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. The site plan also provides for all trees in the western one—third of the property ,• to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the proposed . " • sewer, j Chapter 10.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon v n approval'd val v f public improvement plans for and construction of • the proposed extension of the public ,sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection to the existing sewer in SW 10th Avenue, and I installation of the sidewalk and approach driveway a h on SW 109th '' pp Avenue, Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits' and tree removal permits for _ the proposed development, D, DECISION E. I i The The Planning Commission grants concept.ual approval of planned Development IUD 88-O4, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88, ,27, Fl detailed plan shall be submitted' within or year, for • commission review, that includes the following! • 1, The p roposed privately—operated l an� maintained parking lo : and roadway plan -r�fxle and cross' sec iondeta�ls Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 1 percent, where possible, 2, The single driveway connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed • in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic report, 3. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission , review and approval, The plan shall provide location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material, The plan shall provide for street trees along' the site's' SW 109th avenue frontage and for additional perimeter buffering along all but the western border of the situ said perimeter buffering shall consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a 6 foot site obscuring fence at the option of adjoihing property owner's' Said fencing ,Ahall be installed prior to issuance of building permits • 4. A revised site plan shall be submitted why N 1) p ovades f o r a , minimum of one appropriately sited and located designated handicapped parking space for every bo standard parking spaces; ' 2) a relocates the proposed sign, outside of the required vision clearance ,area; 1) has a maximum of 1.00 units; and 4) provides for I , I Nr�L oRDE,13 NO, 88 10 PC PD 8 04 SOR 17/V 89 27 SCi-1ULT' • F a fire hydr dL to be located within 250 fr., of all first exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings are to be. P. provided with automatic sprinklers. F. 5. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning t Commission approval which includes locations and types of trees to P be retained, rain ar^borist's recommendations for me th,ods of , . . protecting these trees as well as trees on abutting 1 : during construction of the proposed apartments and also for 1,°, maintenance of the long-term health of the trees, The Commission 1 ' �r 1 1 � 4 , ry caution N i A � �N directs that the arbor ist .use extreme caution in the protection of abutting property owners trees,` ' The trees to be saved shall be. 1 " protected during construction by fencing or similar means apaprotred eg by the Planning Division, No site grading, clearing or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition f. . It is further ordered that. the applicant be notified of t,.ne entry of this final order. . a � r PA,��� Thi s da y of September, 1988, b y the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, il r A. Donald 110011, Pre s irderit Tigard Planning Commission hit/b/ 65W r1 • I r f I PINAL OkbEht NO, 88— 10 PC — PD 88-04 Sb — — S. U . - PACE ii ' m r 1 i IGARD PLANNING COMMISSION /r RE .,. R MEETING -- SEPTEMBER 6, 198 r 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting way -'1 i7 • held at the 'Tigard Civic Center TOWN HALL .CONFERENCE ROOM - 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard., Oregon. • 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Mon: Commissioners Barber, Rosborough, Paterson, arui Castile, j , Absent: Commissioners Owens, Fyre, Leverett, and Newton. Staff: Senior Planner Keith Liden, and Secretary Diane Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL 01- IIIINUTES Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve w minutes from August 16, 1988, Corr-ecting the spelling of Mr. Novak's . name, Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Mon abstained • Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Rosborou h seconded conded to t. approved minutes from August 2, 1988, as submitted. -Motion carried by majority`of Commissioners present. Commissioner Moen abstained. 4, PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUN LCATION I There was no communication, 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-14 KOLL COMPANY (McKenzie/Sidto) NPO #' An 'appeal of a Director's approval to allow construction of 'Phase I of Koil Corporate center on the former Ford Pre-Deliuery Service Corporation . . :' ' site. Phase I would include construction of orie four-story, 57,6.00' square foot office building and to single story, flex-space industrial buildings, Zoning: I-I (Industrial park) and t -L (Light , Industrial) LOCATION:: 14880 SW 72nd Ave, (WCTM 251 12AD, lot 800); and 6830 SW Bonita Road (WCTM 251 12AD lot 4O0), Senior Planner Liden explained that the applicant and appellant had come to an agreement and that the appellant had withdrawn their appeal. , 5,2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCR 08-17, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04, VARIANCE V '88-27 SCHUETZ (TOD DEKANTER) ALPO ? 6 Reilue s't for a planned development approval � of a 130 units apartment • complex an 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium density . ras x derGiala 12 units/acre, Planned Development) , A lso a request f or a Variance to city regulations that requires tJo '2) access points oh development of over i(SO � units to allow one access (.,d'ive. LOCATION! Between SW 109th Avenue and 281 1 OAC SW Pacific Highway (WCTM "5�1, i�(lAh let 8802 g and, lobs 400 and Stlb), PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 7 950 - PACE '1 A h I , . , . -,-- r 1 , , . . , ( , . / ' Senior Planner rev;" ti the proposal and several , the conditions and e made staff's recommk ..4tion for approval. . Discussion followed regarding the location of the site, preservation ol'-' -.. `. trees, single access, grade of the parking area, and public improvements. ...'„ ' APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION . , " , o Carl Nase, GBH Companies, 8315 SE Stark, Portland, Or. 97216, agreed with , the staff's report and conditions, He stated that they had met with the NPO and other neighbors and that their major concern was the trees, which - . is the reason they chose to construct 4-plex units. He requested their ' engin e eer rspond to the concerns about the grad .e , . . o Brad Schleining, 4230 NE Fremont St. , Portland, OR 97213, reviewed the site and explained the difficulty they Would have in meeting the . recommendation for a six percent grade. He also explained the curb returns were regular street curbs without driveway aprons. Discussion . i be followed regarding ramping. 0 . .. o Carl Nase added that he felt that the City Engineer and their Engineer , should be allowed to work out the engineering details. Discussion L followed regarding the location of the rental office and the recreation room. . i iAl,.. r / / sion problem, that the trees would not be saved because of • NPO REPRESENTATIVE . ' o Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th, representing NPO #6, Their main concerns are the road systems, the single access, that the storm sewer system woulli . „ . their close proximity to the buildings, and that this development is not . , suited to this site because of the grade. Also, that this developmant would landlock an existing lot. The consensus of the NPO was to oppose 4. • this development, She stated that any development should be postponed• until an overall plan for the area is completed. She' felt single-family . . ` . residences would be more appropriate for the site. .. . • PUBLIC TESTIMONY , , o Roger Rauch, 5800 SW Macadam 11 350, Portland, 97201, represented Mr. and , Mrs , Schutz ih the sale of the property, He explained how they had taken . . ' : A groat care ih marketing and selecting a developer because of the• . sensitivity of the site. , . 9 , . o Edna Armand, 14600 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, 07224, representing her in-laws, distributed a map of the area, She stated that the parcel to . t'. ' i the north is developed at a single-family residence And has been featured . ,,, in the Sunset magazines and books, She requested that a fence be , *12411.' installed to protect their property, She questioned how the property had been rezoned from R-7 as requested in March 1087, to R-12, Discussion 1 . followed regarding the Comprehensive Plan prodess. She requested that they no bulldozing be done beyond the drip line of trees which are located on their property, She did hot want the Anhandts to be liable for trees rp that might fall from having their roots damaged, She was concerned with i .- the installation of the to line, because of the Steepness Of slopes and \ soil conditions, that the hill might come down onto Pacific Highway, She , . was also concerned about: possible fire hazards, , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B5PT5M8R 64 i09B - PAGE 2 • / , / // " . -,",d* ,, • ' .. ..,, • ..,..- , • , (' . ' 4 . 1 . . . o Ray Hammerly, 1480 ' . 109th, owner of the townhour o the south of the , entrance, had the %,Ame concerns as the previous L takers. He did not • favor the variance for one access, but had no l idea how to obtain a second • access without acquiring more property» he had concerns for the trees . • because of past history in the City and requested some type of fencing. 1 14815 SW 109tt'r owner and developer of the four townhouses "! c. Jack Fore l , � p r. had developed his property when this site was zoned R-4.5. He was concerned, about the traffic and requested that some type of fencing or screening be installed to protect abutting residences. : for lo Jorn � Peterson, � 10510 SW Kent ��Place, congratulated the developer ,for I proposing a first class multi—family development, He felt s that there , should be a road from 109th to Sumrerf ie ld and that the sewer should connect to the line at Canterbury. He stated that he had attended the hearings when the city had changed the zoning. , REBUTTAL • o Carl' Nase stinted' that a traffic report,performed by Kittleson & Associates found little, traffic impact from this development. Staff had reviewed the • � report and found no problems. Ho explained ,'that they neither created or �. made worse the, landlocked piece of property. He felt two chose accesses , , would be more of a problem than one access. o Brad S r lex it i 5� explained that storm detention is no t allowed by the i City, therefore he would be using' a dissipation device and would be working with the State Highway Division so the storm' drainage would not ' , impact the State Highway. 15 to 20 trees would be removed to install the line and since it is a private lino, they could use smaller - equipment for installation. They would Iwork with the arborist to minimize damage to. trees, He stated'that if the site were developed with singlet family residence, such as a Tour of Eleganc6, you would be appalled at the f. number: of trees which would be removed, • O Discussion followed l with start` regarding improvements to Pacific Highway, , the landlocked piece of property, and access to the site,, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED . • o CoMnti s s ioher Castile t'avored the proposal ttu.ct,h t'ertc xnc� to prot:eci. prxvat.e sidences and li H ex v . i hbors tree y t to out re ' � "initl.rija � ca anon � around ��rte g a���s b staying of the drip line of tote trees. He felt c.ne access was' a detrimen the I apartments Ibut a benefit for the neighbors, of Rosborough WAs undecided, 'He was concerned about the traffic, He felt the drainage coulld be 'worked out with the City, and he pr'ef-erred a fence or bu f f e r-`i rt g; +r o Commission Barbee was undecided, Her Concerns were' the variance for t:he' 4 t, would access and wha '. . "�• one �� I to pen tc tlrees I that die tuithin one ear, She wanted to see condi,..ions for fencing and reducing the grade to six percent; • PLANNING C lISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBkER 6i, 108O PAGE 8 • • I I I i I I C n , a r , o Commissioner Peterson zd not: favor the proposal. Hi, it the overlay had been applied because Veie site is unique and that on Access should not be • permitted when two or three are needed. He was concerned about the grade on the parking and that trees should not be used to allow for more density o Commissioner Moen felt the ,applicant had met the density standard and had . made a goad faith effort. He was concerned about the storm sewers and parking lot grade. * Commissioner Peterson moved and ComrissAoner Barber seconded to deny ,;.'' SOR 88-17, PQ 88-•-04, and V 88-27 based oil the findings that-' there were drainage problems, inadequate buffering, and parking grades were too , steep, Discussion followed regarding the PO overlay, Motion failed two to $ three. Commissioners Moen, Rosborough, and Castile voting no. o . � -0 biscussion followed re g ardin g bufferin g * Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve, SOR 88-17, PD 88-04, and V 88-27 adding condition to install a chain link ' fence and site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the area along Pacific Highway open, Also, to modify condition number 11 requirfing extreme caution . to !le used to ' protect trees on abutting .� • property. Motion failed two to three. Commissioners Moen, Peterson, and Barber voting no. RECESS 9:47 r RECONVENE 9:57 o Commissioner Moen explained that his concerns with the uniqueness of the site were for the trees and the steep slopes. He had Ni sblems with the perking and location of the building on the site. He favored 100 units versus 130 units o Commissioner Peterson felt there where too many units for the number of accesses, O Commissioner Barber concurred. o commissioner Castile stated he would like to see fewer units I Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded for conceptual approval not to exceed 100 units for SOR 88-17, Pa 88-O4, and V �' g the 'units was because of the problems of 438-��.��' The reason for �I^eclta;�.�.rt tru� access, q w install a t �, "existing forest, acc�?55, grade, unique character of he site, and the e Also, add a condition to install. a chain link fence with site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the area along Pacific Highway open, The fence is to be installed prior to construction, . Also, to modify condition number J.1. requiring extreme caution to be used to protect trees on abutting property. Motion carried Unanimously b -� Commissioners present. , o Caryl !Use stated for the record that he felt the Planning Commissions had just changed the zoning Oh the property. • P,ANBI C COMMISSION� P��UT�s SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 - PAGE 4 • • a✓ . . I a , i ce'%.*Vg\' '. .\:‘,. ( . s �, ,�,�, WILLIAM A. MONAHAN h ' A77ORNEY AT LAW ��� �� 12290 S.W.,MAIN STREET.SUITE 4A ‘A0 k) TOCARD,OREGON 9722 0 , y�"�''pc. �' 0 11 I (5081 639.8900 , A November 4, 1988 Mr. Keith. Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S. T. Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Detailed Plan Review CBH Company, PD 88-04 Dear Keith CBH Company is submitting today the various components of their' detailed ' planned development for review by the. Planning. . Commission on November 22,. 1988. The elements of the submittal are in compliance with the direction given by the City Council within Resolution No. 88-101. t' The submittals will include the following: a. a final grading plan and utility plan prepared by \' W.B. Wells b. a landscaping plan prepared by Murase Associates C. a tree preservation plan by Lirnbwalkers . ..—d ' architectural..plans by ,•Tod. DeKanter. , , . For your information, the submittals address the concerns expressed by the City Council in the following manner: • 1. the .gradira portion n of the site. The plan has been modified slightly from that reviewed ea rlier by th e Commission and Council to reduce the cross slopes in parking areas. `� w. In addition, the new plan helps to save more trees. As you and I discussed on October 26 , When I submitted a � revised grading for y review, the� modi�icaticnsshownvere made in resp onse to the y concerns' raised by the Council . You, determined that the changes are minor and appeared to be positive. 2. the location of buildings as depicted cted tin the pl has been modified to preserve rtr'ees and limit the amount of grading. Some building4 have been relocated away from r the north property line. This results in the construction of less Units along the setback from the ' Annand property line. All buildin g s con t a. b� tc be f above the 370 foot elevation as displayed earlier to both Commission and Council 130 . units' as Commis The for � h the . ���ae plan calls for� l, q � � approved by the City 'council 4. f S ,Sys.1 41 , ,, "'b ` i^ ' 4 ' , ^' ` ti . N a r ( ( • 3. a landscaping_ plan has been prepared that modifies s that shown to the City Council on October 10. The plan fully complies with the Council direction found on page 2 of , the Final Order. Fencing materials will be as approved y, by adjoining property owners, i.e. chain link or wood. 4, * . I have talked further with Mrs. Annand who reiterated , her earlier comments to the Planning Commission whei e • she expressed a preference for a chain link fence without additional vegetation. She -continues to feel . W feel that ivy will grow to cover th4.. fence thus providing the , . desired screening. • 4. the major concern expressed by the City Council was the need to serve trees within the .developed portion of ' the property. The Council has required submittal of a plan aiming for a goal of preserving 130 trees of six or more inches in diameter in the developed portion of the . .�.:. - , .si�teA , CT3H, has prepared a tree ;,....survey, 1 A'1 I a tree �� .protection plan, and a mAintenance program. Trees along . . .. " '"" the periphery of the site on adjoining land are considered in the plans. Several representatives of CBH Company will be present with j me on November 22 to present the plans. Should any issues arise prior to the meeting, please call me or. the CBH representative who was responsible for preparation of the plan for which you ,, have a question. ' We will try to address all of your concerns ' h prior to the Commission meeting. 4 S i Y 4 I : i William A. M nahan . t t} + A ! t i ' s ' , (elv1/4,1r\ November 16, 1988 ,0, ti.._._.. 1 _ Planning Commission City of Tigard o P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Or. 97223 Re: File # PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 -, Schuetz Dear Sirs• y - As the own( w• of 23 condominium units at Canterbury Woods Con- dominiums across SW 109th Avenue from the above referenced . A proposed project, I would emphasize the traffic flow and/or increased traffic hazards at 109th and Canterbury Lane and Canterbury Lane and Hwy. 99W. Both intersections have blind ' corners. The present traffic conditions during the day on • both streets are becoming more congested and hazardous. , I believe the applicant should propose less density, and at 4' least two means of egress be provided to reduce traffic im— pacting 109th, Canterbury Lane and Hwy. 99W. Thank you for your consideration in, this matter. Sincerely, y I , � ...,�► - C/ 04W eter for :n P3ZT/lxn • • I i III i • 1888 SOUTHWEST MADISON PORTLAND,OREGOt'97205, 4, PHONE: (503) -2800 '. . .. ...: .. . . . ,... ..,.. ..... . .. .. .... .. .., a ,.,.,. ,.... .._. ... . . ., .. .... . ...... . . ... .. , , . a • \ \\' *• ► E �JCOMMENTS . 4 CA FROM: Tigard Planning Department -01+,;s4. '"j' 144441 '91=144911% eV/44/ )r5 AT'1M RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of 0. 130 unit apartmen comp'ex on .•• acres zon • R- PD Me i i esn1 ty residential:, 12 units/acre Planned Development).. Also for a Variance to . City regu ,ations a require access poi n s on +eve o peen ,o over •Y . units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: between SW 109th Avenue.and SW Paci , c 'Ig way T 4 s •i i o :"re any •! o A�'� I Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your 1:-.view. 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) corm nt on, this application, we need your comments • by . f , 19 88 You nay use the space provided . • . • belor w e or attach a_se agw ate letter to return your' cdmme s. hf ou . re: n� a G. td ond 1�the above dat e, P lease -phone the staff contact noted below with „ - , you mments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as 'I possible. If , you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. fox 233970 13125 St' tall. Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: JC:121.') STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FClLL(lWTNC ITEMS THAT APPLY: y o ��ta it. � �te�have reviewed� the proposal and have�� • n objections Please contact of our office. Please r of e r to t h e en cl oae a letter. Written Tye/ yb Ai ff Name of Person ComMentift/ a i on/3521P '1 f4h I • , ..'......-4 .:...v.......«.. J.,x.l}1.......,w...,dr:....t...r«.:.1...n "..,...:1.. REtDTIES r FOR COMMENTS, TO: DATE: • FROM: Tig.. . Pka ..``irg- :•rtment ��� (`� "' 1,4 /izhii' //l/l/ ' 3 ATTA J r q RE: PD 68-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER �(SCHUETZ) � For a planned development approval of . 0. 130 unit apartment crop ex on acres zon-• R-: PD M-•rum •;�gn�ty residential:, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to I . qty, rerja atr ns a requ"re' eGCeles points on e a epanen• o� over units to allow one access drive. LCCATICN: Between SW 109th Avenue and `31 Pact. is ag Tiay S 41,4 131 '"r" "' .a 3a 1 Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other ` • i informatjor ' 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 Irish to co nt on this application, we need your comments ' it by . / , 19 88 You may use the space provided a. below or attach a peparate letter to return your coniments. •I yp are-unable ,s o>a . '�o r� d � �flia bove 'date, please ±p hone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as .possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box ;23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 9/223. Phone: 639-4171. .,, STAFF CONTACT: ":: PLEASE CHECK THE P'oi tOw'ING ITEMS THAT APPLY: W'e have reviewed the Proposal and have no objections to it. �• please contact of our office. , I Please refer refer to the enclosed letter. , Written Comments • 'ly, Name ,,.�.,�,- erdon Commenting � 1 Ida. f'r A rh/3 52 .'F' • r r WILLIAM A. MONAHAN • • trckirrq:\r' , i c� �'`' A'rl'O[tNEV AT LAW ��°� r\ A y 12'290 S.W.MAIN STREET,'SUITE 4A ,A ` TIGARD,OREGON 97`223 �r \""� ° 15031 639449O) , CA" t\lei November 4 , 1988 I I Mr. Keith lJiden r Senior Planner .. City of Tigard . . . 13125 S.W.I Hall Blvd • P.O. Box 23397 « Tigard, Oregon 97223 I I RE: Detailed Plan Review CBH Company, PD 8�3 04 bear Keith: CBH Company is submitting today the various components of �� � � their detailed planned development, for review by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1988 . The elements of the submittal in compliance t direction City u il ,� � � �are� � Hance ��rith the di given by the � Council within Resolution No. 88-101. " n I The submittals will include the following: a. a final grading plan and utility plan prepared by W.B. Wells b. ,a landscaping plan prepared. by Murase Associates c. a tree preservation plan by Limbwalkers , d. architectural plans by Tod DeKanter. For your information, the submittals address the concerns 1 ' « ' I ex p resse d by the City Council in the following manner: ' i the grading plan has been revised for the developed • portion of they site. The plan has been modified slightly from that reviewed earlier by the Commission and Council to reduce the cross slopes in parking areas, ,. � In addition, the new plan helps to save more, trees . As i you and I discussed on October 26, when I submitted a copy of the revised grading plan for your, review, the a. the , shown � Council , � �;�� _. modifications s in response to concerns raised by You determined that the changes are minor and appeared to be positive. 1. 2 . the loci .ion of buildings as depicted on the plan has L, been modified to preserve trees and limit the amount of � '� •grading. Some buildings have been relocated away from ■ the north property line. This results in the construction of less units along the setback from the .Armand property line.' All buildings cohtinUe t:o be above the 370 foot elevation as displayed earlearlier to both the xommist ion and ,Council .' The plan calls for 130 . Units' as approved by the City CoUhcil . • I , I I ; . d 4 /,p a 4 „e..,. n., 4 w „._....................,......,,w+.,-.1..,..N,.,,..44.,i..11..,,,,,.. w4I..4.14,+»,=a,...,...:...i `„':', X, ■ 6 '3 . a landscaping plan has been prepared that modifies that ; i shown to the City-Council on October 10 . The plan, fully f:. . ,com 1 ies with the Council direction found on page 2 of , p the Final Order. Fencing materials will be as approved I� r by adjoining property owners, ' i.e. chain link or wood. r, , ,I I ' .havetalked further with Mrs. Anna.nd,, who reiterated. r`' earlier comments to the Planning ,Commission .,mh,ere . . t' she expressed a preference for a chain, link fence , without additional vegetation.' She continues* to feel r : that ivy will grow to cover the fence thus providing the desired screening. P , 4. the major concern expressed by the City Council was the need to preserve trees within the developed portion of ' . the property. The Council has required submittal of a • G preserving 130 trees of six or , plan aiming far. a goal of ,w 1 a �' p g p more inches in diameter in the developed portion of the I . site. CBH has prepared a tree survey, a tree ° protection plan, and a maintenance, programs Trees a long _ the periphery of the site on adjoining lard are considered in the plans,. Several representatives of CBH Company will be present with me on November 22 to present the plans. Should any issues arise prior to the meeting, please call me or the CBH representative b who was responsible for preparation of the plan for which you , have a question. We will try to address all of your concerns prior to the Commission meeting.) Si Ee4 r . • S:.,,e,te."/ , William A. Monahan 1 % 1 i 1 • ' ( I I, „I s a r1 L /I 3 . a landscaping plan has been prepared that modifies that shown to the City Council on October 10 . The plan fully +, complies with the Council direct. on found on page 2 of the Final Order. Fencing materials will be as approved by adjoining property owners, i.e. chain link or wood. • T " have talked further with Mrs. Annand+w,ho reiterated, '`' her' earlier comments to the Planning Commission ,�.,whe,re _ . . she expressed a preference for a chain link fence without additional vegetation. She continues' to feel' that ivy will grow to cover the fence thus providing the • desired screening. 4. the major concern expressed by the City Council was the need to preserve trees within the developed portion of the property. The Council has required submittal of a • plan aiming for a goal of preserving 130 trees of six or more inches in diameter in the developed portion of the • site. CBH has prepared a tree survey, a tree protection plan, and a maintenance program. Trees along the periphery of the site on adjoining land are considered in the plans. • Several representatives of CBH Company will be present with me on November 22 to present the plans. Should any issues arise • ' prior to the meeting, please call me or the CB}1 representative who was responsible for preparation of the plan for which you have a question. �We will try to 'address all, of your concerns h _ Y Y q prior to the Commission meeting. • Si William A. Monahan • 2 T �' ...:: Mr"�lorZnit►raUl'� , "" . CITY Y ot- TIGARD, OREGON ,, 1 . 0: Deborah Stuart, Assistant Planner • November 088 . -; c FROM: Gary Alf son, Transportation kwnr i n Tr,. 8U 3JEC : PD 88-04/V E18-27 \ 4 ' DeNaiter, 109th Avenue and Pacific„ Highway i 1 / "° 4 �,"wY. YH 1) The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex with I, , , frontage on the west side of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen i and deciduous trees, The site slopes down to the west w!!'.....hl frontage onto .' Pacific Highway. Only a portion of the site is to be C( vt loped fronting 1. • . onto 109th Avenue. 1.. 2) "rho apartment ent comp ex i. proposed tc, i q �` � � k �� complex� , ;, , r4 � to have ono access to 109th Au��rlcrr� . opposite to Murdock Street, The community development code requires on ,,I,. access for each :100 par"king, spaces, therefore, 2 accesses arro required by .' t O . the Code. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement, • Ono access is requested in order to limit thee! impact to the trees on the i site and duo to tht sa ?" tee frontage ontawidth of the site on 109th Avenue, 3) 109th Avenue is a 34 foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on either side ..; • of the site and on they opposite sick of they street, Street lights also r exist on the subject site's side of the street, The 109th Avenue i ,11, improvements currently end south of the site. "!"hies existing right—of-waY will allow for the future extension of 109th improvements to Itfaeve Street, ;. , 1 • 4) A Transportation Impact Analysis for the apartment complex was submitted c ' wit h this application. The analysis evaluated the impact of the site on 109th Avenue and on the 109t,h Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane, . The na1yt i;, concluded that the, traffic (enervated from the site e will not~ • significantly impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of ,•. tho 109tht Avenue and Canterbury Lane intersection, The report r i corY m ertd s that curb returns be utilized for the site's driveway to improve accessibility ,into and out of the site. • , !. 1: 5) Storm drainage is shown as being collected earn site from the roof and paved areas and discharged into the forested area at 5 locations, Each r discharge is noted to consist of a velocity dissipater,r The e veloci.ty dissipaters will slow the di,scharre of storm water hut will. .:+- not diffuse the storm water.r " hc storm watc r discharge s���r �� will ,�1 , still�t a ' concentrated i.n a tharr{n«:3Y I Discharging the storm water into a dlfPuser will spread the f ow of ater a , trench filled with clean drain • would best provide the necessary diffusion of the storm Water. • • '. a , , ■ • .. „ ....... .. . ...i ....,.,... w..-♦,..._ ...i .♦,.,n i..n....,fh rJU.... ..:tl....-f.r««,♦ -r .-. ., 4....n, ..... .WI,k., xu.......,d .1„.,.a...q..u,.Nurr.,.., ......,. un.,G....,6♦... MOM° to Deborah Stuart .._, , , Page 2 � November 14, 1988 , ' e Sardtar� sower service is available a1 ,Canterbury Lane and �ac7 � r r`Highway. A main line extension will be required from this existing i r up . to the :proposed development i s shown on the submitted plans. The , . extension is proposed to be installed along Pacific Highway to the site's 1a frontage and there up through the forested area to the development. I° •Q. concrete I . • 1) The� applicant �sh&i1 install 1.1 a s foot sic walk along loc)t:h Avenue frMcant«tg , 2) Construction of ria"o1ao od public improvements shill,' not commence until I. ' after the Enginoorvir►cl sc cti on has approved public improvement plans , The 1; section will require a' 100% Performance rerancew As ,u anent or Lotter of Commitment, i payment �f" permit fie and t 9 n' \ r, i a 7 ��n� 'itay � t ��� Ia�.I rtrxt � a��� sign�rt �n:�tal:f.ati.��� ;5� � foe, ,N i . 0 r c,(at:1c1t1 fc , and •,• ' dev icper 'engineer a agreement. Also, the execution of street opening r f' permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to or � • -� \. concurrently,, with the issuance of approved publ;i.c improvement plans, �. ) "i"I'le Iv'eal obed Privately—ope ra'Ged and maintained larking lots and roadway , plan—profile &r'u:l cross section details i ls shall be provided as part of t t c public improvement plans , 4) Tho ' applicant shall obtain a permit perform a from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to Wo k within the right—of'—way of Pacific Highway, A 1 • copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Office ic+ prior`' to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 5) The applicant shall provide for woof' and parking it rain drainage to the pui;3ct",4?rritUJRatei" drainage system tl"' IhJy an alfi)1al"o1/+w'G1tarn5:i. t? system 1 fl designed to prevent; increased runoff 'ortl;o Pacific Highway. � 6) sanitary s�w'r and st+�.)r'm drainage details shall have provided a$ part of they Y • Public" improvement plans, Calculations and a topographic map of the ,r storm r drainage basin. and sanitary sower service area shall be provided as a , [ , 3 r,r tara 1,4wrrtrrn n i;� try ��.h r�r,b 1.a ii p ry v rrtc n n;� t a 1 cu 1,a is e�rn;f s,h l 1 b° Nra ti ern f~r�ll. d trt�l �aticni~ f� Fe gor�vva,car bl,o area 7) even (7) sets of.; 'plan arnd t rvo 'i l<rr public irtrprvottetne►nt cnes• ruction plans t. . and on (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Prtassicrtraf. Civil Inlntxr, cifa.J3.nll.lryrv+~niacsc+. public improvements ' . shall �r � submitted t � the �ria: rt ��in� Section for approval, Two ~�� s��� iI of `plan and profile plans shall' be submitted ed forte preliminary eliminary review prior p to Submittal of final plans I' ' . i I , P l' ryry • • • 1 OM° tt) Page 3: NoVember 14, 1988 E ) The single driveway connection tt., 109th Avenue shall be designed ed ii conformanc� with the r ecomm ndations of the applicant's t raffic report. 1' ' P , • ur•wWluluuJw4uluuwr,� 1�1ui�u1��H�w.uuu.ru,MMUU.W,.ru.«u.u. uMUA.�..WU.uiWwulurwuM W�NUUU.NYWUUUNwr•W000•ulru+...»MrW ,1 Randall R. I ooiey, qty Engineer 6434• • al • "s a• 7.. I i a , V. ^ J • ( f { i REOUEST FOR COMMENTS [tea 1 $ ; s TOs DATE: / If _ FROM: Tigard Planning Department ' ? ^j)t'� `� 17/41 .` t; JrCh.1 �t. li ,1 M 1✓S . ' . , 4TTAW.lJL' • ! RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCUrJETZ) For a pla riea development approval of '. ' , a a unit apartment comp ex i o `12.66 acres zon • R- PD M- ium •esnit y '' residenial•, 12 units/acre Pl.0 ine3 Development). Also for a Variance to ' OFty re�gu aEThr s d recfaa. :r:cess pfla.n s an eve ep�rien ..o over 100 '" units to allow one access drive., LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue.and . ' —SW Racilic `i g way 6'' ..S 1770-1.65-8802 and- 2S o T X11�• . � ; ,, , i 4,,' Attached is the Site Plan and, applicant's s statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other r information available to our staff, a report and , recommendation will be', prepared and a decision will be rendered or the proposal in the near. future. ' , If you wish to co nt` on this application, we need your comments by M _/ , 19 88 . You may use the space providedA• r I r.. w below or a�taich„e_sepa�cate letter to return'' your ec��tment�. ,,-y�f�rou�..are axnab&e-,,,,14Jb4i , ' • to reu a ii b the above date, please -phone the staff' contact noted below With -. . your comments and confirm your comments to writing as soon as .possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, , contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. or 23397, 13125 SW Halt Blvd., Tigard, OR, 97223. Phone: ' 639 .4171. • Jzslm9 tDTRE.Te_ , STAFF CONTACT: r ‘ , ' PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS .THAT APPLY: e We have reviewed the ;toposal and have no objections to it. . w,h �, , Please contact of our office, • R Please re fer to the enclosed letter. NOV 8 7 Written Comments: Fire Marshal Oftico' C.- ,--,=4,..._.. 4 g0 kre-,rvie, 6:',1 c.„t,,-______42,214 Name o f Person Commetitit . : . . . Phone one No« `a-�4 s---72)--,L__ - r ` S , • . . c n/3 571 ' .. 40 . , . , . . . , . , . • , % ‘ , _ ,,,I,,, , . ,, . .0, . •. 1 %, •OUEST" FOR COMMENTS / ' TO: /' ) y,Ir,.j DATE: i .. FROM: Tigard Planning Department ' C-1.)1� ...oar AiTA J P RE: PD 88-04/,V 88-27 DEKANTER (scHUETZ) For a planned development approval of • �,�a. 130 un;t ap irtment c p�igi ot� :-6i - .zone" PD I ' xili BEity • residential", 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to . lre access �.n s pan e �n "a€ over TOtY n� �G�.tr ru ata.on� a �raga ! units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and . 1/) , sw Pact 1c�� . ig way ' S o an •' C} °W. . W. • Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From ° . information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other ,, information available to our staff, a report's and recommendation will be ' •prepared and °a decision will will,'be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to co nt on this application, we need your comments by / , 19 88 You may use the space provided • below or attach a ;separate* letter to return your cdmments. - IIou a►'re.,un1blc , ::: to res2221 bq the_ $bone date, please phone the staff contact noted below with w , r r comments and Confirm your coimenta in writing as soon as .possible. If you 'have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning , Department, P.O. �)ox 23397, 13125 SW Hall. BlVd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. :., '` j -.9 f"5=�;. • ,.. . STAFF CONTACT: . PLEASE CHEF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: . • We have reviewed the proposal and,have no objections to it. 1 h • Please contact of our office. * w Please refer to the enclosed letter. Wr�ttten ,`omments: ... . _ .... ...�,. • I d , y A:.,.&, ti Name bf' Person Cs�a�metitin , ' phone �, yr ' o , I, 6 A +A u�� nil ,. . 1 , • . . �' LfrI : /:_FOR COMMENTS D isospn,. ,, , .,... .. , ,. . . ,1 1 , TO: i , , ; 641‘.--- ) rr DATE: , 8' ' FROM: Tigard Plannin 8 Department atTle O RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a pial 1,1 —41,ii .t approval of ; : . $ 130 unit apartmen cc�m�rex on acres ton - M "^"i,� desnity ' ,, ' * residential, 12 unite/acre Planned,Derialo nt). ' Also' for a Varian=,:e to ' I Cfit r u a�aans° a r ire 27 ces.s 4.n s on eve o ni o -— 7 II units to allow one access'drive. LOCATION: Between :SW 109th Avenue and k W Pace is ,49 way ,67- S •A' o ::, an. o. r•,• .": . ' Attached is the Site Plan and app'licant's statement for your review. From •, inforn ation 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 its the rear future, If, you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments ' ' by August" 19 �, 19 88 • . You :pay use the space provided ' belo or attach a Separate letter to return your comments If you are unable • � poto' r d bt oe ae,. plese phone te staff, ,contac t noted b el aw with h �. your,' comments and confirm your comments In writing as soon ,as possible. If you have any questions reg-'xd ng this matter, contact the Tiga d, Planning 1' Department, P.0, Box 23397ti 13125 SW Hain. Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: ; i�q , 639-4.L 1. f STAFF CONTACT: D ora t .o mfg' PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: XX ' We have revl.ewed the proposal and have no objections to it. , Please contact of our office. " Please refer to the enclosed letter. '• L'4 Written Commenta: Th, s . devel.o.ment _will _have to be served on a pump system that � . - --� •: i5 already in place and adequate to serve same The •teliminar flans, '' for water are generally satz..afaotorz except one more fire h.c anti will cacti e iron n un •i he rectui�:�ed, An $r�inch/main must be installed half wa� :around the ,, duct 1 e iron , ,, . l opp t, otherwise C-inch/m in 15 aatiSt a :tcy, Meterinc ot� ini�ideal , _ .,b, Isljf s must be modified. so thktfe.wer units are served fr m eac h each • v .fl±t, 'rhu's az l "ti me will be re ;aired. to se V6 4 uil:c dings and one 1. lain 0(2 tor ►� i �� ` •,din _ s , Name of F,ersoc� ux: . �� mtr, n t �� t"�o1 ,• " - �-unit � + . �,. . m.eter� � p ombaen t ><� lZ bi�il � g' plus i�,mz��.n g• Tota 1:. ,_._..,.., an4 1,. 2. meter} �� ' Robert 8I; $ant re �hoie 1a � �, ti LA/ u COMMENTS if 171 . F' 7 4*�► CW FROM Tigard Planning ,amtme116 + -> ILA r� ,a4Ii earim +t' ." 1 RE: PD 88--04/ V 88-=2V M (SCHUBTZ) For a planned development approval of a '130 unx.197aparh7nein comp ex11n 66 acres zo - PD F1 1um esnity residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to • City regu at�.ans a requxi �,. access porn s can Eve omen .,a of�o�r- " units to a?low,one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and L�ac7a.8 'i4 way '' S I 'r ' o s I an+ • .0 400 &`500) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review: From . information supplied b Y y 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, 1ou • wiuh tol commAnt I on this application, we ne ed your comments by_ . r 19 88 You� may use the space provided a • 11.11 1i 1.�K,V below or attach a ..separate' letter to return your comments. •Il ybilt Ja�xe unab :e to re_ pond b _, y ttiaboe� date, pease phone the staff cvmtac. noted below with► • your comments and confirm .,sur comments in writing as soon $s possible. If , you''! have any questions regarding this matter, contact , the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box, ,23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: . � • � � � 639-4171. fc"Cc. STAFF CONTACT: a� I PLEASE CHEF T HE FOLLOWING NG I�EMS THAT APPLY: the proposal and have no objections• We have reviewed ti s 'to it. Please of contact o our o contact office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written, Comments: �....,_..,...�.., 6 LA-Ate... 40 C"er, .,»1.--0-4.✓A-... e. -PTA- I oc ed-v,4-1 • 1 • . r — .r..�.�rrJll`•lLw+.�w�wr.ir.irnr...•...r I'. I I Name of Person Commenting: C�. • Ph one No. - 7,425 " .� t,/ 3 521 I_ /r, h y. l , , ✓' .,l. ._ ,._:...alu- .•...,_i, ._..,........•.,, ,. ,n. „ <_. ,,- ,. _w.K w ..nw..« .+.,,..... ...»,_._ 4..,,» -,. __.,,.,,....,-.,... _-,. F..:aa-......w_,..,a.,u,...„- 3 S wN' I I I . REOUEST F �� �, Er �1� i'. ' tLDATE: . AD % e L%�.�'! FROM. Tigard Planning Department ,�'�,� � ���,�..�'�� t� ATTAMC RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHU,ETZ) For a planned development approval of a1 ].30 -apartment comp a on . acres�:ar � PD M iur esnity • residen 6.a1, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to City regu atxons a mire access - son deve -oilmen , r6VEtr' K "' ' . units to allow one access d rive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue ar;ri • SW W lT4 A''tached ' is ;the Site Plan and applicant's 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 comma. xnt on this applicat'ion, we need your comments ' r � 19 88 d . I , by ' �� � 1 � � You may use the space provided •, • � ash a ,ae ar litter� � � �nenks`r zf '®u ��a•re�i�n�ab ,: .� a below or a P r ate litter to return Your icdm le. .�.�. o re B and bar the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with - • your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as .possible. If you have any. questions regarding this ratter, contact the, Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone , , 639-4171. jgj STAFF CONTACT: • PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: 'e reviewed the il and have no� have proposal o 0 b jections to it. Please contact our of � c�ot � � � '� of�,�Qu Tice. • Please refer to the enclosed letter. ,. Written n .Comments: Please project in A , 1988, g vita our Lin see 4�tir comments made oft tl�ias u test �. dealing I cautions regarding the schools which children from this development will attend. • J Name of person commenting: Larry Ribbard - 684-2209 phone a on/3521 . d , a : ' 111 �l , 41a r Y � ,n ( /, • . ! \, , \ ■ , P N A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS . OP TO: 4,4101 - DATE: - y e FROM: " Tigar. Planning Department' t -''"' L4 0'5 l' ,r=Vi'9 /n1 r" . ATT E-IJ RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a Manned development approval of • ..v t o PG N9 zum t esnz , � n ex on ct:es R a rtt•rient c a o.� 130 unirh omp Y residenkial, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to ,• - city regu at ons a egiai.re 7'' access porn s on •eve opmenc.o over "I a units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Paci is ig w a y 'r. S •4 - o ::. an. •.� oE 4 Attached is thA Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From inforiation supplied by various departments and agencies and from other • • 1 information available' to our staff, .a report and recommendation will be prepared,. and a decision wili be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to co nt on this Application, we need your comments by kbli, / , 19 88 . you may use the apace) provided bei-o-r of attach epaxate letter to return your cdnments, “h �u arc unabi a .—•.L tv repn brWhe aove daGee please 'phone the aitaff contact noted below with ° - • your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as .possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning a ; Department, P.O.; Box 23397, ' 13125 SW Wall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. o STAFF ITT T. C 4 AC , , I I I I . , PLEASE CHH THE FOLLOWING ZI TE s, THAT APPLY: .� We have reviewed the fitoposal .:nd have no objections to it. 1 Please c die c of our office. contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: J T / J J 1 ., J i t of • Name of Person �`� mel iting. � � � � � ,n � � �� � � i, i ,,om en/3 52,1'i.P I `I pp,, . �_ • I , `a' '.,,.,., '_, ',,,.,,,vim............ .... .. ., .,,...,._.,,, „ ,, ,,,.,.L ,..... ., ,,._.. .. ,....., ,, ,. .,.. .,e ,.. ,•..,,..., ,,, ..,,.•.,,.,..,a.. ,, M,. ...,,,.4-.. y t / r nom.... .. , (Y REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ", , TO: -Qirrg..11 r DATE: /if/ FROM: Tig: . 1a g e r"�='°J "2L + V' 11,..e044164-t5 . ° ^ J RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCUUET2) For ia• planned development approval of 130 .1r14.• : : ;' - I crl ,:;- ex on .b., aces,""zo'Tec f k�D M a esnity �' 0 residenEi'dalLANNINCtiM6Rfe Planned Development). Also for a Variance to d ty regu atxons a require access points son aevelop ie t.o ' aver , I units to allow one access drive, LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and �► Pa 1C 1 C� war S. S N O .:O an• 0 , ' o Ar.rs &t bOO) Attached is P and applicant's statement for your review. From , , the. Site Flap Y' 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 Irish to co nt on this application, we need your coaaments by AADV- / 19 8 8 . You may use the space provided 4I, below or 'attach, ,a,peparate` letter to return your cdmments.. . .I_° you ..•are-unable., " - to reapand by a the rtove date, please 'phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in l writing as soon as vpoaaible. If ' y ou have any questions � eFa, n g this matter, contact tac t toe Tigard Planning Department, P.D.P.f, Box 23397, Blvd., 13125 SW Hall,, ' Tigard, OR. 97223. Phone: 639-4171. je:T2-t>.:9 . � : STAFF CONTACT: °�' •, , PLEAS E CHECK THE FOLL OWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact .•.a.� ,.._.,,of our office. � ...,_._ Please refer to the enclose d letter. Written m 8o t ens 4 I I l ' r+�wM+FMfI �ww,wl�wiirrw�l I.'.••rri.i�+.�w..w • • Name of Person Commenting: I I Phone c. , e rI13521,P ......,G,.. ...».I,....�. n..r...nu.. "{':...-r..,..a..._ .. ....ut .w.«..a....._........+.......-,.n, wi 4.ra..,,.w_....«...aL,.,..w...l.l:ir.mn.u.....y..,.._....In.Kn..."."...+F..:l.r.«.0 enw....+.�.....uJ.,.wn.a».:.1.JJ.+YI t'YMnw.,w......"nwl ..+.L-.A',l.l t...l4..uw....r .,IH.4..+.....✓,.....--..✓w...+r.•.......,..-..kL4',.r.... .....,....+.,u. wa.:.4 WILLIAM A, MONAHAN (Z ATTORNEY AT LAW M r�• O IL \9S3 122$0 B,W,MAIN STREETS SUITE 4A ' o �` �! TIGARD,OREGON 97223 • 1 �,'RD Of I� �"• C60;3)fi09.8�00 4,.,'� imie N ovember 4, 1988 Mr. Keith, Liden, Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , P.Q. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Detailed Plan Review CBH Company, PD 88-04 , Dear Keith . CBH Company is submitting today the various components of their detailed planned development for review by the Planning , , ' • Commission on November 22, 1988. The elements of the submittal are in compliance with the direction given by the City Council d within Resolution No. 88-101. The submittals will include the following: a. a final grading plan and utility plan prepared by W.B. Wells b. a landscaping plan prepared by a, y Hu se Associates • o CO. a tree preservation plan by Limbwalkers ' . d. architectural plans by Tod DeIanter. — For your information, the submittals address the concerns ' ) expressed by the City Council in the following manner: // 1. the grading plan has been revised for the developed r, portion of the site. The plan has been modified slightly from that reviewed earlier by the Commission 4 . and Council to reduce the cross slopes in parking areas. In addition, the new plan helps to save more trees. As • you and I discussed on October 26, when I submitted a copy of the revised grading plan for your review, the modifications shown were made in response to the `` concerns raised by the Council . You determined that the �' changes are minor and appeared to be positive n 2. the location of buildings as depicted on the plan has been modified to preserve trees and l tcthed�amount b� � p" re limit the �mou � grading. Some buildings hav been :. away ' 0 r the north property line. This results in the construction of less units along the setback from the 1§ Armand property line. All buildings continue to be above the 370 foot elevation as 'displayed earlier to both the Commission and Council. The plan calls for 130 Units as app roved by the City Council . • . t I ti n • 1 A rr 3,. , Q :. .. .. ,...-,. ..,,,.•,:...»...,4,..,..,. ,....;.,..........,ou...:*..1.✓......-+r.:a r,.+,s..a-...tic-.. , . r, • .M<ue o , 3 . a landscaping plan has been prepared that modifies that shown to the City Council on October 10. The plan fully ^- complies with the Council direction found on page 2 of. 0 the "ina). Order. Fencing materials will be as approved by adjoining property ownexsr i.e. chain link or wood. T have talked further with Mrs. Annand who reiterated her earlier comments to the Planning Commission where she expressed a preference for a chain link fence without additional vegetation. She continues to feel that ivy will grow to cover the fence thus providing the • el.sired screening. 4. the major concern expressed by the City Council was the need to preserve trees within the developed portion of . the property. The Cduncil has required submittal of a plan aiming for a goal of preserving 130 trees of six or more inches in diameter in the developed portion of the site. CBH �has prepared a tree survey, a tree protection plan,' and a maintenance program. Trees along the periphery of the site on adjoining land are considvired in the plans. Several representatives of CBH :Company will be present with V. . me on November 22 to present the plans. Should any issues arise prior to the meeting, please call me or the CBH representative who was responsible for preparation of the plan for which you have a question., We will try'' to address all of your concerns �' prior to the Commission meeting. S Y William A. M nahan 1 ' r � a • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON (1; RESOLUTION NO, 8 8— 1 U 1 I ' A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE BOTH A PLANNED . DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (PD 88--04) AND A VARIANCE (V 88-27) AND ALSO TO REMAND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (SDR 88-17) , THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDI"T"IONS WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL'S ACTION AMENDS CERTAIN OF THOSE APPEALED CONDITIONS AND REWIRES THE DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, • WHEREAS, Tod, Det(anLer, representing CBH Company, applied for Site Detleluprrtent, , ' ; l Review approval., Planned Development approval, and a Vwsiance to the Community Development Code standard for number of driveways required, for a multi-family development of greater~ thin 100 units; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission reviewed the ro p osal on September 6, 1988, and approved that proposal subject to sevcir al conditions including a condition , that the number of dwelling units be limited to 100 units rather than the 130 units proposed and also including a condition that required the applicants to submit a revised site plan` for detailed Planned Development Review, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's) decision was appealed tt' the City Council by the CBH Company on (grounds that 1) The Planning Commission did not properly apply the Planned), DevelopMenrtt section of the Community Development Code , Chapter 18.80; 2) that the number of. units allowed by the Commission is . incortsistentl with the intent of the Plan for land .zoned R-12 (PO); 81 that the imposition of certain planting and fencing requirements by the Commission .; • exceeded the standards' established by the Community Development Code; and 4) that the findings contained in the Commission's Final Order do not support the " decision as the applicant has fully satisfied all applicable sections of the Plan and Code and . WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on October ,10, 1988; to � " 4 review the Commission's order relative to the proposals NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RE SOLVE° by the Tigard City Council that: , Section 1: Planning Commission Final Order No, 88-10 PC is modified as follows at 0. — Decision on Page 101 . "/ U CISIOCV The City Council grants conceptual approval of Planner Development elopment: PD 88-04, Site DevelopYrent ReteieW 88-88-17, =and Variance V 88-27, A detailed plan shall be submitted withi r one year, for Planning Commission review, that includes the I I 1 , A grading plan for the developed portion of the site, Cross slopes ill parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 " 1 percent, ,whore possible, 21, The single driveway ZtortM.1 t';iot1 t+ SW 109th Avenue sFrs►li btu designed in�. corgi or�rtance with the. recommendations of � tho aPpl icant' s traffic report F SoLUTxON NO4 88— /01 I I r 11 I I I I G I . I ■ ,.r; ..,.,...._. .. .i., �.,x... .., r , r,..r rr,..1 .rxinr,. n .__„...... ...,L.,. .., r.»r.,. •,e n., ..'.(.. r< Jrr:..,r. .... r»,µ,.t.y .I', r.x- ..ra,1 r r, . o • 3. A liandsca ing plan shall be subrrri teed fur Plannxrrg Commission . review a ipprova� . 1'he p1 h sw�a�l uuxde 1octio nd , species si,.M..Cific information on proposed' Aandscaping material. As a guideline, of this plan should preserve a minimum of 130 trees that aro 6-inches in diameter or greater within the developed Avenue provide � portion of the prod ect The plan shall for • street trees along the sit e's S W 109th frontage and for t .adfitiorl perimeter buffering along the northern border of the y site from the bluff near Pacific Highway to 109th Avenue, Thy. eastern boundary shell also be buffered, Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a 6 foot sit,-, obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners, Said fencing shall be e - installed prior to issuance of building permits: 1 4 , f revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) provides for , minimum of ono appropriately sized d and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking space 2 2) relocates the proposed. ,sign outside of, the required vision i• • , clearance area 3) has a maximum of 130 units; and 4) provides for a 'fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of all first floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings are to be provided with automatic srar�ihklers. I 5.. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval which includes locations and types of °treesr, * , tol be retained, AM arborist's recom*endatiorts or methods of , protecting these trees as well as trees on abutting properties during construction of the proposed apartments artd also for ; maintenance of the long-term health of the trees, The Commission directs that the ar'bori st shall protect abutting� g property owner's trees. Thte trees to be saved shall be �. protected during' construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing, - or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this toidition, ;section 2: Th t City Council waives the automatic review of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the detailed plan subject to the Council's right to call up the d eci s i,oh for review if such it ;' deemed necessary, PASSED: This �f day of 5Cir-o 2 iii , 19E30, I Mayor - City of Tigard C-ZT-t-11-0.,t-1.44(47 LL:le....41,0'' "E 'I I '' Deputy ketaorder - City of Ti and i t� l t , t �hC,C �A�., to r� r i / i'ILL......—L—L....._4.4_/_.6......„.:c,-1/4-y ,_ , , , .4._ .... . , Ca e Yocr»1 1 e y-�5 Y ('�I;a:�0LU I IO Noe 00-.)01_ . . ,.;... praci el . ., �. .,.„ ,.. . ,, ..,,. ....�.��. ��., .. . ..._. .._.�. .., .•..,, a .. .. ir� A e w • • .,....,_�.,.r. .�L.. o .,w,A,«...,....An,..,.,,,,,r,i..u,.,. m ./.-..•,.,:w-u..r..-,,w...»..,,.,.,..:u.:..aa'�..6..,u.:,.,+m. ,..-..,,...X.A,.—.,...,iVu.w.,- ,...w.,-+�w.F:4h.1.,.a+..i wJ..,..wra.�.,.. ...;,M..ea„X-.:_3" .w..L,.uw:Cw....._...0 .-�e..,•a,a i:...'. a.7n.i.L_..«» a7:-, �: fwrw .,.:(A,:rMi.;...W'.L.._.rn::....w.$w�J.7:,..,�.,.»i r.^ae:s,:.:::+.rri:�r.:.Ua:wl:ia. 7' 1 >N4 J L . 1 b � 0 . Lk ' • WILLIAM A, MONAI3AN CITY / r, ATTORNEY AT LAW IT 1� OF 1iGAR 12290 SW MAIN STREET SUTE'E 4A ° S I;i TIGARD,OREC4ON 97223 �P NIN DE 0 r • d (509)839.9904 I I I , . November 2, 1988 . • Mr. Keith Liden, l Senior Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall D1vd. . . ' F.O. Box 23397 ;; , .: I ' (\ ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 'i RE: CBH Company Apartment Complex Dear Keith CBH Company is preparing arin to present detailed plans to the ' " Y ' p p 9 p P Planning Commission on November 22 , 1988. It is my understanding ,j that you have reserved a time on the agenda for our presentation. '..; I expect to deliver to you by Priday a sufficient number of , copies of each of the plans that are required for review: ' - revised site plan 1 ` I landscaping p lan - tree preservation plan ' - final grading plan -- architectural plans I have asked the NpO to meet and discuss this proposal prior , to the Planning Commission meeting. In addition, I have Ed ,. a r ta, , y' �{ � �� Murphy to � either, have � eprescn ti've of �� the �� �City Attorney' s � � � . Office present or attend, the meeting himself to advise the Commission of the limited parameters of their review. Copies of my (correspondence relating to these requests are enclosed. sincere) a.' William A. Monahan III „ if • r n 111 F • 1•1 New" • WILL1�A.M A. MONAHAN ATTORNEY AT LAI" 12290 MAIN 8'TRte 1,SD i:E 4A • TIGARD,OREGON 97223 1$03)639-0900 • November 1, 1988 Mr. Phil Pasteris 8935 S.W. Pinebrook Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 I I RE: CBH Company Apartments - NPnO 6 Input to Detailed Plan. Dear Phil : a The CBH Company is now preparing detailed plaihs for submission to the City. The Planning, Commission will revie■Nr the detailed plans on Tuesday, November 22. Prior to that meeting, I would like to p resent the plans to the NPO and interested P neighbors. Please advise me of your interest in holding an 'NPO meeting with this item as an topic. your consideration of my request. Thank you for � oonsiderat��o Y re west Sincerely, William A. Monahan I ' I , • lx I i o I I I i 7. ,�, i r r . , q f :fr,,,, ;,,, 4 i .1 7.' I'‘'. (''" ( . fr' ''''1 4/ ,,'(I, f il AO • A ,f, . , . ;„: i9 ' . k 9 -004. =g e r NAC 1 .1. 4 t °, ..t' 7' kor AA it,, , D .L...4,* N� .'4” t ,MEMne�i NATIONAL • AS,SOC'!A7,ION ' *' • OR% 1 0335 3N, 85th Avenue '. ' Portland,Oregon 97223-8806 244-8975 31st oF October 1988 • , GBH Company r 5315 South West Stark Street - Portland, Oregon 97216 Attention: Carl Lase " ti Dear Sir, At your request I have reviewed the trees located at the proposed building site on 109th Avenue, This visit was done to give a letter oF opinion as to the trees present condition A• and their chances eor surviva.1. during and. Following , ' rionstruc, s y t�.on , ��peGx�`i,ca�1,1y�� I ��uas� asked ��.�` it was possible ���to f . save no less than 130 oF the existing trees, and what crMteria should be Followed to accomplish this In response , , to your questions I can report the eol lowing. 1 , The existing a trees s and Flora on this lot seem to ben, generally good health , Aside From what appears to be ; . . i iinor storm damage, thayseem to ha no outward signs r of isea�se c r a.nsect problems L this time . I n my' �� t b opinion you should be able to save no less the 130� � � �� � �� trees in question . �, , 2 , It would :be my recommendation that no construction of any kind come closer than the dripline oe ang trees marked on the blueprint to retain. Moreover, a. cyelr r1e Fence or equivalent should be installed along the dr i p i i ne of the trees to be saved, by on a semi- permanent basis, sight Feet proFessionals, p CS ' � in height, with no gate, well ahead of any o construction The esnce should remain there until the construction i s completely e tnished, and the landscaping completed . IF in some instances you must i, come closer to the tree than the dripline it would �be . : r. prudent to have the Consulting Arhorist oversee this operation to give the trees the best chance at , sur rival , This person should a lso inspect the Fences , , d as ti hey 're installed to make sure the pruper distances A. 4ce observed at all times , 1 ' ' ‘'\1 .' , , I IN ' � `•.t ' `^.ry )h� �^7WW^: - ti •�1 {/• -S � ► it . , ,i. .- , .. ,. . , 4 , , , ,,,„ . , , . , t , . , "A„, i . z-', l. }s y�p* � ,y.'yI.. „4., P , z* d rYi r fly 0 � > MEMBER NATIONAL ,fie0: 9 .� ." � ARBORIST ".f r r ll r� n I ' ASSOCIATION !i! .4� } 1 • r ` � w r. 10335 SW 85th Avenue • •, ,:; Portland,Oregon 97223-8806 � : 244-8975 ' >, CBH Company . • , ', 31st of C3ctcber ±SB8 • • Page Two 3 . When' 'the land-clearing segment oF this project begins: compromise tY�e Fenced o�`�` Last be taken not to care m � areas It would 'be prudent to create a main road into the area to ' localize traf'f'ic as much as possible When '� . it comes time to do the clearing within the dripline t the trees to be saved it must be done by hand 85 to, not ' disturb the glade or compact the soy], Y r. . , `L 'As with all construction there will be some miciruenvironmental changes with respect to sunlight, wind exposure, and general air movement, which will . cause some stress on these trees , However , IF the ' . ' t� distances above are observed and the trees ere given prgper pre-and-post construction supervision bra the Consulting Arborist and his advice is Fcllcwed,' the, �':.. prognosis should be very good . The c;anstruction work • should be monitored by the Arborist and the post • construction maintenance program set up by that person as well . ' .�i 1 trust the above is sufficient For your needs as a s,, '':,:: `'ti preliminary overview letter of opinion with respect to the y . ��. ' subject t trees .. Please let me know if you need Further information relative k;. to this report Than kjou very much Y . w w e �'o l t C�, re s �� e � r r ou -Th � ,„' i ',, David F . M.:Connell, Arborist t Y Y_ ,'��1 DFC`1/d1m rr , w-.i..A.6,..... w,,,AW. ,u,,,..+ ...-.,.a-.w... ,,.»...I,,..1.... .s..r4 .....-..,J....µ....a,+.C.m.,«.Le.....r....i-.H..,..a«w,kx•...,m.w...y.i...l..,....d/.,.....,,,.n..-..,;iatl..:,—•tai1.W,Ynnmr,r-K.,.. ..-Hi,...f.•r'.»t,a....-.,.,,..w:.1:. A.nxwnfAm,+..a,aM..J,hrmu A.+.,IYisA:r.w,.nr«G4n.r.i..."..an.:rd.n.....+,..aro-l..mw.r+•..1..n.-, r.ii. m, tkt rGn.f6..', . Ali . • WILLIAM A. MONA :AN . ATTORNE Y AT LAVY • 12290 SW,MAIN STREET,SUITE 4A e TIGARD,OREGON 97223 {fir` • (503)639-8900 I October 27, °1988 • Mr. E dwa rd J. Murphy, Direct cr r, , Department o f Community Development City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. I P.O. Box 23397 I I Tigard, Oregon 9722 .. I RE: CBH Company Detailed Plan Review Dear Ed: The CBH Company will present detailed plans for PD 88-04 to • - the .Tigard Planning Commission on November 22, 1988 Since the " 1 review follows upon the City Council reversal of the Commission' s earlier denial, my clients are concerned that the Commission may , hate a difficult time eether interpreting the Council 's s direction or applying the code to the detailed plan. • Since the project has already been delayed several weeks because of� the Commission' s prior action, we cannot afford to • have another delay. Therefore, we feel that it would be , °'• appropriate for you to request that an attorney from the City attorney' s office attend the November 22 meeting to give guidance to the Commission and help Ius to keep the discussion to the ' iss feel that C issueS. If you � �f�e at an attorney is not needed at 'the ' . meeting, may I suggest that you attend to provide the same . ,�. O� CO ,�1GJ..�.. direction to the� Commission that you�I gave to �the. u Your consideration of our request is greatly appreciated. U liam A. M nahan • • • ' x.u,.,«.....xc5.wt..v uuuN..»n .W,w, w..... I — .,r • .,. .+r i ., .y .• !, .r . ..,... .. l o- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON '�, RESOLUTION NO 88— 90L_ " A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE BOTH A PLANNED { DEVELOPMENT ENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (PD 88-04) AND A VARIANCE (V 88-27) AND ALSO TO REMAND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT s —'• DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (SOR 88-17) . THE . • • PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ' CONDITIONS WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL'S ACTION AMEND CERTAIN OF THOSE APPEALED CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES THE DETAILED. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.. WHEREAS Tod DeKanter, representing CBH Company, applied for Site Development j• Review approval, Planned Development approval, and a Variance to the Community 1 • ' Development Code standard for number of driveways required for a multi-family . • development of greater than 100 units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on September 6, 1988, and approved th proposal subject to sevQral conditions including a condition , r that the number of dwelling units be limited to 100 units rather than the 1.30 units proposed and also including a condition that required the applicants to ; • • submit a revised site plan for detailed Planned Development Review; and r Q` : WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council • ' :\c by t:ho CBH Company on grounds that 1) The Planning Commission did not properly :, apply the Planned Development section of the Community Developments Code — G . . Chapter 18.80; 2) that the number of, units allowed by the Commission is • • ' inconsistent with the intent of the Plan for land zoned R-12 (PD); 3) that ' the imposition of certain planting and fencing requirements by the Commission • • exceeded the standards established i shed by the Community Development amm►ertt Code; and 4) , . 4 that the findings contained in the Commission's Finial Order do not suaport tea . : decision as the applicant has. fully satisfied all applicable sections of the • ,, Plan and Code; and 1. WHEREAS, a public hearing was hold by the City Council In October 10, 1988, to i, review the Commission' s order relative to the proposal; . /,',.*: . NOW THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Socti on 1: Planning Commission Final Order No, 88-1O PC is modified a r'. follows at 0, _w Decision on Page 10: ' DI C:L8IOIV The City Council grants conceptual approval of Planned �: Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88-27, A detailed plan shall be submitted within one .. year, for Planning Cottt►t►ission review, that includes tthe' following: f 1. A grading plan for the developed portion of the site, Cross +• slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 q �: percent, where possible 2, The single driveway connection to 8W 109th Avenue shall be 4• designed in conformance with the recommendations of the ` •. • applicant's traffic report, RESOLUTION , , . i Fa „. • 3, A lartdsc f ncJ plan shall be submitted f Planning Commission j review <+1\'.: approval. The plan shill ' ..,,,,;,ovi.de location and i /:: species specific information on proposed landscaping material, 1,, As a guideline, of this plan shioc.tld preserve a minimum of 13O trees that are 6-inches in diameter or greater within the u developed portion of the project They plant shall provide for i' street trees along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for 1 additional perimeter buffering along the northern border of the site from the bluff near) Pacific Highway to 109th Avenue, "Ina r'� , ' eastern boundary shall also be buffered. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and . vegetative screening or a 6 foot site obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners, Said fencing shall be 1 .. . installed prior to issuance of building permits. 1 4 . A revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) Provides for a minimum of One appropriately sized and located designated . . handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; E ' 2) relocates the proposed sign outside of they required 'vision I clearance area; a) has a maximum of 130 units; and 4) provides for a fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of all. first , floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the bui 1dirtcjs ' are to be provided with automatic sprinklers, iFF `. t . 4` • detailed t e protection dar shall be submitted firr Plann ing t ,r Commission approval which includes' locations and types of trees 1 to be retained, an arborist's recommendations for methods of d protecting these trees as well a$ tree on abutting, properties during construction of the proposed apartments and also for' ( `. maintenance of the long-term health of the trees, "Brea Col9tlitission directs that the arborist shall protect abutting . property owner's s trees, The trees to be saved shall be Lk.. protected during construction by fencing or similar' means 1 , . n. approved by the Planning Division, No site 'grading, clearing,ng, « ' or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this '" ` ' ' . condition, ., .vo;. Erection 2: The City Council waives the automat... 4 review of the Planning Commissions decision regarding the detailed plant subject to the . Council's right to call up the decision for review if 'suchi is . ceeMot necessary. . 7 ' l PASSED: ihs o ray of ()C�a P 1988.f 1 p;. . Mayor City of Tigard ' ATTEST', (..,)C-a-,j)-8/L-14%Le/..,-.)A8 ' .. Deputy Recorder -a City of Ti,, ard .11''' .,'...: ^ Wwuu� 1....4. .L»V..dwN:.N/w•-.iN /1'�' .w w.`..«,....4...uwwl�wr:�uwrw.w{-w«......t •. , Ci y, Recorder M t /r (c 1 J )4 it r?q ( 7..�«..... 1....u' w.....'...�.L.. w c 1 i�rt I.c« brir 71♦I p) `gyp. • 1 \ C�1' .'. ' f a . ,, I ■ . • • • • I I ..,.i,..-y_..._• ..a... .,rr.,.,. .h.+....._.,w.,..M--.,....,,.. .. ....r......._...,.H.rt..n...A ,.r,. ..rr._.... ..,..._ _.....-_................Y ..,.M.r........ ...rte. ,. ,,...�.r J:'..... e...r � ...4,e.H.a.._.-:Y..r--�.,1.�:A-«....._.lil.�w,._..r_.Ln�.._ra.-�.1•.d..wl.,iyx.,rrl4•u....:,_,.TdM y.-..w,,.r..s ii y , CITY OF TIGARw~«wDD, OREGON! COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY • • xNxxWNrwwxrxr.— AGENDA OF: October 24 1988 DATE SUBMIT tD: October 17, 198j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CBH Cram im a PREVIOUS ACTION: Council j r�ovai. PD 88-04/V 88-27 • N A, PREPARED BY: ( Keith Liden,`}Sri. Planner DEPT HEAD 0 CITY ADMIN OI /WI REQUESTED , »NUN W.W,ww �wr«ww ww.«rW«wwwr• N«Nw«w«ww « Lw N+wNwNNwNrwr uw• wxxwW«wx«xxN,w,••�r"i�rrW.�.••.ruN xwiWrwwrxwNxwxwwrwr»•rNw w�::NwwxwrrW«Nw•rwrr•IN'�'r•rwx«w«..««w«Nrrw•w«w«.wrwrN«y.,rrr www«Wwwrwwr..«wrwrw,w«rr«w:"1wwNwwwwNwrNwww+r• I POLICY ISSUE • I I I t• r ., « «xN wrr.,ir1'rrr•.r•rrWwl..11rri.«w..wrrN«Ww««r«rrr1W » w««Wrw«fwr•rrr•.w"wN4««ww«wr ww�w•N�NNrIlNrrx, rw rN•«urr4wNwrwW«wrrwrwNlw.wxw..N,. rwrrr«w•«xr«r Iw«xN•NW+rwwrwr' W«W»r...... rx rw««r.••w•Ir•rw•ww«rM«Iw« ww•« w Nrww w, rr•r .Nr+lNrrrrwrNllww•w•rrr•1wr•W«w••Nr11wWM«••rrrxNwwwNMw,rr••»W«wwrrrrwYrr«rN'xirN wwwWrwwWrwrw«r+•rrl•••wr rr•M•wWrrr••rrr••r•••r•rrr•rr.WW{rrwwr •Wrrr•rrrNh,•«wrMN•rrrr«w•rWwwwwWrr••rwNwwww•�•w«w rw INFORMATION SUMMARY • On October 10, 1988, the Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve the above application, The applicant appealed the decision because of the, conditions imposed by the Commission. The Council upheld the decision, but modified several conditions of approG1l, The ..: r..•-ai:tached re•soiut;on reflects-the changes desired by the Council • ' � � wlxw:rNrw�'i«rw,l�li,Nl: r:««w«r�w� w•r'•"r�rr�i:r•Nwrwrwrww:r.M•MrrNwwNr wW��ri�«wJWww1�NN��"w� '�•�Nyw•rVwN:ilirwNwwr�r.rrxl«Nr•ww,w wrNw.wM•N�»rrNw•��•1•rW,w«��r�Wrr�W«•�wrwww•w.r•LWww�,•w•rr.•«r•r1 P,,LTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1, Adopt the attached resolution. . I 2. Adopt the attached resolution as modified by Council. I . • �� i � Warr.lr�wl.wrww1•«Irn«rM«{w«rWwNrrrl•11 NNww4rwrMwrrw«•r«rxN•NN•,N•«Jrw«•M1«NI«•,.wr«rNwlwWNwww.rNMH,wrww«r- �-' � l r���•r�Wf"w•+xM«M� '� 4•w•y+•,.xrl ;• 'y.i.•••rr•Nl,jw«i.r'rwN1w wNWr.iww•NNNW««•r N•1•rrw.NNrl«w.Mww«N„INw«r•rrw«rNWNNw«f.,w«r«»M«wu,Nw•1••wNr WwNwr•rrrrrwwNwwNNr«r«!r•wwrwwNNiN«NNNW Nywww•wwrw«Nwwwwlwrw.•wwwr««xr«wNwrwNrNwwwMrlwMr�IM4r.Wi.:rwx,««IwNNw••INww F'TSCAL IMPACT' • I `I ,. N N.MNwIN.w.dW«Ir...NNN.Nri.,rw«.»rr«..w.Nw«rw' 1 Jiwrl..�«N. w•,rw...w•NNN:.N I.r»w 4»IM N•+w•JwwNw.IwN»w.u,«.N•r««wN«NwNrNw«.W«NN«..: .,WwN.wwrNr N:Nw.....w.....Nw www«wWlwNr«w:..w..rr»•Nrr.r•:.rr«t«'Nw.:+.N N•∎∎:% www.•«»w••rwNl•x W.WrI..,Irr NN.wNNrN•,..N•N«(fww•r•�.:—...4:74r•r•.•w« vit",z"..zttttt w .r•w NwNN rwrr..2.=."»w..w...NaN«N.w«NwNww«Ww.wwrNNww.wwww,�wrw' •.Nl..rr«h«wwN.N««.W.Ww•aN wwwWwr,wN•N.Nw..Nw,N.w�wwNNN...'Nr.: SUGGESTED ACTION a !� the attached resolution. Ac�i�;�� cw/758 alD • I I � .� O4 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON .,. RESOLUTION NO. 88— • A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS "" APPROVE ZG V � eGra A PLANNED ANNED v' :y DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (PD 88 -04) AND A VARIANCE (V 88-27) AND ALSO TO REMAND THE PROPOSAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL (SDR 88-17) . THE , PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ., CONDITIONS WAS APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE COUNCIL'S ACTION AMENDS ' CERTAIN OF : THOSE APPEALED CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES THE DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMIS.SON, WHEREAS, Tod Detanter, representin g GBH Company, applied for Site Developrttht Review approval, Planned Development approval, and a Variance to the Community . Development Code standard for number of driveways required for a multi-family development of greater than 100 units; and WHEREAS, the , Planning Commission is sion tuiewcd the proposal on. September 6, 1988, , . and approved the proposal subject to several conditions including a conditioxt that the number or dwelling unite be limited to 100 units rather than the 130 units proposed and also including a condition that required the applicants to subrtrit� a revised site plan for detailed Planm d Development Review; and u WI-1C"REAS the Planning Commission's r s decision ian was appealed e d to the City Council . by the Or3H Company Oh grounds that 1) The Planning Commission did not properly r• apply` the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code •' , Chapter 18.130; 2) that the number of units allowed by the Commission ' is inconsistent with the intent of the Plan for 'land' zoned P-12 (PD); 3) that t the :imposition of certain planting and fencing requirements by the Commission exceeded the standards established by the Community Development Code; and 4) • . that the findings g s containe d in the Commission's Final Or der do not support the ' N y .satisfied. , • i decision as thrr applicant has fully �atisfied all applicable sections of the Plan and Code; and , • , WHEREAS, a public hearing was held hay, the City Council �on October� ,�0 � :L988 to e review the Commission's order relative' to the proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council than:; • 4 Section 1; Planning Commission Final Order No 88-10 PC is modified as follows at D. — Decision on Paco 101 DEC•Cs,tON The City Council r rant% conceptual approval of Planned Development D 88-04, Site e Detoloptewt Review 8.8-88-17,, and td Variance V 80-27, A detailed plan shall' be submitted Within one yr;ar.,, for Planning Commission review, that includes the fo 1 loo,ting :L . The proposed private va:� o rated c maintained d park rt �ti t and • • 0", roadway plan—profile and cross section details. Cross slopes in' \, # parking areas ; hall be reduced to approximately w .. .., ' • ', � � "i aP� c.x�,rrt����.y � pc�rc+�rpl;t whet �.. possible.'• 2, The single driveway connection to 8W 109th Avenue shall be dos i area a.n conformance with the recommendations of the • applicant's traffic report, i7iE8VVVi.,.0 TIGN NO. 88— ( Page 1 • . r. ;0 Y 3. A landscaping plant shall be submitted for Planning. Commission ', N w., , ,. 'A review 9 ' approval. The plan shall �ovide location and v � ° A , • species s,,r A.cific information on prHoposecr,•,:.artrasoapirtg material. ' ; , . As a guideline, of this plan should preserve a minimum of 130 «,rr ;•: trees that are>. 6-inches in diameter or greater within the ' . a : ' developed portion of the project. The plan shall provide for ; ;``, ' street trees alone, the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for •,'� additional perimeter buffering along the northern border of the site from the bluff near Pacific Highway to 109th Avenue, The .;• :' eastern boundary shall also be buffered. Said perimeter . ., buffering shall consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and s ,, vegetative screening or 'a 6 foot site 'obscuring fence at the ' ' ' option of adjoining joining pr operty owners. Said fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits. ,. 4 . A revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) provides for a • rmt.inimum of one appropr�iate.ly sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; _ . 2) relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area; 3) has a maximum of 130 units;• and 4) provides : -. • `I''or a fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of a ll first floor exterior orations of all n ur es t u'1 unless� he buildings d i ri s p _buildings g are to be provided with automatic sprinklers. . 5, A detailed ..tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning' , .u Commission approval which i icludes locations and types of trees � r r • M 1 F , • - to be retained, an �,arbor �,st s � recommendations for �methods � of protecting these trees as well as trees on abutting properties during construction of the proposed apartments• and also for -aW • maintenance of the 16r1g-term health of the trees, The Commission directs that the ar'borist shall protect abutting ,, property Owner`s trees, The trees to be saved shall be ., w;, protected during construction; by fencing or similar means approved by ' the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing, , •.. ors tr rernaval shst11 o cur law fie r to s tis actit�n of" L1�is condition Section 2: The City Council waives the automatic review of the Planning , Commission's decision regarding the detailed plan subject to the • Council's right to call up the decision 'for review if such is deemed necessary, r, �,Y PASSED This�� tiay of , ,9013 a �, i 4w•...:LM:.i..wM+r.4r'rw•w •. 'i.l.ra.w«wirlwiiw.4(«.«riiw._. — _ _wM.rr Mayor - City, of Tigard� A"f"""d:� `f"o • Deputy Recorder u y x tJ of Tigard APPROVED AS TO roRm r City Recorder 4. r 1" �[r{ ` °r w 1` Yw�11WUV'd l�V i 80 w.r.�wNuw.lut Page • r { I L Y/ r D y • G _ Q , ,._,!iK.«_a.]:.,:.,--...,..::u.,...0.,+.',F.-«-,...—.., ..-.w.,..r.'.n..z3.......-+ci.,.•.x.s..««,...:..;.x.,«.....il:.,..a.........:...'«.x:+.,«u.-,::+.».YF.:.:.+:.a:,iaa.,l.Y»,......:...:.+-.-w...:,.»....,v,..i«.e, ' ,'W' WILLIAM A. MONAHAN 12290 S.W.MAIN STREET,SUITE ATTORNEY�'L''LAW 1 .,!. TIGARD,OREGON 97223 � 0033 8398900 October 24, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council . . `) City of Tigard ?'os 13125 s.W Hall Blvd. <*, Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: CBH Appeal PD '8 8-04, V 8 8-2 7 �F Final Ord a :. a Order p Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Item 5.2 on the, Agenda calls for the adoption of the Final , Order for, the CBH Apartment complex. Upon review of the final order, the applicant wishes to raise a question concerning ' Condition No. 1 on page 1 of the proposed resolution Upon ' consultation today with l'� • y Senior �P,lan;n�er� Keith Liden, �-the staff and I have agreed that the condition is one that staff originally intended to be applied to the approval of a detailed plan. The .,'' detail that is called for in this condition is more properly ,„ required after the upcoming Planning Commission review of a final ' grading plan. I request that the Council modify the condition to require . " submittal, of a detailed plan to the Planning Commission which includes the following: DELETE . 1. The proposed e c p r iVatel�-operated and maintained e d parking g lot and roadway l • w y p1an prol.x,le and cross section details. . Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately percent?nt �where 5o s s possible. ,,,, ADD [. ., 1. A grading plan for the developed, portion of the site. . Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to RI 1 approximately 6 percent, where possible. ., Thank you fo r your consideration o f our request. � 1.. Sincerely? William A. Monahan a 'c* " �5e, 1, it/P- ? i o „ Syr _ r i M err .d •4 ' ., .,.. , • , _...«...,... .,r4............. ..........c..-.....n-..w.+......:.M.t,:,w, «-.:T:..,.,efi-«..r-.m.,:.. .........Oi.M... ..v... .•..... ,.,....._. r ♦.. .,,. ,... ,. w'k1 „ .a„>w..i,ea�,...a:.n,,...t,+.wi....J.4 o-il:.«. w, r" r r... . ML»7 .a.,.,i,:.+.A.-u++;.l.y...r n L • (.�a .. .� .., IITIEJLIANI A. MONAHIAN '.'i ' ATT0ENEly AT LAW a 3.2240 S .MAIN STREET • T TIoAIr])r OREGON 9722$ ,, mom 6.39-kM1OO , . j ,f' October 11 1988 i . Mr. Keith Liden, Senior Planner ("(71,11F. City o f Tigard , �! , .13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. . .i F.O. Box 23397 OCT V Tigard, Oregon 97223 �. 8 . CITE' OF TIG RD RE: �CBB Company Apartment Complex ; ,. Dear 'Keith: CBOT Company interested proceeding•� ��� � � �� parry � � is ested� in prc►ceedin to �gain � Planning � d. � �; Commission approval of a detailed PD plan as soon as possible. ,' • As a result, I would like to request an opportunity to review the draft final, order from the City Council as p soon as possible. We 1 will be preparing our detailed plans to conform with the revised ' , . - conditions, therefore, the actual language, of the order is very ' important for our planning , ". t 1, In,, addition, r �: asJ�. that you tentatively ntat��re�. re r � �' SCrVC'' r�, place on f ti• • the November Planning Commission agenda for a ; review of the :. detailed plan. It is my understanding that the first meeting in a November will be held on the 15th rather than the'' 8th due to the , l If that is the case, it is also my • ..� e election. ; national � • understanding that the advertising deadline will be Octoberr 28th. We will make every effort possible to have plans available, for Y • make your review to make these deadlines. i, , • Please advise me when the draft final order i8 available 1e for i' . review. Please also advise me if my understanding of the Planning Commission schedule is s yncarrect. As always, thank you for your consideration of my request. sincerely'e xP Y `�er 1 0 I; • 1.: William A. Monahan ,x•a h I.r - '•• �a `. •• •• _ 1 « •1 rf may', 1 a , "+ ti•/r �,,.,. ,., .,..w..,.,.-_i..t."a,:J+,.......1.., .....:.m._a..d,:i......,.....,,m... ................,,.,......,il.,{a..,., wn.,..w ... ,...0,.M......»......,._ -.a,_.,I.ti,..lw.,...,...G..._.._w..,,.ik_.....:a,,.c. ai:.u. , .. Y • 1w4✓" • y . 6, APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW; SDP 88-17, PLANNED d bEVELOMENT. PD 88-04, VARIANCE V 88-27. SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANTER), NPO ## 6 Appeal of Planning Commission's ai Pp roval with conditions for a request of a 130 units apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium f Density Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development). Also, a for Ir.: . .' a Variance to City regulations that requires three (3) acce.: ;points on L. development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between ,SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AD, lot and .�� 8802' 2 ' 1 '1OAC, lets 400 and 500) . u Pubiic Hearing Opened . ,., o Public Hearing Closed ! , 0 Consideration By Council — Direction T6 Staff For Final Order e r J , r Jo/Ea UA — Motion. Sustain appeal, modify Planning Commission's Final i;`". . Order No 88-10 PC as follows (Page 10 D. Decision): .o 0 #3 modify fencing requirements �► #4 3) maxi.mtm of 130 units (with single driveway as specified in #2 of Decision) ,, 0 #5 change wording An second sentence to: "The Commission •; directs thaI t the arborist shall protect the abutting property ? owners' trees." I Detail Plan ';to be reviewed by Planning Commission; City Council waives automatic review subject to their right to call up for review if deemed necessary. r . 7. 74th AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY -- Tabled to Study Session 10/24/88 ! 8, NO PA KING DESIGNATION —' SPRUCE STREET — ORDINANCE WO. !88-30 Jo/Ed Ed UA R / 9. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — ORDINANCE NO, 88-26 — UNLAWFUL TO TAMPER WITH ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ' ORDINANCE NO, 88.31 Sc/Jo UA 10; ORDINANCE 'AMENDMENT -- 'ORDINANCE.. NO-...88., 27 — AMENDING SECTION 3:16.1070 a OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION 80C & ' SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ORDINANCE NO. 88-32 .Jo/Ea UA 11, NON—AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff Town Halls b . i� agenda C CC will call .1 Ta is ac ends distributed to C � 'i.f cor►cer•rrs 2 Update Tigard Marketplace I I ' 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council were: into Executive 'Session o the provisions s io; at 11:50 p.m, uf'rd � p rrs of ORS 192.660 (1) Cdr, (e), & (h) I , to discuss labor relations, real propeety transactions, and current and pt ndihg s litigation s a . u0s\ . 13, ADJ'OUONME J1: 12s2O aim. cw/6971D COUNCIL� AGENDA o I OCTOBER��' 1O e 1088 8 PAGE 2 R • „ r of n t .r ✓•, A V .nos - MZETINC WAS RECESSED AT �7 PM. c . MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:50 PM. ♦ , 8. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SpR 88-17, PLANNED ".; DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04 VARIANCE 88--27 SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANTER) NPO #6 _ , bs Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions ' for a request of a 130 unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned`R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned' `Development) Also, fora Variance to City regulations that require three (3) access points on i , '„ ' development of over 100 units to allow one access drive, Location: • .. Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WC` M 291 10 AD, Lot 8802 and 2S1 10 AC, Lots 400 and 500). a a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges. Legal Counsel advised, that his law °, firm had represented the applicant in other jurisdictions. He advised this would not create a conflict of interest, "� `�, c. Summation by Senior Planner Liden: On September 6, 1988, the ,:. Planning Commission approved a proposed apartment complex looted + on 109th Avenue south of Canterbury Lane. The applicant appealed i . the decision because of imposed conditions of approval. , /''' . a' , ,• The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development, The property, as zoned, would be permitted a maximum of 152 units •• 130 units were r proposed. The applicant also requested a variance to allow one driveway • ' where two driveways were required by Section 18.108M70 of the " Code. Bawd upon the way this section is worded, one could conclude that two or three driveways World be necessary, The ,. - / staff interpreted the Code to require two driveways for a // development of this size, The Commission approved the variance for one driveway but limited the development to 100 units. Concerns were expressed regarding access, buffering for adjacent .rJ properties, and preserving trees on the site and abutting parcels, Staff agreed with the Commission that these issues ' should be adequately addressed; however, staff did 'not. view � ,' reduction in density as an appropriate method for dealing with • these concerns. It appeared that the problems which surfaced at the Commission hearing could be dealt with in other ways, such as . involvement• j„ � requiring 1��ro driveways or further Fire District nvoluerti�. in " I the site design; modification of the location and orientation of the apartment bui ldings; and determination of the methods of buffer,ing to be used Senior Planner Liden th oted the steps for a Planned Development:ri �' I 1) A conceptual plan submitted and, if approved i, 2) A detailed plan submitted, 4 . Page 7 * COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1088 . , i • r . \ . ,,, ,, - Q^ fir• - - , .. � ,. • Senior Plan Liden noted that a letter }� • been received and " submitted tdeeleeneil from SintmCo Prapertiee ‘.,ea.. (Michael McKenna, President). This letter noted concerns, about traffic implications • ' for,Canterbury Heights and Panorama West Apartments, d. Public Testimony t PROPONENTS (Appellants): o Bill Monahan, 12290 �S SW Main, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, introduced 'y Carl Nase of CB$I Company, Joe Percival of Mur•ase Associates, Gary Katsion of Kittleson & Associates,' Brad• Schleining'�of W.S. Wells, and Roger Rauch of Rauch-piestrak. Mr. Monahan disclosed that he was legal counsel for the applicant and that he had' formerly been the Director of Community Development for the City of Tigard. ,w. • Mr, Monahan advised that he had seat notification to the Acting ;r City Administrator concerning his representation of . CBH. The City's Legal Counsel gave consent to M r. Manaha n n `s representation , of CBH. Mr. Morahan advised the issue before Council was an appeal of a Planning Commission decision after a hearing on September 6th when CLH : applied for 130-unit apartments in the little Bull Mountain area off of 109th The Planning Commission approved ' the p 100 units and p access was a application on out limited the development to one access to the site. `TNte one ace variance request. The • decision was being appealed for the :following reasons: : 1, The applicants were requesting 130 units which was less than what the allowable number for the present 1-12 zoning with a PD Overlay, 2: The Planning Commission did not ask whether the applicant would be willing to supply two access points if 130 units r would be allowed. 3. The fencing and buffering requirements placed on the site were far in excess of the standards of the Community Development Code. • .a• 4. The condition that the detailed plan, landscape plan, and preservation the t.0- ‘e plan be resubmitted to the 'Planning .. Commission was an excessive step which would delay the • prod and be detrimental to the applicant' Mr. Monahan reviewed the proposal with the following points highlighted, o ' . .. The project consih sted of 130 unite s (2 0 residential structures) or 126a cP'es of land oh null Mou to x n� Ne referred to a plan an dap lay which had also been submitted to the Planning . :. Commission. Approximately 4-1/4 acres of the site would be left in its natural state, The choice in building type had been made to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as 1 possible, pane a - COUNCIL MINUT S - OCTO8ER 10 1.988 • . , • , The prof\ Al complied with all City reqc ments for the type : of use \"- Carl Nase, CBH Company, 8315 S.E. Stark, Portland, Oregon 97216, displayed pictures for Council review of another project which he said illustrated the type of building and landscaping proposed. He advised that measures had been taken to save as many trees possible. Rental projections per unit were estimated to be about , 0 $500/month. Roger Rauch, 4800 S.W. Macadam, Portland, Oregon, advised that his • firm was a commercial real estate brokerage. He testified that CBH companies were known for their quality developments. Joe Percival, Murase Associates (landscape architects & planners), 1300 N,W. Northrup, Portland, Oregon, advised that the existing trees were a valuable asset for their project. Over 100 trees had been identified to remain; however, it would not be known until the final stages of the grading plan exactly which trees could be , „vi.eserved. Where trees cannot be saved (because of roadway and k Aiding construction) replacement trees would be planted. He outlined where the existing forest would be preserved. Mr. Monahan referred to an aerial photo on display. The actual non—buildable acreage consisted of 1.2 acres. He believed the . Planning CoM er mission erroneously assumed the applicant had asked - for a density transfer from non—buildable land. : I Mr. Monahan recounted the zoning history. Prior to 1981, there were two zones in this area: R-4 and R-3, In 1981, several property owners successfully petitioned the City to change the zoning to A-12 with a PD overlay, When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, the land was made R-4.5 (again with a PD overlay). Last year, after the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan application, the Council approved a density transfer which rezoned / 1 the site to R-12. The Council added the condition that they would ' review any Planned Development in this area. The Comprehensive Plan identified this area as a Goal 5 Resource e e for its scenic views. The Plan speaks of preserving as much of the treed area as possible and Mr. Monahan reviewed how the developer would meet this Goal. Mr, Monahan advised that the Planned Development process was in the Code to allow flexibility for a developer to make the best use of a piece of land working with the natural landscape, The adjacent properties to the north, south, and east Were all zoned R-12, He reviewed the nature of each of the adjacent properties, Mr, Monahan advised the applicant had applied for 10.3 units per acre (130 units) . Deducting the 1.32 non—buildable acres, and not . 'asking for a density transfer, the actual density on the buildable . , land comes to 11,34 units per atre. The Applicant was asking for a clustering of buildings, which would make optimum use of the site ih a Planned Development (Pb) concept, The Planning • Commission deliberated at length and voted three times, Pri,or to Page P — COUNCXL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1088 \ 0 . , IMMOMMOOMMOMEMMOmmemmgmgagmemmommimmummoil • the final v, the Chairman made., a s.tatem'' that he felt that . ':.: the properge. could best bear 100 units' weeet one access. The Planning Commission Chair had advised that he felt this was a A' ' 4; unique parcel wh Bch should be given special consideration. A motion was they: made to approve the application with 100 units, because there were too many buildings on the space which was available to build them, Mr. Monahan advised that it appeared , from the meeting transcript (Page 55) that there was • miscommunication that there was a request from the applicant to e . build with a density transfer from non-buildable land, Mr. Monahan alleged that allowing only 100 units, on this site violated the density allowance for an R-12 ,zone and. the P) section, of the Code. He said it was alsv.t a violation of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in the ESEE section. With regard to the access . requirement, Mr. Monahan advised the applicant would be willing to put in two access points if deemed necessary for 130 units. The applicant had not been given the opportunity to adt,se Planning Commission of. this. . Gary Katsion from Kittleson & Associates, rarer• 512 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97204 testified his firm pre p .: the traffic impact analysis at the site at the request 'of the eeveloper. One access, drive would work well in the area because'the traffic on 109th was small. The site would be expected to generate ° approximately 90 new trips during the p.m. peak pith about 800 new trips throughout • the day. With the development, 109th would be carrying between, 1,500 and 2,000 trips per day. He said the most ideal site for , the access would be across from Murdock Street because it would have good sight distance in both directions and the number of conflict point's would be limited. . Mr. Katsion reported that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviewed the traffic report. °DOT did not see any significant impacts cleated by this project. In fact, ODOT mentioned that the intersection would be signalized s ome time' netst: year. Mr. Katsion outlined the following conclusions Cane access would work well from a traffic capacity standpoint, The 30-foot width which was recommended would allow, if _.0 anyone was stalled, space' to get around with emergency vehicles. Options at this site for a second access would be . There 4141 under 250 feet o frontage 109the and the most logical on � second a�: to the xcal ]at::e f; put a g� place ,o p accost , . would be as far e north as possible, Another second access option on would be on Pacific Highway; , it would be highly unlikely that 000T would allow a etcohd as .ees oh Pacific " Highway hway when' thetre was another option p atrai`labl. - Over goo ad4`r`t tonal cars could be added to " the , intersection without 'affecting capacity. ,, Page 10 - tO1UGiL MINUTES - OCTO8ER 10, 193$ , , 1 I ,, \, ; There was diseossion on street width and trafi ,c patterns. , Mr. Monahan advised that even though the Planning Commission recommended that one access point be restricted to one hundred ':0 units, the ,staff report was ,n favor of a variance for one access point for the 130 units. Mr. Monahan noted a major item of discussion at the Planning Commission was the fencing and planting concerns. The Planning Commission made a condition with which the,applicant took issue. � , This condition stated: "Additional perimeter buffering along all but the western border of the site. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a six—foot chain link fence and vegetative° . six—foot site obscuring fence at the op tion of the screening or a siK f p g adjoining property owners." The buffer matrix did not call for a six—foot fence for 2,300 feet around the periphery of an R-12 multi-family dwselopment against other R-12 developable properties. u � Planning Commission required that three ' . N!r.. Monahan noted that., the Pad g � , plans come back to them for review (i.e. detailed site plan, landscape plan and tree preservation plan). He requested the plans be rev4ewed and approved adminisl:ratively by staff in order - to save time. Mr. Morahan recapped the points of the appeal as follows; is 130 units would be allowed within the ,existing 'zoning O With 130 units, either one access could be allowed because the variance criteria had been met or a suitable second access should be detertsa.ned, If a second access location was deemed necessary, then the two-plex would be moved, at the time the o The tree preservation plan should be submitted a . . final grading plan was prepared, buffering co . + . n should be modified. o The fencing and ing ondit�.o o The final decision on the plans should be made by administrative action and not sent back to the Planning Commission. Discussion on process followed. Legal Counsel responded to ,a question p osed b y the Mayor with regard to whether th e Planning Commission had , the right and authority to limit the number of units. Legal Counsel advised that it appeared the Planning Commission, as a condition of the 1 Y _ would place a burden 4 variance, 100. ` t the Planning i n Cori limited the units trc! �. . This wo a large on c' the City, if they were to adopt g m�.ssron°s basis for limiting the number of uric to 100, to be sure there was evidence in the record that lanning 1 omm's by th +� Drat the P i s ion`s concerns could only be met reduction in units. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the density' issue and' the intent g y the Code which desi •nated the area as a' of th h 'g PO overlay. brad Lch le in x ng� En g ineen _ with � ,�� Wells & Associates,tes , 4 230 NwE_ . I . Tremont, Portland, 0$ 97213 noted that more trees would removed in ' single family develo meaets than in multiple family developments, Page 11 - COUNCIL MINl1`i"ES -- OGTi1hER liD, 190 . • % r e , i, y •r a orients ' o Ray Hammerly, 14807 S.W,. 109th , , ,Tig . J, Oregon advised he was an 4.". adjacent property owner. He had attended the Planning Commission r meeting and believed that the primary concern was not the 130 . units,; but with only one entrance to that many units. Mayor r , discussed with Mr. Hammcrly the l ignment of the entrance at , Murdock Street off of 109th. Mr. Hammerly advised that a squared �; ' u intersection which would also be a four—way stop would not be , inadvisable: Mayor noted that two occesses onto 109th to the site may not be 'beneOic°ial. If the single access was aligned with Murdock, then people traveling on 109th would need to only be concerned with one . . inter,section rather than two. Mr. Hammerly was concerned with emergency vehicle access with a single entrance, • With regard to fencing, Mr, Hammerly advised he was satisfied with the applicant's proposal as to which areas would be fenced coupled with the Planning Commissian°s recommendation that the fer ing be gat the adjoining property owners' discretion, 0 Edna Annand, 14600 S.W. Pacific Hlighway1 Tigard, Oregon, testified she was speaking on behalf of Jack and Katherine Annand who owned adjacent property, Mrs; � Annand, distributed to' Council a map highlighting the area owned by Me. and Mrs. Jack Jack Armand. She 3 advised that the property owners would like to be treated as a single—f m i ly residence since this had been a single—family , residence for 50 years, She noted that the zoning had changed several times over the years Mrs, Annand. advised that they would like the developer to install a six—foot high chain link fence from 1.ogth to the bluff and that she would prefer at least; 20-foot setbacks, , e. Council Comments/Questions, Council discussed the following issues " o Dif ferences in requirements between R-12 a nd single faaily; Senior Planner Liden noted differences in setback .t. ret uirements; if the abutting property Were zoned single i family, the setback requirements would be 0 feet, (Mr.' i nahan comnlertted that the. Armand house w&s actually on a lot �x 5o feet fr�) the pplica rt's property' iine�) `he setback i requirements between two R-12 zoned properties would be 10 o A tree protection 'plan =— Staff and Council members noted it • '' ` i was too early the ly in th process y pi^o s to determine specific trees which nu e procedure oucould be be tne wherein the would but optimum mb� r of trees would preserved deuelepment Was to that point . Page i -- COUNCIL MI UTtS -w OCTODEk 1C, 1099 i d` u o , f • • • • , o One acts' versus two -- Sr. Planner ten advised that an emergency access would not be as good as providing two driveways. Emergency accesses tend to get filled with other i types es oof bar~ri ers Cty Engineer noted that , a second driveway, after reviewing the traffic study, was not necessary from a capacity standpoint, The single access should either line up with Murdock Street or be offset substantially from the Murdock intersection. Discussion followed on two accesses with it being noted that the Fire Department had been notified. Their response was that they would prefer two accesses; however, they did not require two accesses. ! . More discussion on the access question followed, Mayor noted • that a 30—foot wide driveway would probably b e adequate even if there were an accident at the intersection. f. Rebuttal Comments — Appellant Mr. Monahan noted he had talked to Mr. Gene Burchill of the a Fire Department who advised that they would always prefer two accesses, but one ac cess at this site would be acceptable. Mr . Monahan noted 225 parking spaces were proposed; 195 were required. Thus, if there should be "a problem with grade, there was flexibility to deal with this. f. Public Hearing Closed, g. Community Development Director summarized the staff recommendatlon (see memorandum from Sr. Planner Liden dated October 3, 1988), He advised the issue before Council was the policy determination: Was the Planning Commission correct in limiting the number of units to 100? Community Developtnent Director stated, in his judgment, the Planning Commission erred - they did not have the authority to limit the number of units, The development should be allowed to go forward at the 130 units which was less than what the zones. allowed. To do otherwise would result in downzoning of the . property Community Development Director advised that if Council agreed with the Planning Commission, Council action Would consist of simply 1 disagreed decision. with Planning Upholding d±�cisxop: the erica. � f�� Commission, Counca nag tMe a, , a If Grp da.sdgr°oe 1 should review �1.he conditions�� of approval� and ` selectively modify, remand the proposal Planning Commis Option would be for Co Planning He suggested an o or re he sal too advise the Plannahng ry G g guidelines n - „(� i y . : � and policies and 'ask the planning Gdtntitixssa.r�n concernln Commission to work out the details Page 18 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER lC. 1908 , • Community "De{ lopment Director outlined the i; saes I. Should the proposal go °'back to the Planning Commission as : suggested by the Planning Commission? 2. With regard to th e fencing requirements, Community Development Director advised that the Planning Commission probably overextended by requiring that the entire site be fenced, 3 Should the number of units allowed be conditional with the e , number of driveways put in? Community Development Director advised that when reading the final conditions of the Planning Commission, he did not see that tie even though it . was part of the discussion.' Planning Commission did agree on the variance and said one 'driveway would be adequate, and he also agreed that one drivewa y was adequate for the site;' • ,., Community Development Director recoinmerrded; Deletion of the 100--unit restriction d lti '� d C)n of a s tan rd da on trees that 'is specify def ihite' }, direction. . e , Modification of timing of the landscaping , details was not Y recommended. . The steep slope provision as specified by the Planning Commission should remain with the guideline, "not to exceed Final review of the details should be done by the Planning Commission. h. Applicant Comments Mr, Monahan noted concern about timing if Co ur� 31 should decide ide , 4, • 1 advised awed by larirtiri CommissiOh. Me that this proposal mu„ �� be ' revi� � y p q �; that five out of nine Planning Commission members were present at that hearing ti The applicant would have tb take the time to educate those Planning Commissioners who had not reviewed t application the first tim,, Then,� after this, the Council would still require a review, Council deliberation: L Council reviewed the following issues: o Should d this h�� b e referred r~ed b cF to the Planning Corm assian . Consensus nut was yet .; but an automatic second review by Crunch r quired. Council would retain the option to pull up for review an their authority, Page 14 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOf k 10, 1000 • .:.,..,.a...,..-.. .-.., ., ., .. ,.,,., .., .- , . - . ...�. M..e'.......n.'...........,.. . .._.�.,..... .._.,,.,.,.,,.c.i.....•.+:..'.................... ...... n..+.....,u,..,,,....._.L... ..d(:»_. »M.. ,..t'.J'✓nY+. n.„ ..,..kaw,.....w._. .. ,. ... ..a..t...,...... • 0 ���� A fence, � ald �be required along the�nor1�;,�� �13y border (adjacent . to� Armand s property) from 109th back to the bluff (drop-off) . The fence nest to the townhouses would go all the way to 109th. The requirement for a southerly fence would be eliminated. o One access driveway was acceptable. Consensus, after oxscussion, was that a 30-foot driveway width, as proposed, was acce ptable. 0 180 units as proposed, was acceptable providing there was guarantee there would be no future subdivison and additional. units, In response to discussion and questions by Council, Mr", Monahan advised . that the developer would be wilding to indicate`' that the „4-1/2 acres to the west would not be developed within this plan. Part of the plan would be that those acres would, remain in their natural condition and t.hej would not request additional transfer of units from those acres. advised work with staff to create Legal Counsel �adui�ed �he could language which would limit further development of the parcel. • Two representatives of the Planning Commission discussed with Council the advisability of sending this application back to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director reminded Council that there were details not on the site, plan that the Planning Commission specifically advised they would • . like to review (i,e, grading at no more than 6% plus a i° detailed tree protection plan), Tree Protection Plan - After discussion it was determined .. that in the portion of the property slated for development,nent, at beast 130 trees,, 6" in calper or over, should not be damaged or removed. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to I. sustain the appeal with the following noted: Changes to the Planning Commission Final Order No 88.10 PC as follows; l y Page 10, Sect xan D, Decision, Item 3: The fe ncin g and ' buffering perimeter language should reflect that fencing would be requ i red on the northerly property from S,W 109th to the bluf sharpf' (the r � - ,� � -P drop-off), and from 1091yh behind the townhouse property, Page 10, D. Decision, 4y 3) h a s a maximum h o f 100 units's would be changed to "has a maximum of 180 units," Page J.J., 0. Deep Planning Commission to t p � c plan whi ch provide that etdery effort w ould be made to save at least 130 treed has a guideline) on the developed area of the lot, Further, the following wording change would be ir•iserted, Page 15 - �OUCOUNCIL t4xNuTES. .:. OCTOBER 10, tOB3 ' , �' , �' • Change £_ % -- "The Commission direc t that the arborist use extr eme caution � . , in the protection of abutting property owner's trees." to: t s s ' 'The Commission directs that the arb or' t x h all protect h e abutting property owner's trees." Council would waive their automatic review of the plan, subject to appeal or call 'up for review by Council. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. 74TH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY DISCUSSION Tabled to the October 17,^ 1088 Council meeting. 10 NO PARKING DESIGNATION — SPRUCE STREET a, ' City Engineer summarized this item. Staff had received requests from several , citizens for parking to be prohibited next to the r. , Spruce' Street entrance to the, Fred Meyer store, The manager of the Fred Meyer store indicated support for a "no parking" zone near the driveway entrance, Substantial replacement parking was available along the Spruce Street frontage of Fred Meyer and in the Fred Meyer parking lot. • City Engineer recommended that parking be prohibited within 100, feet of the driveway centerline, b. ORDINANCE NO, 88-30 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 14.28,180 , G AN AND �'I��N A SPRUCE STREET AN 4 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A. PORTION OF SW RL1 • EFFECTIVE DATE. c. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to I adopt Ordinance No. 88-30: Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 10. ORD INANCE A M CN DMEN.T TO ORDINANCE NO. 88-26 — POLICE DOG G a. Chief of Police submitted to Council in their meeting packet a t i proposed ordinance which would clarify '�the� effective�' date with, regard to Ordinance No, 60.-26 b. ORDINANCE NO, 86-32 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-26y' 8 CLARIFYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHEN IT L_AWFUL. TO TAMPER 'WITH ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. , c Motion`on b Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor adopt Ordinance No. 88-32: ` •4 Motion passed by a unanimous Vote of Council present. Page 16 COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, /900 t .. a fit. . .•�� .w4 w ..-.. ✓ K. c...,at..r4..r .s� . ..rr �w.., F...,1:;rRl...,+..rrw .t+-,e,:u... s.+...r,..u,.«�_...IA�w•fF•�....tn.....a..n.W.Y..—.+w..n•tA1.aNwN•«-..n..-d..N....nn...wh..•n...tFFM�.aM.n..M..aM._....,.r«...n»ul a•r�aM1r,�.+-4..�p...i.w.•..➢......4!•.�r.a.IkAN +rM.»4�.J rv...11i1..a.,rwW�w+WY YAf.• N. �. .t a +ran 4 Aw 4;; G •, , I. ', ' ,t.,.: ' , .. .. , 1, «�. CITY ;OF T I G A R D OREGON , �.�' COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I . AGENDA OF October 10 1988 DATE SUBMITTED . October 3, 1988 __ .ISSUE/,AGENDA TITLE: Schuetz PREVIOUS ACTION: A pror «b .?larrin , _. � y SDR 88 17/PD 8e o4/V 88-27 Commission �� ` ..w. PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden DEPT HEAD 0,.),' CITY Ar MIN 01—E RE(OUES NEC) BY: . �. wwwwwM� wµf.l. «w«=..«.ww.w«.««w - .N.....=:+ww«I ..7,_--w w..«.:«ww,N,l«...««w.A.N....«.. °-: «««««..wN«N«w «.f..,.....Nww«w.« ««...N_«.wN.w w«w« « ,�.Nw.«««_«w..««www««.««.N_ww«_ »w .www w w«f . N««_w.ww.w•.N._w.«.,..,...._ • POLICY ISSUE 1WIWNlN.N4::::=w:J•.=.:. . =.11 «.i{«w::trx: ./1NMM.«.w«•.w..wr«+ «, w ..7.:4 «.MI«w«..««««wr.T...m.mNNw.wW««w««.wwW«...=.:3 wNwYN==.-...w«ww NNw::::::::=.Ww«w.wN:=:::N«;Www«w I 9N, «N1w..INNNNNM.wf.W.w.lw.«wr...l.uww«...N�1«.AI..�w�w��wWM.«NNN...NWNNNwwM««««4ww« .w .iwNlr�nw.+..w«N..wr.r rw«N:w«.Hww««.Ny«««.wwlwwwrww«MNWNN.«««Nw.ww«Iw«N«.«...w.ww«r«.rfNwlN.w«wf«N««NNN«.««wNNNNNrIIINIwNww ; 1 . INFORMATION SUMMARY �f . www�www w w_ , On September 6, 1588, the Planning' Commission approved the proposed apartment complex located on 109th Avenue south of Canterbury Lane, The applicant has appealed the decision because of the conditions of approval that were . . imposed, Attached are copies of a staff recommendation, staff report, site plan, narrative, traffic study, Commission minutes and transcription, and . ' appeal Letter., , . w zNNN.,N NLwNN...wNWf:...r...ww.J=.•..iN.w•«.N:wuxYNwNM•=..tt..«.Nw........W:.«N.«M.««.yN.w=44..W«a.Ml««rYr . NN.N.Y.»r.:«.wNwl.:«..wK..«:w. N.f.w1«...«.N.««w_•«..=.-,..w.===ry..l«.r«.w«J««l N,.1==..1..wrw:u..r..:. ' t w �f:Ii«:.w....N.N«.wN««N..««Nw..««.N«I««wf..w...»...«r«..«w.NN«NwN«w»«w•,NNNw.N»w.««.w...«..w..«.�w.hw..a..._�..�.«.«fNN «.Nw.w..«.w.Nww«...w.w«�w«N«w«,N««.:...w-..www.««...w««..N.wwwwNNw««fw»««,wN..«M««w Iww...w1 . , ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED , 1, Uphold the Planning Commission decision, 2, Modify the Planning Commission decision, 3 Approve as recommended in the staff report and attached memo, A a , ' :.Nw1,N1:flNM.«w...«....1«.......:et"4.u:Nl..w.wi..i««NW7'..«.««A.: 44 ««...1«Niw..f.b4«««. w�....w.ML w..-««..—w +«www.w. fw;«+.»w NwNi: M.«N. NwNtwN=4:: w«w.wNAN..«.w...rwrw..Ww.«.N«....w..w,yrw.w««✓ M+w«w«wwwl...N..N..«.Mf.�l ..w. 1«www..««r.w«,Nxr.«Nw.«r«r_«....«...«ww.N 1 ...;—...---,-"....=.---,.t..' wr i..�ryw, 1.W FISCAL IMPACT ■ • . • w...N. f«uNff...ww..N • r«r.NNtM.....:f.l::�.w«NW.NwNN«+. I � Y« N..Nf«µAt(HN.N..W. L.L..NM1.tw«..l«4}w��f!«:wi«4«� wMrW iWiJww�.�Nw,ii+JN«N«N1MwL�.u«..,.«. NN.w µ...+•N«M.w.t:l: N«y«w NWNNNIMiINNNM•IIH.NN«NJ1N.wAN{Nl.rr«.«««�NHMNw«.. ..«.w...,N.INN.ww«.ww.w.ww MI ..«.Nw«wM.wi+NNw+«NM.N.ww.Mww...w.N1..wrrNN,r rw.wxw Nwi.rN«r.w«_w_. ..w.MNw.««wr.«w...w4.N«.r...Niw.1 SUGGESTED ACTION 'App;�:o�re� as )recommended in the staff report and attached memo and have staff prepare a final order,' • r t. • • 1 • :t t .. ' • ...., i, -,.., ..,- ., r -,.a ,.a.dl. .......,.. ...a,.1,+4-rw.w.,,..-4.J.4.:..'... ...k.._,..L: .. .. _ .. .d. ., v y..t. • e •'•^•K...... :n`• a.--.c.A.a r.li .'w,.+.1'x.. i...•.-..;«a.,i .,i.v. v.K+u 1.n Ir'- waM4 aM a-.i nIAW•.r N,Ya .-a r i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGAR1D, OREGON TO City Council • FROM: Keith S. L,iden, Senior Planner DATE: October 3, 1988 SUB 'ECT Appeal of SOR 88-17/PD e8-04/V 86-27 (Schuetz) The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development. The property would be permitted a maximum of 152 units and 130 units where proposed. The applicant also requests a variance to allow one driveway were two driveways are required by Section 18.108.070 of the Code. Based upon the way this Section is worded, one could conclude that two or three driveways would be necessary. The staff interprets the Code to require two driveways for a development of this size. The Commission approved the variance for one driveway,, but limited the development to 100 units. Concerns were expres w6d regarding access, buffering ., for adjacent properties, and preservation of trees on the site as well as r abutting parcels. The staff agrees with the Commission that the issues should be adequately addressed, but thy_ staff does not Iiiew a reduction in density as an appropriate method for dealing with these concerns. It appears that the problems which surfaced at the Commission hearing could be dealt with in other ways, such as requiring two driveways or further fire district involvement in the site design, modification of the location and orientation of the apartment buildings, and determination of what methods of buffering will be used, The staff recommends approval of the proposed apartment complex as originally ° K r F conditioned in the , staff report, with additional or modified conditions to address the concerns raised before council at the public hearing, ht/7330D f ` STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 — 7:30 P.M. ' TIGARD PLANNING`COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL — TOWN HALL 1312.5 SW HALL BLVD. 97223 „ TIGARD, OREGON FACTS A. F 1. GenerallInformation K CASE:' Planned Development 88-04, Site Development Review S!R 1 , c. 88-27 8�3-�17, Variance -- $ ` REQUEST: Site Development Review and Planned Development Review', F approval to construct a 130 unit apartment complex on a i. • 12.66 acre tree covered site. Also vaquested is a variance from Community Development Code Section 18, 108.070 which requires apartment complexes with greater' than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. . The applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be ; .- served by one driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12, (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) (Planned Development overlay) APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuet 720 NE' 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby, OR 97018 Red Deer, Alberta' LOCATION: West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 251 10(10, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1. 10AC, Tax Lots 400 and 500) 2. Background Information In 1981 the Planning Commission a pproved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1.81), which included Tax Lots 400 and 500 of Map 2S1 1OAC, to ' allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units per acre) ;. with a recommendation that all development on these "lots be brought the as Planned Unit • ,� before t.ho Planning Commission a� Planned Developments (pUD) and that the density in each case be reviewed as a portion of the review .. w - city Council reviewed CPR,, $• process. The Ca.ty Ca ,iY... 1 and remanded the issue back to the Planning', Commission for further review after giving the opinion that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation to properties included in the request. Upon review, an 4--12 o (Urban 'Medium Density, 12 units„ per acre) district was designated for the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached ed to the Cone designation, STAFF REPORT PD 88-04, SDR 88- i7; V 88.47 (SCHUL Z) - PAGE 1 . When the Tigar'" Comprehensive Plan was ack ^ 'edged by the Land Conservation and,-development Commission (LCDC) kee 1'983, the majority of Littler Bull Mountain,., as the site is known, was redesignated Low • Density Residential' and given a corresponding zoning designation of . R-4,5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's' Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the , Comprehensive Pier designation of several properties located at. the s outheast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. T his proposal • High requested redesignation of these properties from ' High Density Residential to General Commercial. The result of this decision was the , removal of about 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of , buildable land The Metropolitan ,Housings Rule 4. (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that Tig.,rd provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent . multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's Urban • ` Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of , redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to .. m ake op for the housing o p portunity sho rtfall created b y t h e decision. , • . ' lots 400 and` 500 were included in"' a � `Tax lotr � a 24.9 acre plan/zone redesignation from tow Density Residential/R--4.5 , (PD) zone to Medium Density Residential/R--12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull Mountain area that was part of an approximately 50 acre °redesignation ,�, ' r�'/ to higher densities. The redesignations were approved by the City Council in April 1987 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)). 3, Vxcxna.ty Information I The subject property is surrounded by properties zoned P--12 • w C,Pes�,dent�.al, 12 unite/acre) �on all sides � except, to �„the, west, across �, Pacific Highway. Abutting zones on the west side of the highway, from north to south, are C-G (General. Commercial), C-P (Professional/ ' Administrative Office Commercial District), and R-40' (Multiple Family 1. . Residential, 40 units/acre). The city limits of King City are adjacent � . to the southwest boundary of these properties. The development pattern around the site consists of multi-family ,• residences to the north and east, .commercial development across Pacific Highway y s and he west; a undeveloped ' covered h tall. to t�h � and rnostiy undeuelo.god parcels ' er�°ed wit . ' 'fir e underbrush with one single family residence, to the south. SW 109th Avorrue and SW Murdock Street in the area of the proposed _ development are fully improved, 34 fool:” wide streets functionally ' .: classified as local streets, 8W 109th Avenue curronti t had ends y d approximately �00 feet SW Right-of-way p i ble • pp .. �. � 2 eat south of the site fora ossx i' Future connection of SW 109th AUenue continuos southward through a tree I � _ 4 the gravel southern segment of. 109th Avenue j covered area ul'1��.� it �(�1�e�"3' �� 6 which is located on the south slope of Little Dull Mountain. err 4. Site Information and Proposal DO ectA i ior5 The proposed apartnent complex eonsfists of three t:ax lots TAX lot • 8802 is .56 acre is size, h as 240 feet of frontage on SW 109th Avenue DTArF REPORT - P0 88.04' $OP 88-17 V 88-27 SCHDET; - PAGE 'e y , r t. �. r . r and is zoned R—tee Tax lots 400 and 500 combinea total 13.1 acres and are zoned R-12 (PD) . All parcels are undeveloped. The entire site is covered with tall fir trees. The site slopes westward from 109th , . Avenue with the western one-third of the site sloping steeply to • Pacific Highway. The applicant proposes to develop a 130 unit, 29 building apartment complex on the site. All units will include two bedrooms. All ° , buildings would be two stories except for one single story building to h be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The •, � applicant requests Site Development Review approval of the proposed site plan. Because the parcels are designated with the Planned • '' . Development overlay zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning ' Commission.'' The buildings would be arranged around a roughly square driveway with . k' \k,,,, 6 buildings and a swimming pool 's located in the center. Thirty--five j ` garages in � Y buildings, 95 carports, and 95 uncoverer, parking spaces would be located along the driveways Because the development will . retain the existing slop e of the parcel, the drivewaY y and parking areas will be steeply sloped. The development would be nerved by one 30—foot . wide access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. Community Development. Code • Section 18.108.07O requires that an apartment complex with 130 units be y r ' served by at least two access driveways. The applicant requests a , Variance' from this standard. The site g trees that will be retainei. The e � � plan shows all existing n applicant has indicated that the"plan' attempts to retain as many trees , as possible, including the area of the development �r' r � �at the� center � � The dense forest on the western approximately one—third of the site would �. remain undisturbed �; . The site plan proposes that sanitary sewer connections foe three buildings in the northwest eorner of the site be made to an existing public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue, Sanitary sewers serving the reMainder of the buildings would connect to an existing sewer at the - intersection of Pacifir, : Highway and Canterbur'y Lane. A main• line extension would be constructed by the developer from the existing sewer to the site's Pacific Highway frontage., An eight--inch private sewer line would connect the prop ose d development's collection system with ` the main l ine extens ion: throe t r~m drainage w�u1d tae provided h catch) bas iris located in the ( , ��, � Storm g }} � I ��; ��dr`iveway and parking areas, draining to �a storm water detention pipe � � ' portion of the driveway, e errtirlic�st to the forested aria onwthe 3 system 1 i.. t? , surface term located under the hest �. s discharge through a �' single pipe � the � � � � �� � • western portion of the site,} ' Water service to the site will connect to stn existing supply line in SW 109th Avenue. An existing pump system will be used to provide water cir'culation. Three fire hydrants will be provided within the development, �. S '�`� �t F�� 't`' PO $B 0 SDft B�--�1.7 V Rg�27� S�Ftl1E7'� F�r TA � R .. �y � � '� CIS 8 • S. Agency and ,.. Comments The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the g g following comments 1. The submitted site plan shows a p r o p o s ed 130 unit apartment com 1 ex • west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous ,. trees:; The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Highway. 2. The apartment complex is proposed to have one access to 109th Avenue opposite Murdock Street. The Community Development Code requires one access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore, 2 I, accesses are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a . ' variance to this requirement. One access is requested in order to limit the impact to the trees on the site acne, due to the restricted frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue. a 3. 109th Avenue is a 34-foot wide curbed street with I,idewalks on both sides of the street except along the site's :rontage. Street lights also exist on the west side of the street, 109th Avenue street improvements currently end south of the site. Existing right--of--way allows for possible future extension of 109th Avenue to Naeye Street. • 4. A Transportation Impact Analysis for the apartment complex was submitted with this application. The analysis evaluated the impact of the proposed development on 109th Avenue and also on the 109th Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane. The analysis concluded that the traffic generated from the site will not significantly , impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the 109th Avenue and Canterbury Lane .intersection: The report recommends that curb returns be utilized for the site's driveway, to improve accessibility into and out of the site. • 5. Storm drainage is shown as being collected on—site into a detention pipe and discharged, through a flow control device into a 10 inch' outlet pipe daylighted into the forested area. This method of discharging the storm drainage is not a pp roved since detention ntion of storm drainage water is not permitted and the single discharge . point will create erosion on the steep forested area. ' An alternative would be to discharge the storm drainage at several: . locations and to install an energy dissipator at the end of the pipe to prevent erosion. sewer service is the in 6: Sanitary se s I available at t intersection of �rbur Lane and °` Highway. ,, main line extens ion y Canterbury Pacific � will be required from this existing� °ing sewer southward to the proposed development: The extension is proposed to be installed along - I , . to site's frontage and then up through the Pacific Highway 'tt the s�rte s iron p forested area to the development', ST6rF iREPORT '* Pb '68�r.,04, Salt 88-17; V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) -' PAGE 4 ; I , .,, . •r r .u.r+.r 1.• ry x .,.•l.+ltr'4er...w..w-1rrrr.rxHn.rle..In..L.. i . ,,,,.. ,....,. ,,., ...... .,.,. ' . • 7. The proposed`Ldarking lot is shown with cross' slopes of 10 to 12 percent for approximately 100 stalls Normal design practices . limit the cross slopes on parking stalls to 5 to 6 percent. Cross ; slopes of 10 to 12 percent will make getting g into and out of a vehicle very difficult. The steeper than 'normal' slopes have been ,, , . proposed to reportedly limit the impact to the site ana , the existing trees. It is stiff's recommendation that the parking , difficulty created by the cross slopes b e reduced. The Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no comments. U Tigard School District 23J reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments; At the current time, this proposed development is in the Templeton Elementary and Twality Junior High School r attendance areas. Both schools are experiencing enrollment � .a `. pressures and would have difficulty housing the children expected to come from this development, especially, if the project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September, 1989. Because the school district anticipates the need to snake significant changes, ih its elementei y'''and . junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1989-90 ' r c � e the developer of this project, if it is school ear e ] h p p , approved, should make no commitments regarding where the children living in the proposed development will attend school until those decisions are made. a • t. Washington County Fire District #1 provided the following comments regarding the proposal: 1. 1. The Fire District would prefer two well-spaced access drives. I 2. Driveway grades shall not exceed 15 percent. fir. 3 ' Fire hydrants shall be located ho further than 250 feet from all portions of the proposed buildings. This distance may be increased to 500 feet if automatic fire sprinklers are installed „ . in the proposed buildings: The Tigard Water District reviewed the proposal and commented that proposed development will need to be served by a pumped water system , ppomped system i s already in place and is adequate t o e the 1 proposed water system, The District also commented h t appears that one additional fire hydrant will be necessary to adequately service the development, The Water District provided additional I technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect, , f The Oregon state Highway Division reviewed the proposal and comment posal a commented that no adverse impacts on Pacific. Highway were anticipated other than temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary sewer extension, Intersection improvements including installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Hi g hwa y d re scheduled for completion ne t year With the improvements mprovements ih place, the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be — y tUETZ` PAGE 5 STAFF REPORT PD t�g�d� SD�t ���17, V ���2`� ��CE ) -- 1 u ' "fin, - •' , , — , $4 o accommodated witrout impacting traffic on Pacific Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a 'permi.t must be ubtained prior to any '" work within the right—of—way for installation of the sewer intersection, No other comments were received C. ANALYSIS The proposal for contruct' tin of the proposed 130 unit apartment complex conforms with Commurt Ly Development Code R-12 zoning district requirements for type of use and permitted density, setbacks from property boundaries, site coverage (80%), and site area landscaping (20%) • The proposal complies with Site Development. Review standards for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), shared outdoor recreation areas, and site lighting. The staff finds that the site plan conforms with the requirements that buildings and site improvements be located so as to preserve as many existing trees as practical (CDC' Section 18.120.180(a)(2)). The site plan generally complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although modifications to the plan will be necessary. The site plan also must be revised to comply with requirements for drainage and vision clearance at the driveway—road intersection. These deficiencies and the requested access variance are addressed below. parking • The required number of parking :paces for this development is 195 1 ,:(1 ;5 spades per bedroom unit), 225 parking spaces' ,would be provided, 130 of these spaces are required to be covered. The site • pllyd provides for 35 garage parr ling spates and 95 carport parking � • � spaces for a total of 130 spaces, The plan satisfies these_ requirements. n The site plan does not, however, designate appropriately • sized, • located, and signed handicapped parking spaces. Community Development code •Section 1C 106.020(n) requires a minimum of one handicapped ,parking space for every 50 parking spaces provided: The site plan must be revised to provide at least five appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking spaces, These spaces should be P constructed in a manner that minimizes the slope • Landscaping i n.• A landscaping plan is a required element of a Site Development Review plan was submitted with this application,application, No landscaping r 1 y 1 µ Y Nevertheless, the submitted site plan provides adequate information to - will determine that the minimum site area landscaping requirements (20%) retention of these trees will,�also serve to satisfy existing trees. The rieter buffering requirements, with the exception of a 180 foot long� stre■.ch along the • site's southern boundary, Only one etislting tree would be retained f 1 �1 N �i{ .t r1 � y along this stretch, Six apartitent units would be located in this area. A landscaping plan will deed to be submitted for Director . , issuance of building permit • at, r approval prior to the ,� that provides STAFF REPORT PD 88-04, 5D 88-17, V 88-27 (SCH: ) hAGe 6 1 - : I • i adequate vegeta ,eve l buffering in, this area; In addition, the • landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site landscaping materials for the entire site including lawn or ground cover materials. requires that Section 18.100.035 of the Community Development Code req street trees be provided along a site's street frontage. I'I The submitted site plan does not show any trees that will be located along the site's " SW 109th Avenue frontage. Street trees need to be included in the required 'landscaping plan. I I I • „� Visi on on C e aran ce Areas0 �tg nag e Community Development Code Section 18.102.030 requires that a triangular vision clearance area be maintained either, direction from �' the intersection of an access, drive and a non—arterial street. Objects • I I' � less than three feet tall. ' Trees are, allowed must b � this area , within �. within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight feet. are removed. The site plan proposes ` a sign that would intrude upon the required vision clearance) area. No details are provided regarding the sign's height. The , sign will need to comply with the vision clearance area height requirement or else be relocated. A sign s n g permit must be obtained prior to erection of, the, sin. g Draine rate 1 1981 Master Drainage Plan for the , City of Tigard discourages the .. I development of stormwat er detention facilities.- The Plan also discourages the concentration of storm discharge onto undeveloped ',,, surface drainage) areas, The site plan proposes collection of parking area drainage into a detention system with a single discharge onto the surface of the western one—third of the. site, The proposed drainage system, conflicts with the recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan. The applicant will be required to redesign the storm drainage system in conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and submit the drainage �.tc system design for Engineering b, al: Division review and approval. • I. Access The site plan proposes one 30 foot wide access on SW 109th Avenue. Section 18.108.070 of the Code req"wires 2 accesses for a multi—family development serving 100 to 200 residential units, The applicant requests a variance from this standard due to 1) the limited access opportunities - � -' -from the limited� frontage site 'Making access,' . resulting fro and 2) the steep slope on the western third of g from Pacific Highway difficult to develop. Code section 18,108,150 , o requirements e� .for Commission to allow a v� re• oat - . provides the �o ion 1;0 �llo variance tr, access q `relnert I I - • if it is found that t is not oible to share access,. 1. � �. p a , . 2. There fare not other alternative access points on the street in question or from another streets 8. The access separation requirements 'cannot be met; `• I I , ,.a sTAt4 RLPORT PO 88-04, dk 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUtIT2) PAGE 7 0 I I •I i I 1 •1• • • 4. The re q uesl�°is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. Th e visual cleara nc erequirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. ' The. present situation satisfies these criteria ' there justifying the " p by � y ng single access proposed. There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent parcels. Other parcels which front on SW 109th Avenue,l east of the site are already developed. Development of another access on tax lot 8802 would provide little if any congestion relief on . SW 109th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections, Another access in this area would also require relocation of at least . z• one building thereby necessitating removal , 'of additional tree' elsewhere on the l site. Development of an access from Pacific Highway is impractical because of the expense of constructing a road up the • , steep slope on the western one-third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic Ivalues that would result from removing trees in that area, and because of the potential adverse traffic impacts of an access entering pacific'. Highway. The proposed 30 foot width of the driveway (24 feet;, is the _required width) and the utilization of curb returns and development of the;'driveway at the! same grade as the street should provide adequate and safe access. Removal of the sign from the uisioh clearance area y the .14 . I I required ea ,will improve the safety of t intersection CI rINDING$ AND CONCLUSIONS The re Development relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Community Developmen Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.96, 18.100, 18,162, 18.106, 18.108; , 18.110, 18,120, 18.150, and 10,164. .g Division o that the .proposal, with . minor • The i�lannin Diuisi n Mtas determined t , modifications that will be required to-be made prior to building permit issuance, ' is consistent with, relevant, portions of the Community I Development code based upon the following findings a ter' 1 (R-12 zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms applicable s. _ a. Ch- � 8.54 t��-1� �prre xs s with use, density, and dinten�tonal requirements of the R-12 zone, b, Chapter- 18„8O (Planned Development) is satisfied ' because the ro sal is to he reviewed by the Planning , p po� y t�in��'Cotaittiission�� as required 1 i provisions o "Planned' D by, thta~! ,. of thy' evel�+pitt�nt overlay zone, c. Chapter 18.96 is satisfied because the site �lan provides for L'o p n appropriate distances between multi—family residential buildings to assure privacy to residents and adequate light to o II all units, x _ I xw1 W.I. .w 0 STAFF Rf: R!” ND 6� 0 4 .. T R DR �i� 1�' V 8' � �� � i � �' �1 u, I I r. 11 ..., it , ( d. Chapter 1000 (Landscaping and Screening) will be satisfied upon submittal of a landscaping plan and approval of that plan by the Planning Division. The plan must detail all proposed site landscaping including ground covers, street trees along SW 109th Avenue, and site perimeter buffering. • e. Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance Areas) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area. f. Chapter 18. 106 (Off—Street Parking) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that provides for a minimum of at least one appropriately sized, located, and signed handicapped parking space. The site plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces provided and number of covered parking spaces. 4 g. Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied . because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on the site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW 100th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one access to serve the site, whereas the Code would normally require two accesses for a development of this size, is justified as previously described, h, Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the site plan provides for the proposed buildings and other site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the $iteis topography and drainage systems. The site plan also situates the buildings so as to . provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and compatibility between the propoeed development and adjacent uses. ChaWeer 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development:— Permits will — be granted only if it is found necessatli to remove the trees to • accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements, The site plan illustrates trees within the Area of actual development that will be retained. An arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. The site plan also provides for all trees in the western one—third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the proposed sewer. j , Chapter 18,164 (Street and Utility standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection to the existing sewer in SW 100th Avenue, and installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on 8W 100th AVehile. Approval of public improvement plans it required prior to the issuance of building permits And tree removal permits for the proposed development, STAFF REPORT — PO 88-04, SDP 88-17, V 88-27 (8CHUET2) — PAGE 9 Ue 0 .e D. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88.27 subject to the following conditions : o subject g . FOLLOWING CONDITIONS DI IONS SHALL DE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: GARY ALFSON, ENGINEERING DIVISION, 1,.' CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 8,' JERRY OFFER, PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS 9 THROUGH 11, 1. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a • Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed . public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final plans. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has approved public improvement plans. The section will recpi re a 100% performance assurance or letter of commitment, the payment of a permit fee and ,' a sign installation/streetlight_ fee, and. a developer engineer agreement. Also the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior I to or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. 3. The applicant shall provide for roof and parking lot rain drainage r to the public stormwater drainage system or by an approved oh-site system designed to prevent increased runoff onto the adjacent , . property., The proposed storm drainage system is not approved because the City does not allow detention and the single discharge ' point could cause substantial erosion:) • A. Sanitary and storm drainage details shall be provided as part , of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin aid sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplemeht to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable eabl e area: f' 5, The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway . to perfa work . . xghw�►y Da.v>.sibh; rtei w within the eight-of-way of Pacific Highway. A copy o' the permit shall be provided to the . R City Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit, , I � 6, The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as • improvement plans, The Engineering Division ' part of the public ihtp,� p I . parking areas be ^ recommends that cross slopes in r g reduced to approximately 6 percent. I . _ . - ,.d concrete sidewalk along 7� The applicant shall. install a 5 foot wide . . ng� the site's 8W 109th Avenue frontage, STAFF REPORT -� PD 88-04, SDR HULA"Z PAG • I I rll I , II II I I I I wL..:.a,r..♦_.. .i ., - .. - - ,'-.............J,.:_.-w t...+..n.Jr,lm..,... _......u.._....._...n.,.a..•.w•r+_..a.%v'.»n,.:"..AU....,...,.H...r....a....4, a.a ...._._..-...,-s....... ... ..........a. -.,.. ,- ..•,,...a.....r«.aM r_... ..r. ..-.•....i...-.«.-...- -_ .- _ JjC • • • wr , 8. The ;Single leiveway connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic report. . 9 A landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Division review ; • and approval. The plan shall provide location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material. The plan shall provide for street trees along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for additional perimeter buffering along the Qouthern border of the site • 10. A revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) provides for a , minimum of one appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; 2) • f,, . relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area; and 3) provides for a fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of all first floor exterior portions of all ` buildings unless the buildings are to be provided with automatic •sprinklers. 1 . ii. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be retained; an arbarist's recommendations for methods of protecting? these trees during construction of the proposed apartments and also for maintenance of the long—term health of the trees: The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or . similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing, or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this ' condition, ' PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON } THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF • THE PLANNING ►.IVISION. (STAFF CONTACT: Ferry Offer) landscaping materials 12: All dsca Ong , and other proposed site improvements . shall be installed as per the landscaping acid site plans. 1 3. i entification gn, Sign llocation and osiz to must be in accordance • with the provisions of Section 18.114 of p� the Community Development Code. THE APPROVAL SHALL. BE VALID IF ENERGISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. +�., 'f fit" P ;�M'► ,� i A PROVED S`� PREPA S�''t» �'� r�'�,fOf� � �� � �� �'� �� �� � � keith Lxdet� Assistant Planner �. Senior Planner (ht/6766D) • • STAFF REPORT . PD e8-64; SUR 00-17, V 00-27 (SC U H ETZ) — PAGE l ray ° • r • ' v • r t 11 I • 4• werrrs .. r p• .S_,/ ;iv, I. )Ills al 0.>\''... ••� �,, I. I . K...? a ' •..r..," /440.0, 4 . .iiiiiktt i 1, 4 I '/ N • /1 \*.1„. r . 44411/1°> 4. .Ct,. *‘Ijr10°'I I el iizr .0 p_je . 1 . a r • Y'Y 1 / Y N Y.P -' f _.. • * —......., . SI %#1 . _ - ' Ea,40, t •7 , , A.A.,/ "withvii„,„ I —,- __ } ,?,1 • i ../ 0 14 , 1 .""'""'"...Q / e' 0 -,t7 i if'f- , A:7 ..-• . i 1,, r• ti 1 ✓, j ii • •• 4, . • • • 4474ç . • f • 1 Y +V ' Vii'' 1 1 " J 9 1 1 t y� dry `'Ni, 1 • if, i PRELIMINARY SltE PLAN , 1 ,. ARTME EX Ingtit 1 AT 1O.9Tr-1 +6i MURDoc, 197F'00l2 '' • , ,l f • o ,, • ..`14."4t �~ ._' } atfl•�n� r;;l R ...• 1 ?,?L: rr��.J, ( p,.�' • 1.', (•I1,.v0 , - ,:,a, ! r:- 1' t iyq` •:.,•')-;,,i,41„,,•,,• ,'J ? !; • • • ROBERT Pdi;SCHLEINING pir ;c1U, " '"4 lief" July 25. 1988 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. !' ENGINEER • CI I Y OF I ILVARD SURVEYORS CITY CIF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE >: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The proposed development consists of 27 two level four-plek apartment buildings and 2 two level twelve-plex apartment ' buildings. The current standard type of apartment building in the Portland' Metropolitan area is the eight & ten pi ex,. ' These larger barrack type buildings are preferred by developers because of the economies achieved in construction. For this project the ' developer .- THE CBH CO. .. has chosen to build the more costly four--plea units as opposed to .the 'more economical buildings, for a variety of reasons, two of which are: 1.Thie smaller buildings allow for more flexibility in the , utilization of the site. This means that the developer is . able to adjust building locations to save as many trees as possible. _2.The smaller buildings hel p. create a feeling of a single family nei ghborhood, as opposed to ' the barrack style 1: apartment complexes. This adds to their livability and marketability. The dev e l o er Na� attracted d to the pro jec..t Site by its natural l beguty. The site svirtual ly covered t� Slopes site approach an occasionally exceed 25% (approximately e) The -develo es o c epfie the b�innih gwhaaa r begin ii� . .conitru � =M _ a development will have as little impact on the site as If p} pC' 5 s ib l e... and still till be c �o ni ca l l y.-.feasible..., e In an effort ffort., to o achieve h�� goals, we have the construction to the upper two thirds of the site. Th e lower third o f the site will remain relatively untouched exc p e installation o f a sanitary , sewer line t o the Pacific Highway. The devel oper has also sacrificed approximately 1 apartment units which are all owed under the zoning. he sit is approximately 1 2.8 ac res; a field survey has shown that I i . .. �," , 25% slope.o merely 1 acre a.s.. in excess.of t�f units, toper a Therefore,.. f the a r x i �. �., - . units allowed on the 1 acre 4 units Totail units allowed is 146 together With units proposed .,. 1�� units � a rental center and recreation ,.,. rooms.) The space requirements for additional units and the parking requirements for the additional units would have eliminated a great number of trees, s o the developer ev el oper decided r reduce the number- of units, LANb OREGON 97213.V. 2 a428�7► N.E. I~REIv1�N°T' STREET Pdyf�`T' PHONE 284-5896 ,..r t. r.. .. _..<..._ wJ.u.....r.M ...............'.....•..,,-+.+, ...,.........,-:.,-..J.,,aa-....d,.....,:.,...•,,.L••...rn.,,4.._ .., ,,.r,.....,.,...,.,..,.._ ... .4., «,ai.n,i,....,r ....._..,r.,... ...,ia-,..r ,....» ,.._,.,,.....,. - , 1 r?:".1.7- •'r 'r July 25, 1988 Al j'° CITY OF T I GARD +.� I .; 1.. Page 2of pLd-iIVNO4(. A,, F, ro " n developing the concept for 'the grading of the site, the effect on the surrounding trees was taken into account. It, was decided to design the parking areas with grades approaching 107., thus limiting the area impacted by grading. The normal design standards for parking areas are 5%. grades. This would require mass grading the entire upper two thirds of the site and cause r the, loss of most of the trees in the area. Retaining walls are planned in several areas of the site. These walls area placed so as to further reduce the impact that site grading will have on the trees. The developer er� l �,s planning to maintain�a�.n' all of �the trees p p g h insi de the building surrounding�properties. The the proposed • development g p p The developer of this project is very concerned about maintaining the natural beauty of this site, and at considerable expense to the development, has developed a plan in which many of the trees will be saved. • C-X(jr - Brradle . Schleining, a Vice President 4 • I, .In..MA.,wu'.L•w.�4rv+-.�...+.«.�.r,—F..„ _.l,a.,,...,n.u../✓r .,. ..a.,.A...v,e :._a.. .... <, . '' (,'. 1 ' . Q . . t , TRAFFIC ANALYSIS' TIGARD APARTMENT. COMPLEX ' TIGARD, OREGON ' i ' ' . . • prepared for ` C1H Companies ' �- i 83a S .E .' Stark ,, Portland, Oregon 7216 M iM{ r P'reaa y ►. kLld►Ti & Associates Inc . 512 SW .iraadway . Portland, Oregon 7 5 . (5o3) 228-,5230' Augue t .9 8 . 1 ro ec ! o.:. 191,0 I u .f .. .}.,i a.•A .....,.4.#,+pq.'''4'11.1.,,,i,,,,.. :1.,,tr•wr., ...1, ,i„ ,n + , ., ... .._. , 1R� 4. ww_ ' _ .-,d111111111111111 t, • ' i C t 1i' TABLE OF CONTENTS v INTRO UCTION. • • • . 1 1 Scope of Report Project Description Summary ofFindings EXISTING CONDITIONS . • • . • . • . • • • • . 5 Site Condition and Adjacent Land Uses Transportation Facilities i - ` Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations • ed�Traffic Volumes TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • , , . o . • • . . ' 12 ,. Site-Generated � I ,. Trip Distribution/Assignment Total Tra,ff ac Volumes and Operation Access, Safety and Site Plan Considerations I I RECOMMENDATIONS I CNa r I r� • • • 2)1• .. . t , i REFERENC ES : . . . . • . . • . . : 22 It I f • � � ' I � � � y fix• �I 11 i I i r ,.»:»l,.l.., ...:.w..• n, ,......1.r.«n.,., .,, -„ _. .,,,., ..,wux.r.,.,.u•...,r.,:G..,..,At•u3 rt.,„..-.r•....w..,-Ii»It.-...»,+..-w...s.h`._.i_.,1„ , Hr.a„-x Y.,.,J._a.r,M. ♦,�r_-.a ar, .a..,,..-,+.,u,w.,.a, , .,. ,« ..oa,., r , -i - �.,- Y ' , b y j' r FIGURES 1 Site Vicinity Map' . . . , . . . . . , . . . 2 , li 2 . Preliminary Site Plan . . . • • . . o o . . 3 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . • 6 4 , •Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . I' a. AM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes . . . . • 15 6. PM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes 16 • � I I ' 7. AM Total Traffic Volumes -- 1989. . . . . . . 17 8. Phi Total Traffic Volumes - 1989 . • . . 18 • « X • 1 I i ' i r • ■ i ,., 71' a. I h I 1I n i I r *e Y..”l.."�.,11 w.Yr.Y',4t r MLYpYF YX.tl'aR Iyv'�k4•YfA dtfYlYVe<X"lM1rorY1�X lliyl.idAY1.'1«1i•hX'x'.Ufa,a., +h.•r r. 5 fY?X°. L N�4 r'0'0.""Os,' '4 b � e n . Iv.�ri 1. rl rl! .a, C r K 'f"1� P , ......... .... it ,..,,. ,. ,,, ,.. _1_wn / • ...� I � � a c.. .r.w,........+.,...J.•.-.rr..^H4.. + • ,........ .,�.rJi..n.4Yn:h■■.�,.w,»..- w. �r .l.i • TABLES I , 1 . General LOS Descriptions (Unsignalized) . . . . . 9 2 . LOS Criteria (Unsignai.ized) . o . 10 3. Summary of Intersection LOS Analysis - •• Traffic Volumes -- . , . 11 4 . Projected Tri p Generation for Proposed Site. . . . 13 • t � I 5. Summary of intersection LOS Analysis » 1989 Total Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . 19 I I • III • • 1 • • • I I a I tt a I I , I , I I . ' I I Iii I r f I • II I . I r` t{,,i,r"Y\t�jk�•{4iti0u,4414At1t(t11'i.n''l4Ct 1.4Qr."`�'u'*..^o•r,•�A I 44 k' ,.;irti):/6Ni, x4,44,,44#4 itttitttrw.(SCf.,s:tit4t4,4$r^;eq ifYMu»C4yliti4 tZt 7. ■•••.•,A'4A°!M!^•P!Yi'r etkl.:' eui.,yfn'. u.a 4 !I•r,nbl V; L INTRODUCTION t ' I r • SCOPE OF THE REPORT 44' 1 A ' traffic analysis has been conducted to l analyze and evaluate . " I likely traffic related impacts associated with the proposed Tigard, f . Tigard, Apartment Complex in Ta ard; Orego A The subject site is located along the west side of S.W. 109th Avenue directly opposite S.W. Murdock Street. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map for the proposed development . Some of the specific traffic related issues discussed in this report include: I 1A a` Existing land use and traffic conditions in the project .r study area. . o Trip characteristic estimates for the proposed . development of the site. �� P I I a o Peak hour opers,:tio�as at the site access driveway and on the adjacent streets. , o Safety considerations including sight distance ' requirements . . • ' , i o Conceptual design of the apartment complex access 4 driveway. , . r I I report This '°•�' ' p rt has been prepared under the guidance of the City of ' 1 Tigard staff. The study area for this project was defined in n concurrence with Tigard city staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION r . , The proposed 130 unit apartment complex will be built on the . j currently vacant 17 .66 acre site. Approximately 3 of the site will remain undisturbed due to steep slopes to the west, The • "i proposed de velo pment is consistent with t he cur r e nt zoning regulations.s. `figure 2 i s tra, s � conceptual site p lan for the ' apartment development. The development likely to be constructed year. The site work building, during the next y and first buildin construction is intended to begin in 198 ii t II i ! The preliminary site gp?ati shows asi.ngle, driveway to provide access ''' 110 ' to S .W. 109th Aver e This access driveway is to be located opposite S.W. Murdock Street. ' y 'r I surrouhdiing land use is mainly multi-family g w� The fame dwellings a several scattered Single family dwellings in the area I I I II i I I I H1 . .. i- I I I , .i • .. w .. e M 1d1 u1,., ^Il'.n»,r., rt»,r., ur, w i ,xl'r .. »r J ' n p ' 'I' nItl r1• t u i f • n - . -- • x ' u M a • NOR TH f ,, '. , I� Rp GAARDE STREET • 1 .ci SL P L .MCUt4TA • 0 LiJ SITE # MURDOCK STREET ■ • I i I Cti SITE V ICINTY MAP '.ins TIGARD NT C PLEX AT 100TI i 1u URPoeK� 4...r_.� I� � M� r n�idwrr- � 197F001 • ,1 y .yid ,.. • C q '4b • R i a r � ■ II 4 • •jLJ wnP1 Ap,,4,4...0., re ,,, III, z ^...-.- --------....v. ^.-- ` I l,,III, 2 t r wk.rww�r. 1 I �' ; 11 • , f`r ..,- • . i, a I 4 • • pydr r � � 41, � it • t �� L ( Jr lc� a=• 'r li , .H-,iI .1 11:1 ,. • . o J • d. � ir`d�� / • ,/4 I I k:', lit7' • �/ // I / • 4, V t • : . \ ' J J p y I r' 1 it I , Ii PRELIM 1 IGA t APARTMENT COMPLEX Fiqure , AU I 1 988 197F002, t ,. • I' i,r. « .,.,',,..., ,,„„..,,,,,,,,„,„,,„„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,‘„,,,,,,,,,4„",,,,,„1,br4 ,woe 10,,•,,?.1'N 41x V+,**4...∎('...«.attt#.4.1.pgrr''.ir,.404.,..uAii 4Y .aw 9 JA4ir«Y J.�;Y w rk r.r .�r •x r.+a �n�.. -1 "IC �•<..., ...,, r• ,,.,.,. d .,,.u...,.,, „.�i ur�rr� ..,........r....,. ...-. a n. .,�. ......�„ ..r.� ... ,.w.. ...•.,,, .,, r..u...»... r.-..t. r..v.,n.ru .....,.�.-.,ar., r....l. • : • .,,.., .., ._•,. -.- •. .' ..,., .: ... ..•., .. - . ...................:..i.M«. .. •...--.,...,...«. ,,,.IWra .,w.:....c.nG.tr.Ga..I..J I r SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ` o The traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment complex is not•`expect'ed to significantly Impact, the.traffic operations - of the adjacent streets. The future level of service expected • during the peak hour will be within the acceptable :standards o_f the City of Tigard. o The estimated site-generated turning movements at the proposed driveway location wile not interfere with the operations at the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. f o In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case conditions, the morning and evening peak hour volumes were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for two hours cut of each average weekday. For the , /1 remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic conditions within the study impact area are likely to be bettet than that described in this report. o The design of the driveway approach along S.W. 109th Avenue ' • Yu, should include a curb radii type versus the standard drivewa y curb cut to facilitate the expected vehicle movements at the proposed development. The radius style driveway approach design will provide more pavement area for service vehicles and emergency vehicles to make the turns into and out of the site 'without encroachment into' adjacent travel lanes. ' I I I rn I i, i I I I 11. I I l •+ • r e....h`.,1.,.,„n...•.. ....v.•... r.,r . ..r., , xa nn. .n u.u....u.•.w.w n ... ... ..r ...r... r,..mr•• v n.. •m . ..... I• ..•,.n .......... .r.'.. 5 ) r EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE- CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The project site is currently vacant and has a light to dense vegetation cover on the area to be developed. There is a dense forest on the west slope that will be left undisturbed. The current adjacent land use is mainly multi-family dwellings with a few scattered single family dwellings. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Highway 99 is a north-south arterial linking the City of Portland with cities to the south. S.W. Canterbury Lane is a minor collector, and S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. Murdock are local :ity " streets as defined in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan n . At the tree- legged intersection of S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue, , S.W. 109th Avenue i8 stop-sign controlled. The proposed access to ae- • the development will be built as a private driveway. Transit services are provided via bus route #12 which runs along Highway 99 from Portland to Sherwood every 15 minutes on weekdays and hourly on Saturdays and Sundays. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS The a.m. and p.m peak hour traffic volumes an the adjacent streets were compiled from traffic counts conducted by Kittelson and • Associates, Inc. The peak hour observations revealed that the morning peak hour occurs from 8:00 to 900 a.m. and the evening peak hour occurs from 5 :00 to 6:00 p.m. The observed peak hour traffic volumes for the S.O. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Aventie 4 intersection and estimated traffic volumes for the S.W. 109th kvenue/S.W. Murdock Street intersection are shown in Figures 3 and 4 . The peak hour traffic operations, in terms of level of service, at the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street were examined in accordance 1 with procedures described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1) . Level of SerVice (LOS) Is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel times number of stops, to amount of stupped delay, and U. impediments .caused by other Vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the , tOS at stop-controlled intersections. For these UnsignaliZed U intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve ' -5- U q 4,0 A " / • e f! . . . , ,a.. - , .,T .i • NORTH • t i �0�� v t tip.' . . 1 MURDOCec i ' '' ' , PLACE (PRIVATE), . , ■ �.. E (PRIVATE) . r M,UR'DOCK STREET I ' ///*/` - . ,„ `Y • `+I G il7i It 1 ,, , ,///1. ' , ' ' �. � o U ,, , . . . . , , "IN* r , , . . . . , , • • ,, ,, '• • • . . • , _. , . , , , ,, . , , ,. , , , ,, . ... ,. ., , , , . , , , , „ . , . , . , , , , . ., . , . , , . 11),-• , . . „, , •• . . , ,,,••, . , . !, , . . , , , , . , , . , , , , . ., , , , , , , , , , • , . , , , 1, , , , , . „ . , . , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , ., , , . . , . , , , , , .. , „ ,, , . , , , , , , • , , , , , . • ::.,w. .,. ,,.,ice L ra.:� . , f E VOLUMES 1 ri . �`IC�'iAi�t1 APARTMENT CtC�NIP�. �qur � � 1�T,1Oi9�'1�,'�►_MUR _dNK�I. Y . . , i' fit.• .., ,,.. .� ..,,...,,......... .�,...... ,,.,.,, ..,,..., �,...,.,..,..., ' A 1` ari�prra. /.=arw" —_ wear^�+u."."1 l'''' ..' NORTH 1` , "'11111111 « 5 i . • 1 ' / I , MURDOC " PLACE (PRIVATE) -L, • 4 ii'. MURDOCK � � •�-- LANE (PRIVATE) , /lT o / , . MFtf� iiOC .STREET ET E S .1 . ,tip �! � ' (;J5 n • i : „ „; i 1 �.hc �wyl rM� ��rq .1.4..5 �Y 10s ` kUibo1 . , s �I 97Fa04 1 Qi? 1�z t 5 + a 5iY4A.l 1Cf;s��1t �xy P,Crt C#q♦7±kY5S7 [ )YJ 5 k}�k4r?�G1k YN Y t yt t!'�tadw wwt w Fit 6 1,r i,5. r .td 1 ,n r M„t,a 1 w ♦x,»° .•Ru M x 1 i# k t h J�4 , .t , , . i , �k ., . tk . a o ■ 5 V' ■ F - 1 , ( ' ( ) . , . Y ,, , Capacity" (i.e. , that portion of available hourly capacity that is , '•i N not used) . A qualitative description of the various service levels , associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 1 . A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 2. The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has . been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the 1I , 1 movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volurn s were used for the LOS analyses described in this report since this represents the wor'et case. All LOS analyses described in this report were , performed an accordance with the procedures described above, ' j Copies of the analysis forms are contained in project files and are available for review upon request. Table 3 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations for the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the . S.W. 109th Avenue/ S. T. Murdock intersection. I AS this table ' indicates, the unsignalized intersections are operating at acceptable LOS under the e tisti n,y peak hour conditions, I ( I ■ 1 • 1- , I E I I 4. 1 4 • u.+ uv [, 1 Mk.,,.•.._f..r...... ._.. f., .,. ., .u.,..e -_,. n..,. ., r.,<..x ,.r..e.R wr s ,....a., ,.-,_._.,._ ..... .,i f M , Table 1 i „ ( 7 � t d GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS' LOS General Description MO 9 «_ A - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 0 and T 10 seconds r Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation } 1 - very seldom is there more than one vehicle in < the queue f` B - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 10 , II and 20 seconds Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience 1 - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in ' the queue ueue •• r I C .� Average delay per vehicle ranges between 20 . . and 80 seconds ,.r - Many times there is more than one vehic-a in the queue - Most ost dr.fivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so D Average delay per vehicle ranges between 30 If and 40 seconds - Often there is more than one vehicle in the , c�ue�,e -- Drivers feel quite restricted •, , . . E Represents resents a'...co ndition in which the demand is ' .;, near or equal to the p robable maximum number of .vehi t les that can be accommodated by the ; « 1 movement Ave ,ges bast weep 4 r �, rage delay per vehicle ranges ► �' ; and 60 seconds 1 There is aln►ost, always more than one vehicle in the uee a P be approaching r Privets rind the delays to intolerable levels F forced flow ;. i Re . :resents an intersection failure condition G' + that is c, a u s e d by geometric and/or operational , constraints external to the intersection • _9-r~ • a +lw n'+a4a.1Yr 4+P+NY4lk 1Yi,4t 4t»Nta� +dkt+ {� yg4^A;+-n�Nel k4.k:1a+411G11Nilt4p1A4 itr4141i Y12t¢4fl'}t14tMl,C nv,+A t,r,»I YA+'r.'i'+r•4"At»ka lVA4p!4 4»�4"v+.,:.,lY!1' e • h IA,AYQ:N+4 p114lA NA,i nw:+•i•+whl 1N Ali 41.94.... RMu W q .,.,..,L.4,.r•r .,,,.. ,..,.^......,,, ,v .,., .. .. 1 ' ....wA,i _ .., n ..r•-.,, .. .,- ..r.+wA. .+lu..n...n...x .. rl. ., ,.,�-.., ...._,... .,.. .._,..r. r. -. - ._ .i_w�. .r r- ... ,r.,r _,w l_r.., ri....lsret.r.r ... .. ...... .. ....,� .' � n• . C ) 4, ) . • Table 2 :, LEVEL ar SERVICE CRITERIA for UNSIGNALTZED INTERSECTIONS } Level'0 Reserve Capacity ]revel of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay r; 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays A4, 0""- 99 E Very long traffic delays F .- i , *When demand volum e exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered With queuing which may cause severe o congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. e This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. o, ,,J Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual" . • j Special Report 209 (1985) , I r A 4 ! 1 \flt4(YPi J4'1{\,1,14.4/41�\N4 ,4...u”ioth,p0 a4A0,0J1{41!9J4JA1 r4P1J1a 44 li.OA Olt YI' a'!M,,,,, N •.^.f lr. ,J .aa r a Y \�Y A{{ IPYa C!f P4111MMA t ".JA{ d ,ru r,sl,. J'.+,.r uvl�eyr J rw�^1Yi id Y\PxPAI'1+'+thJ Ph,�.:{1{}t11k147 i 4{P1{4/V1 PC P9N.n ji I • • • •••••'• u.u�+,:.a:L.-S-A u. 4..0, 0.0.410 A'.:=.�..A;,�....,ra • • • • Table 3 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS Existing Traffic Volumes • Unsignalized Intersection • Reserve Intersection Perioc, LOS Capacity • Canterbury'`Lane/ A e M. " A 860 • 109th Avenue P.M. A 810 109th Avenue/ A.M. A 970 MixraoCk Street ?.M. A 980 • • • a ur A• r r n r 0 .ia a.. _ ., •,.,- _ - • r.,..... .. _..., '.J i.« .a.. n x.. •.,_1 +,. i..l�•.- Y...».-....f.-..«.,..-v4ir .M.n.h,•...,3 .,. .A 1.. 4t.,,urr_. ..u....4s tb.rw:.. +M✓.3....un rA... .•• . a_ r a i _ ..- i ... . w' w N ( :;' N. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ail1 1 ddd The assumed trip characteristic estimates are the basks for the traffic impact analysis in this report. Therefore, special care I has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. The three major components of the trip characteristic estimates examined in this study are trip generation (i.e. , the number and ; • type of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the site "• development) , trip distribution (i.e. , the directional orientation of the site-generated vehicle trips) and trip assignment ( i.e. , the A specific road segments used by site-generated traffic) . Various assumptions need to be made during the development of each 4 component, As detailed in the following sections, the assumptions used to develop the trip characteristics for this study result in . conservatively high traffic volume estimates that are consistent ° with other transportation planning efforts in the area SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES N!ES Estimates of total daily, worriing and evening peak hour driveway volumes for the proposed apartment development were developed on . empirical observations at similar-sized apartment the basis of p' obser complexes located throughout the United States . ,,P These empirical " .1 observations are � summarized in a standard reference manual Institute Transportation I ' published by the t °tote of Transportation Engineers (ITE) • (Reference 2) , and are supported by additional independent studies conducted by both the California Department of Transportation and a the City of San Diego Engineering Department. . Based on the information described above, the trip generation characteristics shown in Table 4 were estimated for buildout of the site in accordance with the proposedite plan. The table identifies the expected number of vehicle trip en ds to be generated ,, by the site on a daily, morning and evening p ea k hour basis. I QY a i' 1'r,w . , ".'<Y '/,11 ri X1.4111 r°/lrreio/e•/.Wnl'v4'jk}t ld;yr4tr♦ .,. .1 ,., 1 - +, i .. Y Yn aY[`!` nMe'n•a• I.a yrll n•Y ♦.1•NI YII Iy IY,d Y1 vy 'f I•t Y n r n !' L , • • .. .„ I. .... .. ..,,. ter-n......�..+ u...+...,,;::,.::,wi».;c�,l-.�ux i:..+-....,....ru4....:.w.:ti.:S•+...u..�,.�,...44.A,:a..a:,' y. YIr J Table1 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED SITE .��....�. t rierated Trips (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total In Out Total In out l I . Apartments 130 800 70 10 60 30 60 45 • Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units alb E. Includes both inbound and outbound trips • • I I I m 13 w •; r , .r \ 111 VV, • ' , n �' Y • TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMEN'T The distribution of the site- generated trips onto ',Ale adjacent "* . street system was estimated through examination of the 'general r' directiLnal distribution at the intersection of S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 1 09 eh Avenue. Figures 5 and 6 show the site- generated traffic volumes assigned to the site access driveway and to the S.W. Canterbury Lane/ S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. a TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS • 1989 Conditions . Figures 7 and 8 the total ' • �' projected 1989 ame and p.m. peak , hour traffic volumes for the proposed site access point and the unsignal ized intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue. The total traffic volumes represent the traffic conditions j„ ,, expected with the full development of this site. Table 5 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis conducted at the unsignal.ized S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection 1 and the unsignalized S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street . intersection for the 1989 Total traffic conditions. The S.W. , Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock intersection are expected to continue to '. , operate at an acceptable LOS #A ACCESS SAFETY AND SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS morning and evening p hour operations at the proposed access driveway along S.W. 109th Av e �i: 1989 total traffic volumes will be within acceptable standards under stop sign �'.. d control . The final design of the access locations needs to consider the following s afety and operational requirements: o sight distance, o driveway width and vehicle tUrning radii , and .j Sight Distance Reaiiirements, The minimum etop in sight � �, along S.W. Canterbury Lane an d S.W. 109th Avenue are 225 to 250 feetk based procedures fo r standard dard roadwa� des zg n (Reference 8) . T he existin g sight distance at the S.W. Cante rbur y Lane/S.W.W. 1 O9th --14 • r A •A \ P h 4. ai t hM I rl#,1 uI/ •ro III r r r { x .v r M,♦, i w A r L t L d/ A ♦2 A A t o!p r ..r t, v . .,r A ■ • M I Y tit.NORTH . R :. . .�' I • ti� r4-4.� v , Ar :1.!�URDOCK . '' PLACE (PRIVATE) MURDOCk LANE (PRIVATE) " '+ SST J .. /// r/ / MURDOCKSTRET d w ao I At) I tlii. , `` 1 A /7--- . A 5., 4.....,o 1 , . 1 \,,, 1 6 1 1 i PEAK 1 RA IC's • y A APARTMENT ,�� � Is°i^ AT 4tOtTH & MURD.00K 6 ,,,,,,111 , i � I•y e a .. a a a , ' ' .'.1...+.......t«.k'...-,..x-_.i- w..,,e.+ .. ". i,.... ._.,,«.,-:� .,..:.i�.,'..ti...n ..._.... ...,aw«a�..rn�w.»..xiw...,J. ,k�. .,.... .u.......� .,.a x. ,r•. .... —,,.. t�.. .,...e...a wLL•W.a, .r.«.,,.r Ya,✓.xa.r.N,..r_,wx.1s«.,.,.5.r„ .-. r.. v ..r, � � r.. _. � • 0 'i'. t NORTH • l!' 6 uQ F d I' • I. I q. • , !� Y. n' I I I ■ URDOCK I N., .II PLACERIVAT ) 1 MURq • �?CF4 I l' fr SITE • i�U DOLF4� STREET' 1 M. y 1'i 1 cYOb .I I .4414 ■yyrr I P f4'i VVV {l V. ; E ' -GENERATED TRA fir IC { I �] D J�/��r! PEAK 'Iih1f �WAT '�° COMPLEX , g tiro �:6 AT 109TH & M D CK Fl , 1981 I I �.rv.� : .,....�...� ..,n,,. .. .. .......� .......,,,. ..< „v , n:..., •,,, .i .,,....M �„�.n..xx,,,.,...v.,.,.,...,,�,., ,,,la,..... .. .......,.,-,..,.�.., , i. ,,.J.., a.,.. .. ..i.v .. r.k......,. �.. „ „•� ..,.,..,.... • • • , ..,,, .,r. ..uw. r...uf..,a..;.w,...H,.,,wl,f v4..,J...i..,',.:,.«+L.,...1:''.,:!rilr,rr-1,.,.i,,,,1;..:..t>r✓ ., ' 1' } - ./ is�rryrreir.. .am�cu+��.�Yt�� - k 4 j If, , 1. NORTH . • ' , i .,, , ,, , , • • . 41.0 .6� s , M'll ate' ‘. j ... , .1 . MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) , 1 MURDOCK . ' s `- LANE (PRIVATE) .,./ , , , SITE , ,, '''',, , ' ,,H',,' ' ",,,,'„: '''''''', , ,',' ,,,,, '. '', , , ',,' ', '',', ,, ' ,, 4,',', � IUF�DOCK 8R,�FtET • ,k n '`'"� I )461.1° • • t • r, : }: , e .• • • • 1989 "TOTAL 'RAFFI r � . A' .,109TH.a .MURDOCK FI 1. 7F00T • , , l A. t` e, a.aJ i �,..,.�..,.._�.i.., . ,Y...-..,,.,u._ ,. .�.. s ,•,....,.,. ,.,.0 � .,», .,. r ..n...J_ . iw.• w v,x.„.r ....a a.r1a�..�...a.w w...w _ - ,., A a 1 t. 'It li .. . NDRTt-1 , IC I, 4a . 7 s 4s I. 1` 1 MURDOOK PLACE (PRIVATE); MURDOCK • � - LAh► (PRIVATE) 7 M /'' f•/' MURDOCK. STREE1 . l' • . / ., • i. 9 r m,r C7(:)if) la TRAFFIC S' 6 �'.1e1� ���� H+rJU� ak i1 T COMPLEX rif)ut*, < ,,i r10err & eta ► • �. d , l..ol w,of Me.r Ho-h w.�P' ayxrtA�dr Cpl w+ItJ•,.n..rrr*,.yr�. ail, w «., n , a ',r„l _ iu• �,ir , b w :.�.�...w� ,..�r..,....A ,,�„ „ ... .. „.,.,,.,•,., ,.,.,.... n v.«.. .., „... ...! �.. ........... .. ... „ .. i....w... �i., n,x ...,."r.,i..u, a .....rv.� n.•. ., a.,.[.v.n,. rx...v... „,,,.. r•... ...«., ..w ..,�: ,. i�., u.i., 111 y n..,.n ,TX P' v l , , lt1 . ., I . • • 1 M -_ 1,' Table SUMMARY OF 'INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS 1989 Total Traffic Volumes • ' Unsignalized h:' . Intersection 1 ' Reserve . , Intersection Period LOS .Capacit Canterbury Lane0 A.M. A 780 19th �Ven1e P.M. 720 a J 109th Avenues A.M. A 860 Murdock Street P.M. A 820 4, ' • .,i R i M '1 t • 0, I i iis 1 l . • 1 i r • 19 c . . • N ) (' I Avenue intersection was measured to be 280 feet, looking from S.W. 109th Avenue to the west, and 300 feet looking to the east. • Sight distance at-the proposed driveway access was measured to be approximately 250 feet in both directions. As noted above, this observed sight distance complies with standards establised by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Reference 3) . Driveway Width and Truck Turning Radii The driveway along S.W. 109th Avenue should be designed to accommodate occasional use by emergency vehicles and large service trucks. The width of the driveway should be at least 30 feet to - allow Zor a single inbound lane and a single outbound lane ot „ I traffic. This width complies with the City of Tigard access design standards. The driveway .approach along S.W. 109th Avenue should include a curb radii type design versus the standard driveway curb cut to facilitate the expected service vehicle movements at the 1 proposed development . A minimum 25-foot inside radius should be Used at the driveway location. This radius will provide adequate pavement area for service trucks and emergency vehicles to make the turns into and out of the site without encroachment into adjacent travel lanes. ' 1 RECOMMENDATIONS k I , Based on the results of this study, the traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment complex is not expected to significantly • impact the traffic operations of the adjacent streets . The future level of service expected during the peak hour will be within the acceptable standards, as defined by the City of Tigard. The estimated site-generated traffic will not interfere with the operations at the intersections of S.W.Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street. • The intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue currently operates at an acceptable LOS and Would contihile to do so under future volumes forecasted fox' the project, In addition, available sight distance for eastbound S.W. Canterbury Lane • vehicles to see northbound S.W. 109th Avenue exiting Vehicles is , within acceptable standards. In the future, traffic volUtes may 1 increase to levels that would warrant the prohibition of parkihg on the south side of S,W, Canterbury Lane, between the easternmost , ,% a o • • • 1i 1. .,-,., I.i..• - I ,. . .............. .t,,. .-., .. ,,.«._,._.,�,.,,,.>.-„ � _,- .. .w..s,�.-.�;i.,u:x.Mw::i.J.;.:r.1i�i,�:�...l.,wJ..:,,:�+r,ii.:��w-,.,.,...,::..I.:�:,;,�..o».:,�ul,"c. ,»•,.�w�w.sM driveway to the Maple Tree Apartments and S.W. 109th AVanue. Thit measure would increase sight distance to the west from S.W. 109th Avenue to approximately 450 feet. • • • • • I _ I I , I t • ,�• 1 • • ,fit i i �� i � � � i �, � � i � i • I I III I I I I I r++ I I I I I,' I r I I I , .»NYC Y Qi I1, „ —' a k • • li M 1. � 4 ' 1 k �ERENCES � 1 . Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual . Special Report Number 209 ( 1985) . 1, l2• Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual : Third Edition (1983) . iI 3. American Association of State Highway and "'ransportation x Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and l; Streets (1984) . s'' • F,• I I � I I lc J1." I { I r , f a }, i s I I k� I I ', 1 1. } 1 ' A I. n • I i II } f d ',I t, r, s. , . I I .•r , I �, � w.. , r.., .alt}x• f..r'.:x, ai,,v.'F ', , ...,.,,. .,�v° .,, .'�11'., .� Ptl „ ,. ....,.. ..r...,«u. .... , ...X .w , i iY.'.Y . „4 qM1 4 Ik o . _ 9 • • LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to ( 1 participate in local government. Ti , rd's Land Use '°'1"-'�"':!- "� g n e � • Code therefore sets out specific requirements for C1TYOFT1RD filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in . . filing an appeal of a 1aAnd use decision in proper ' form. To determine what filing fees will be required or, to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact, the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639_4171, APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: PD 88-04, SDR 88•-17 and V 88-27 • 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: Tod. DeKanter apala:ed ors behalf of CBF=I •' S ,p• 1X-_f o ' the above named approvals. I am the attorney for—CBH. 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: CBH Company agrees with the Planning _ammo 1210 1acjal n,_. a oro re �Lhe attblicai ion, however, sposes . + k�ousi.ng ,where the ex;i sting ?--12 (PD} u t • �. -dos u� tb 152 unas , }.. .a condition that -Variance ance f • ' -ed tn_a?:_Q ii ccess where two are regUired b3cod,e is linked mre than 10Q units be built on the site, • that.,;.. tui dam. ., i i e d An be submitted to the ..P l a nn i i ig r • .i • Y i J l J 1 {dwa 'w t • nds that 6 . _, . •��.:�cant� contends that the Planning —C: C1:.1 inn .• 10 • , • • p � Planned .De men' ection i evelo meat Code Chapter 1 8 . 80i to the a licatio over) F 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS T`0 BE FXNAL ,.� actaber ;�: ,, 1988 ATE NOTICE O '...._,. • 5, b F FINAL ,DECISION WAS GIVEN: er . : �. , 1 g 8 • Se tem"b 6, STGNATURE(S)s �... V,• il�,j,a A Manahan Attorney for CBH Company 404••i{404 3tiE••?t••**X-X**it-**X404-x-xl*A••X*X•0•��4X X X A f04404-i1.3E•**f4404444 44**•5c•**),-l00K4•4f••34 40d K4444-•tt-itr��4• POR OFFICE USE ONLY t Received By,; .1,Ika__:. Dale "y r Time:11114-2.- , D00%cr As To Form B. Date: _ r i:ltne x pp m By By- y A rove As To For By 4204 r Tr-gw r, ..�r -(i'kgggn' - Y-,y{Y. !F I. w/ f-rZ eYSCn.1 p pd re:4' 1.312b.8VRill 8(br., 78oX 73897,11gdra Ore g on 97 223 � ����9 A --w--- I I I • • A CtH CompGY Appeal -- Page r• t4' is i The number of units allowed by the Commission action. s nconsistent . With the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for land zoned R-12 with a PP overlay. The appll y cunt further appeals the application of fencing and planting conditions that exceed the standards established within the Community LL Development Code. 1' The findings contained within the Final Order do not support the j • decision as the applicant has fully satisfied all applicable see*l:,,I. ns of the City plan and code4 • • I I I y II I 4 0 I r n i u I ITS w: 4e0: ' .'-'4"' ' 4,0 te,i,--70A - t-'''' -4-.. 4 I.,,,I, 4 4, ',.,0'PA._ -', 00F,,,i,4 , '0*,fe 1, , 4,,,h,4,41 ,i,,, : ,L, .„ ,,, . . i,,, — -.,,, - , ,a-ifoe 4$41'°' '4 0;114 =44 4,' ' ,, l'' ,''",4 ', ti, , '' ' ,,l' ,,,, '',,,, ''' .f.1*,, r44 , . ,/ ,1 ' t"f .4 4R1,1, IT, ' ' I ' '44tt. P'. ,.," .,, - n,"•1 ' 1 , lo, ' , Cli . ) MEMORANDUM (:) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . . ( . TO: City Council , , . rROM: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner . , . DATE: October 3, 198S , . SUBJECT: Appeal of SDR 88-17/PD 88 •04/V 88-27 (Schuetz) . ; . The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development. The property would be permitted a maximum of 152 units , ( and 130 units where proposed. The applicant also requests a variance to allow % one driveway were two driveways are required by Section 18.108,070 of the - , Code. Based upon the way this Section is worded, one could conclude that two . or three driveways would be necessary. The staff interprets the Code to require two driveways for a development of this . . - The Commission approved the variance for one driveway, but limited the 11, development to 100 units. Concerns were expressed regarding access, buffering . for adjacent properties, and preservation of trees on the site as well as i abutting parcels. The staff agrees with the Commission that these issues , should be adequately addressed, but the staff does not view a reduction in density as an appropriate method for dealing with these concerns, It appears ' , ') that the problems which surfaced at the Commission hearing,could be dealt with i 4 i in other ways, such as requiring two driveways or further fire district , , involvement in the site design, modification of the location and orientation 1 4 • of the apartment buildings, and determination of what methods of buffering 4, • . will be used, t , The staff recommends approval of the proposed apartment complex as originally conditioned in the staff report, with additional or modified conditions to t ,,i, address the concerns raised before Council at the public hearing. , ( 1. 1 1 4/ ht/7330D , .... "Ft/J:0` - • , fc, .. • I r -4 J-4, -- :-,, ,,,,,,-, ,4.'- ...zif.„1'..-- 4 , 1 4 1' A ■ - 4/t ili *Y* ' t * mr ' 6 i • ,...., • • 1 • . ,. .. e. . • ,• ,,. ....,.0. , - '• ft)/3 4712. '51/1',1 i.: C113:0%," 1.-..:1, •. - rAcr, . / 44 ‘... 4,01.• ,., .., w?".. I_ I . ,, .,— . , • ‘ 4 • TP'4,',77..',:', :Y;,;:....:*t . i, '4''''.i'•:4,:•-",,,,,k_c„, „ ..;444:yo,:.,:..,,-.,.;;,,,x/.,*,,,,,,..0•!:,,,, i.,,,,„'41,"..,:}Z,'',',',.'!-,1 " ,,-., ,',.,,,',,;`,.,.1.,...':;4;,;44';'-..).'.. .'%..',,,04„,,,,.4.',,,,,'.i..'.-4,,-,• ,6,-•'-.1,0'..••'•-••'••,--1,.'„i•of,0?•,4,,,•.,'•:,,,-"•;.•,*,,,,iiit'f,•••••'...,•.',-',•:.'',:•,-,.,.... .•f,.-.' *. • 1,4 1,••;•,i-q'..,•:-',`••.•';','-4,f,''''4„.'''.,,..i•1,..',,i' . , ,,4`. i,',„1 , ‘,..,,,, -•-,,f,,., ,,o-r.,:, • .' •';:`••!.,.,•,:', , 44.'„;j---4.:- ,...•••,' ,'-,,,'-:',i•,'.-,,-..:4„.4 4,4,:zi,'''.'.',0,1f;i*:;',4;'5 ',1.),,pli,,,,,, •.'',;,-,:''.. .1,„-,„•'1:',;f::: ,;::-.'t.•4:,,';',;,,,,'.1'. •„.",k!,,v,,,;:,,A,4., ..„:, ,. ..t1t.b.1.4",,t7r*L .8,i',...;'.:'''''::'..'.'.!4;;!,...-`, ,...'. ' ''''''' ' ''''' '' ;'''''''''' ''-'''''', "''."' ' ''' ,-..e.-'"'' '.,' 1,:, 4 .,.:,1.,' io : '''''iltf.:.::,k,-,t,11.:4..- ',,;'•,,,'.,'‘,",•,:m.:::i'.'',V4,,,,'•-•1',,k•i',' ',1,.,''''..,A,k1V.' ,i,,,,.$,,,,,,,,,H......'11.04'..y,,,,„,,,,,,-''',''', '4,1,,,-,P-,.. ..-,,,,,, '''. , ' ' . •. -.... '''-:',i.'..'' 44 '.:;,-.. ' '''' . -.'''''.','„1:,, ' ..,"', '7,-'.1...,..t.,,.',.:,..! ' -4"'itz",':,'',.441 .:•,')''..,:•c.,..r...,le.',,,''''.,''', ,,,',4'.$;......',:i.:*.!,',It 1„::t.' '''.?1..:".!!-e.''', - ....,. .....,,e, 14':)4{'?"';1„4''''''''',:',15.,..4,1■ItiW'd:'N t1:::1,H;':`''''.'f:',,;'''',':'''' ,'',— .'' . ' ':17:14.H'''',''''';' •' ' 'ih'.:'..:,' :if 't^'."..':"'''''.''', '',,;' ..'1:!-AT ',-''4,'.,'4:.,''' 10,iiii'" ■*'A''''',.'''''-,, t ..,1:'''''': .'''. . ,-'. ';.'.;:4„T,'1.' '.,:',.',,-' '' ', '''',t'.1.'(i',,'''■'-'9:-!.4''' ''''t4P, 14'.:$41P":.*" ! a',t ,. ' ,-0 '.,',P,..,''' ,.-•44504.•'.'•,...4.-',!,-••:,14--.,. ,^••',.. '• .,• '..., , ',-,.,. .. ",:•' . ' ." . . •.. . ,',:i '' ' .".°'''''ii,', %Of%'''.4-,1-;',114' ''''''-,'',''''''A'"''''', ,..*, ''P• '.',., f-,,,I,**,,*..,.,i'. --:,'•,,,IV:',",",1!',,''.!:':,,:.,. '',".',',;r4.,..4'4.4..„4, ''.''"'!'ef:'.'. ,.',', "`,",',„,;41. ' — ., '-'...i.,;.,..—..woh..44.,...,..,34,, - - •." • ----•- ,_,,-,:.: ,,---••,_ -._ '.••.--,-. ,_ • _,, .. ,,,,,. ,,, .a ° •,,,,, U w rsi '• -1-' , 4 ,. -.4.,.'"',,• • ,...). , . .., ... . ..I - . ' . .'•..,. ( • . ' .., .-- .-'!, "'„, • - , • . '.W' -. . " / . n'.; ... . ,. .1 1 ... :..”! o. i,,i, ' • i / '1 i ji 4( f‘j /1 ..04/ 1 ......'.' ..."( 4 i 1 1'14...*. / . . * ..11 144% . it , , t i ,I, ... ,5 d'Af tt, .., I ,./ . „ ,..,. , . . , ... ...„, / " ) it.„ „..' / t, „4,4",,/ .40- ,4A ,4-- ...• . -. /4 i 1 1 .., 14•,_,.,4. . , ' Oldgel*' 174 ....)' i‘e--i "',, f-a-- -40/.1 941 - • ;„,, ,...,„ -,.. • . . ..;,,,,f,x --F - •),,,,.---- i'- .. , . , . •,. . 4 ,•,.4, „,. , ,...se 41I leilti/Le/&,-44-c •' . 1. / -0/ . ir , i ./1 °,. .,. . ■- „li ,,,; `1.,,e.:1 i'r''' 01 1 I 41.21/‘ 4'" ,. , •,1 .'s1 ,4 • . , 4 •,. l .• ., .',.. f..t • '''_. t-, . . .F. . - • A ,-, ,4 . ... • .,., , • i, .•. .1 ; : . •, •I ,, .. • 4, :.,.. . . • • r, ,. . . . , . .. , f, . .. • , • 1 .. , •4 . . ' • .. .. '., ....,- . . 0 . .•1 . ' • , .,'-.,.,,.gfr,- • . . .• . - • • ; . • • • , .. . .,,,, • - - • - . , i . -k • • . .. • ..'. • . • r. , , •. • . •:-N,. '1" . ' ' ".'. " • , • , . ... . . • ' * • • • . . . .,. / -i•• ' ,,, . . , . . ,,,•., ,.,.«..n..r J..rA,m w........r.,, ,..., r✓.-..u,..tw,....y.+.+....... ..._ 'J" rr',,...., r • .H .+ (+r • i or ( First i�arwest Building SirriCo Ft 1 4°°C)130 s1�t X Sixth41(32,Suite 805 PROPERTIES, Zra Portland, .)rc�,gon 97208 . (503)222.0595 Y October 3, 1988 ` . • � OCT 88 , CITY CAF' TtG City of Tigard INNING DEPT.Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File #SDR 88-17, PD 88-04 & V88-27 NPO #6 1 Applicant: Tod DeKanter 4 I • Panorama West Apartments is a 74 unit apartment community located on Murdock between S.W. 109th and S.W. 106th. It is owned by Panorama West Associates, an Oregon General Partnership, sinimCo Properties is the Agent for Panorama West Associates. Canterbury Heights Apartments (AKA Panorama West II Apartments) is a 76 unit apartment project located between Canterbury Lane, S. J. 109th and S.W. 106th. It is owned by i. - Canterbury Associates, an Oregon General Partnership and SimmCo Properties is the Agent, and I am the General Partner. , . Both of the properties are affected by the proposed development and are . strongly opposed to the City of Tigard granting a sole access to this property for a 130 unit apartment project The traffic flow with its congestion will not work well and will cause premature deterioration of the roads, undue road noise and a potential vehicular hazard for the families living at Canterbury Heights, Both of those projects have multiple points of ingress and egress which defuse the traffic flow. Condensing this new development point of ingress and egress to one driveway right at the point where there is the heaviest concentration of traffic from Panorama West and the condominium project behind it to the West is just simply poor planning. The developer must be required to provide an alternative point of ingress ,J'::: and egress Via a service road off Pacific Highway 99 or via a secondary access to a new road further down S.W. 109th o:" to S.W. Naeve St. r representative available; to discuss this sii>�mCo will have a repro,. � discuss this matter with ' members of the Co►unc,1 and/or Planning Commission prior to the scheduled r meeting if requested to do so: Sin, - -ly, I'll ■ II Mic ae McKenna President MM/j g 7796A • C c y City recorder i v - A A . ., • ' ^ r V, , (IP -•-.-- ': '.; ; *,'''''.P•1../4....' : 1 .1,',,:'':.• , . „ 1 , „ crvoFTIGARD ' . . : ' NoTIC'E OF PUBLIC �1EAR' �I, NG OREGON N , . , - [ ... . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY 'COUNCIL AT ITS . ,MEETING ON ! ' ' f2 : ' ' !MONDAY, OCTOBER °10, 11988,:AT. 73O P.H. , IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE ,TIGARD CIVIC : 1. 0. CENTER TOWN' HALL, - 13125 S W HALL BLVD.', TIGARD', OR, WILL CONSIDER,: THE . APPLICATION': , 1� . FOLLOWING A N '', FILE NO. : SDR 8817, PD 88--04, & 'V 88727 NPO 1 ' 6 'FILE TITLE: SCHUET2 (DEKAITER) � • ' . 1., • . ' APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter , OWNER,: Florian & Anne Schuetz , . 720"NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close . , Canby, OR 97013 Red, Deer, Alberta G 6'. J REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission''s approval 'w{th conditions for's. : ' , request for a' 130 units apartment complex on 12'.66 acres 'toned , '. R-12, (PD> '(Medium Density Residential, 12 units/arse-Planned' ' " Development). Also, for a Variance to City regulations that ' re n�.res three (3) access, oints on development of over 100 : � H'''': P F units to allow one access drive. ' . LOCATION: between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM . 251 IOAD,, lot. 8802 and 2S1 IOAC, lots 400',an4 500). � ''', •;., (Seep ilap On Reverse Side) .. S . . �', .� �a � THE ',PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS, MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN 'ACCORDANCE. WITH T HE ' RULES O F CHAPTER 18.32 O F DEVELOPMENT THE COMMUNITY CODE AND RULES R PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL V .LADLE AT CITY HALL, OR ,RULES F PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30.: ANY PERSON HAVING- INTEREST INTFR�ST THIS AND HEARD', OR TESTIMONY MAY'BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING ' . i TO ENTERED INTO THE REC ORD. , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION-, PLEASE CONTACT THE CII TX REORDER OR PLANNING' , DEPARTMENT A T 9.. 171 CITY, OF TIGARD 13125' SC4 HALI v D,. T IGAtD, OREGON r 91223. �I' d a' $03) 48(,'-41,71 ., 7 7i' �r Qr B �3 3� r d • r • R+ J., I t•• Yd , i"1/�dlh X1111 ‘i'\\ 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. ' , ! . .. 1 . . I P.O. BOX 23397 : CITYOF TI 1-1GARL, OR 9, 7223 • 5 � 0 • 3) 39-4�? 1 , 1 : , , : , , ,. • ,.. ,,, • . �-. . „ : 1: : ' I '! . .61 /NA I',j .,fir E ""` ' 1.:*,,, r ) , ./c.; A .' "'' r •, /fir' "` ' (c i ) rl,1 1 r rl r `,r� "' 'ii::: I,'� 4 ,i,, ;:,,,'„1,r~4y r � l�`', -K4Ess G to,,f„ 014::•"' �14 11 "r, ..:Ys �s:',1 ,� �'y ,1,".y fir, �,. >� ...!. 1 M,_� _ a`'B J, +* ,5,!• �,�r .. ,� ' /.Wyt 'q+ M. 1,�Tj ��. .+h �.,,ky) )y{q fy,'`�/ �,"� '� )j+"`t(,y,r'i �./:}f 1_'�,:.:� /�,v y`}�",r�„ d r�Y.�(�+,��'i ,'(y,,x,/��,y� ; I� w/�wp, gee''1 : *L,N' M r�[�W,,�y:�.1,� 1 7{' 1' 114 t4, '�R• w/`P6.,,.�k,' t. ."1..) '+M �`W1 X 4, ,; - „, 1. i ,4 F.W�,�,;,, L P �,T1 r 'i'1.,7M_{ '+'S!. .0c1„ 4' Lt / . �. lV Mw I, „ �' 4,. l ,��, r'. f I. . S _ �* /0?"-'^ , + : � � Ci', �t -- N„�� 1 ' f �1 �F.;/pg� �'' '.'', �(� ( fl 4'",:' P!'4 7.A�i;'�� r ��P ,�/�� 140A ,•.,'� . { iay�'i", y GCl ; , ,I l . 0":-':-1.,d r �0" { ,. ., 4 M \ epnlr ,, � - yj j+ l I.y (.). 40 y'He'yM 5 (13 n.r F: ey,),/h T ^ / 11'j i e')'N'y I j.), ec. ./t1 i}i I ,1(t pi W P i 6:4.5]/07, .. ,• i . 0 �,,, j , ., ',4, ' S c I 7''IC C 1 le t q ti ,-A..4.. �t-,7V I G> . t-6/... re( '64:64‘,4 4,!4 r/iv(., , -../-1'1,:„. „,'C,7”' , p i.:L o►,r.�A et l ,J t T 1,a P , ' • ..i I(,,,,/,4L... 1"?"ro`o I'1 t f:'r�t _,'"" 5 �«�.'.r1,i'tt �, 1 ,, . w r�7�r,t'r` °N1"e . ?ttsPl� '" 1'1'6'f.:Cptil'r �1Pi k D )) .4",tM 1c.)a.;1 »» kg., MU,I 33k,k",rcCi"d,£',01 " ' P ' ' "T'.L �. 1 e i' (� i k , (t b. ; C t°< r(=, i � Ct .•' :« ,.^+ w.w *M..+, • 'f' "rui'''"""'' r J r° {4 ,: "^r 6. F (' l*ia, r); , e ' ri i'jr, ' 1 1e. 1' ` , „+' w� ,.(•f , ?ice -' ti( t l,to d.'I tt:;i) G.7,w c t,,,.,t't�fit. •r.t A 1t, ), , '�1 .: ;Ilk('A ','.:4,),,-, q0"1.0.„ ,,,,t,1 'r,.i.1 :><L (.0 .;,,,1 0.1„?Ai.;, 41 tvem„,lir )tekt,1:14,to. .„-., , ! ,, , ' . k. �+p# " 1j`Ji I . i,, Ph. ., ;';y."5., . P.,!;1)1'.'1 µ3L' Iw.+ ?:'''' �„ ' f"•`� • . ,' ,'- "w"�ww," ",,,,..,""""' y g •'st�' '� �,� 1 r � r+.:.�..L,.-w,. �,_ ,, � �w*�.�..l"Mh�� MY�"4++n �7,W��1 .,�W".`w'Y ''"'^�MwW"' •' .� � ,'� ' .. .W'tir i.�.Y, -r{.-r 'wJJ`i.i'w�i�.+nC•, .ro'r'(�wsi,� F ' 'rive " rrc).( 4(:L � .0fy H/A '. (� ri. /?r/o,�' 5: AiEk r et ,•� t ) r . ,1)112,),C)0 -.,? G tit) 1 w /e f �' r r w•1 ," 5,. r ' T e �'� f i'r� / �i,'7 w, .01 7i/ / r. A P6/05771 „ �4" , , / „ �' mo �F4:4 -7 . ,� G y 4' Pe+ /t �✓/G '/ " , "(, J, e= .Y p p:/_ 1 ' /lie- ,,i ICJ # )1`; '. /; ,� iv/7, „. � ' • I 4 . o.w.,..r...�. I', f P ,a PLEASE A�Y URN�ORI GINAL OOP WITH a�PLY, KEEP PldOPY Po :PILE 00'1',-,,, . — / 7_ e , n rr •h . °4,/,' 37350 • + ,, & 1 0 4 2 1 + 57402 • * # '', ;' , atveexc�e of +4 1 2 • 8 . fi'/acv'e, 4 3 5 6 0 • .. •c+of'slp- 5 5 7 5 6 8 •'„ v , 1 a ' Sat �ha(-site. 557 568 ` + `,...-1►. 1.0,/ •'5 5 7 4 $ d pant ileehc 4ioh 0 • , , •' o.iJ:pledic4.41a1: 0 • . ' • . pt sFrect Ca3 4 5 6 0 • D;r , . `h e l- e E 6 5 '5 2 6 * area. 'r� k •i 4, I a deuel �,.„'4. 65526 • • ' i.ti,wpaper°will- w: 3 0 5 0 • 1 5 2 • 6 '`1"_"'.It ce j , r , k ' '7° slip' -5 7 0 4 2 4 `r 1 ! a,eb.per�uNi+ 30. 5 0 ' k ;' 4 • 7. -. -1-`.Ir-`,}-4-44-+h- , ; 1�� ,. : 1s H-h us r� 4 • 7 C. ?i r• 1 5 7 3 *' Lid alki` I 4 't a '4i I 7 ■ r h .: : / ',/,'P ' / / z,..,--- . '-''''\. , *,i„..''''''''' --*-' . 1 , � '„ I.ti, .,..�....w......r_..Y 'i.»:,.....-.,1 .n.11,,,.,n x-.+�..,.»,.�n..J.a..».._-.+n..... ».__.r..A i......_J'l.rv..r,,.a......a+f.a.,•r ..._.r...m...r4+' .,.A.i.. ...r. ..r...rn.... .....n..r._. nom..- ..» '/ ' ' ,/ ,'' / / i ; / , :/// ,/ i / ' �O' ,t � r w � may) / N/ / /// , ; , i . - ti..._;rS, '' ''..\/"" \ / ' • V,r'."" I / ,/9 , )-, '''',71.1 <.„.„.....jr...„, * ,,,../` ' // ' / , '''*--,"--- .." .., ,..."// " ._--S-------1.--_,," '■- ....ait 1 ! " , .... . ,,,,- t„, i /„, . , i , ' •. - 0 f, 11 (c...,.., 1 \,. .., .-Aus•rol--"' AV alk, 4 r`/ ,I I. ".. .1.1 „„if....,_______-- I 1 V •1 / , , ,// .,/,///,,/' , , / :/ i 1- , , 10 \ . ,' '�.r�. " 0 j ^i , i � , r / ,./ ° �' �I , fi MHY/ r i !t . � • r r Vl iiii. . . . ,. r 7 /' ' «• a 1) , r' to if I )� ) ...-••---�--°.,' , r . O I W, 4 0 M 4 ____._,.. / , :, , / , I . 1 42$ I. .. 1 () , / , M t �'46Y 5 i G:' : / �'' / , , - : ' ki 't r AFB KING P r 1 i I fi ms •4 i , V , Y p \\\ . ''-, y I 1 ` I , r . • / F ' O � ,tr y • • 1 • 1 . , I .r .... , 1 i.• y Y II , I I • I I 1 7 1 , ^1�r1 n l�• . ...._«...._ ...,. _..,._ .._ . ,,,.-,. ..a., ., „ ,«, ,...«.....,ti.....«.,_........,.,_i......,.,...,.,w....u,:.._r.,.... .o-....,.wi:......,.«.,.....,....,.,.,,,...,a......... .:�,. ...,a_,,.,....ay. .i.. .-a•.........,.r, ..,..., . ....,,...«w•.-,..,_�I-..-+w.:r- _.,.r..,..•..r.,.,...,.a.M...u,...:.<.,,.,a.n-..,.wr,. ,A.r • • • • "WILLIAM A_.. MONA HA N ATTORNEY AT LAW 12290 S,W,'MATN STREET T'IGARD,OREGON 07223 (8103)(339-8900 • September 19 , 1988 Keith Liden, Senior Planner 03' 3 ' City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. SEP 19 1988 L) P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT, RE: PD 88-iO4, SDR 88-17, and V 88-27 - CBH Company • Dear Keith: I represent CBH Company, applicants for the above referenced land use decision: Please take ncte of the fact that I have made ' full disclosure to the City of Tigard of my intent to represent CBH Company. The City has consented to my requests be appealing i the, decision of the Planning CBH will pp ng �, t g Commission Made on September 6, 1988. As I have begun to review the file on the application, I took note of the fact that the . amount of buildable land on the site has not been calculated. Apparently the staff did not feel that this was an issue given the number of units applied for and the number of units allowed ,; under existing zoning. It appears that the Planning Commission may have been confused and could have based its decision on a ' belief that more of the site is unbuildabl e than ac tually is. Could you perform the calculation and advise me of the outcome prior to the date of the appeal hearing? I would also like to know if any transfer of density is necessary on the site if 130 units are planned in accordance with ! '�l plan? many g •,.• the submitted site �an? If so, how pan units are being transferred from the non buildable land? r ` Finally my understanding is that the NPO did not make a - formal recommendation on this application. My clients would be happy to me date the appeal hearin to resent the lanPQ prior the ma be nteres ` et with the r of �h a.,ty � GiZ y ted , u hav` N Waul a formal. ,action b the I, �p NPO c of my suggestion or provide me with the name of PO.. ' d ouadvice the y fig' p � a� �the� new chair So I can make contadt and set up a meeting time i understand that Phi'', fasteris has resigned as chair. • Than you for your attention to my requests. si' • { dV inn As Monahan Y , a .ur ` . r ' XSA 'r.. u 1 11F ' •, ..,,, , tir • •1 th *. r e e Around . . , , .. . _. ...,,,, i , ... ., ,, The greatest problem in developing �ti ;'a country garden lies in finding some- Y where to stop. ,�,j , , The owners of this comfortable �'' :' :country estate gave landscape archi- ,. tect Frances Fearnlev Stafford a good , it.. MT}r deal of room The garden you see r�p�yql.;$ ,� t )/1/yY M �' "'"` ' g y }.� uY,�, r ,l� 4 J,i. 'r��i } \°yt,i Mt h e' •r,i;"'PSI ,D,,r;V , •'.5 }"1j1 r ,s"7i` *'��+wX�f ik, V. .A iI N here is the product of years of care- �k i•*q, F' '�f�a e �,M p $ :�re'�i t >��� �1i��j ?�'�r .'arA,� ti '� W � i s r w r RR q"h� K•�," ful and pleasurable vc ark. ,: ': A'r `�y, 1 � ;{fit `I Z,� The lady of the minor likes grays ,� '�;u" t° " �... 0w�{ �5 '''' y ; for accent; dianthus dusty miller and ,...,„,,,,„,,,;,,,% '1,00-1101"" d tr - ',w"`zt"' ; , Senecio 4creyii abound, To attract the -----,.,,,`, i ' ?„.+.-," .r ,” �� t to r:trl i,e"�orC+n.,1,., ,a'''�.:� ..r r•' J�y%+:• 7 +ti r .-.v,.-,u Y h v 16 r r 's�•irl' My birds and a cheerful squirrel there are - , �fe 4 �r I r w , , ' L 4ry ' 1 Akr4,lr r -Y y,,1 ,°�`�, - 'r , , ''•j ,.. 5�'Y• r��y�+r Chilean huckleberry, Pacific dog- '' '',4, � x`.11', aa,`E „��, ' �.�,.,�,., ,. ` ,, ,y " ' rw :;.. ts•aod, English holly, Oregon grape, ,1' r 411:11 , —••-•-- :(' st w�kx�{i -�°, -� ,_.- ,,^."yam ‘ i stranvaesia, and pvracantlaa, ,,, ,� 1''_(„ PlaV chosen for fall color include; •rw .. o .. .,, -, , } ,' r '�P ants os ,. ,•‘..:. r, r 4,. ■ Double-tile snav bill, purpleleaf Jap- ` . Nett h ="`� ``' A • a t •anese barberry, Japanese hotinia, t t 1� f, p y__ a P P �M + °� 'II tEkS yr M xr At�1' l franklinia, heavenl�• bamboo, stag- a>, ,A.,4,,,,,,f a.. Atp a, ,1,h, F,,w,,,; .�' horn sumac, 'Sherwood Red azalea, .. ''" Y°`tIV ,,4e, '•=°.," drooping leucathoe, sweet gum, cop- d f v,)bl s, ,-,,,,,id 'Aw" r f y ,1 . j+wM 4tf ' 'i,i� per beech, `Crinlsori King' maple ::l�0r;r p,).),. s, h'..•. 4'',?, 62f V 7 'l�l ��` .G�!ly f. 4 4-purpleleaf plum, Oregon grape, ever- 141:,,,,,414`.."'tr w r t, , a..; n 1,��ttLAWN d, .ik 0.fY aNzMG $Adt Ji green huckleberry, and Virginia creeper, 1 ,,� � �:.1 �,' For spring calar, pots of purple and v 4 4��� � blue pansies and �•ell()w primroses are �,, r , r s,;r,M c=,� r a coy set around thepaol'and patio. In sum- 4�' k���� `,, ' Y �� r 4 t pots r .:,n„,,y,�' tr!" ,f(rt'�'�1,'L y(r6'y inei these are replaced by P„�s of �y, � �"tr*� tW. �� „ `Aiiicrican Beauty' and pale pink ge- +l„!,!' t�t. ,-y.0.•. � ,w —. �. rat-nun-is and pink and ■White petunias. P _ _.�._.. i � 11.. The cultivated garden is separated 4 ' H Yr from n atura l woodland by a 4,-foot t r ,r,rG 2 r v!,{F'n t sk yy 3„,.,{,k d rc..».�.'• a r 0.. 't, �t2 yy•-0 d� . n� u h yu y W b , i,5 y!e:�y M°r 1t ^ fence that hide:; only tangled under- r ,''�, Y 1 p' ”v.r t ye„1i1'''''', r ,, P . o d�' ..,!''.4,4 w"'o r U A •tn, t A f,ate e,; , ,,•, '. ' ia ti t lia , .,ff.f t'r�W: r�/ii,v�l � .[ r !• F t,,,f iy,,1 rt tkt' u +4 .^w4 ^« - j ,tx b 4, ' ,N^ Y4-.f .. ' „re, rY4 ,4,', ,r�„%.,NC ....- t Mr r , � r , brus h. :o e r r Yr. ^ 3r. , t,{,,,x�V i.k ,4 !"�vP: *1-,� ,n y ..,,Y, " p,'r . .G� r �',, r' PA; ia ' li' ''l 1y''$Vi '' n t�A''a ''. y,', r a .,r. T■ �, r7yjr, , ''• Y ' 1 I , i "sx, y, y . , ; ,„y � . ' ' C•,..;'4,^2^/,y".,7:. r , r t^ r ,? .?‘ a t • 4,, 'L'i t ; 'r ') ,” n s S v, r er J r . r T� ik sf ! ` r , 1 q• j ' ,t N ' '�d `�4 k� y r YY rN •0' 7 IIPN a•�r �, 4/1 ti F r : f • w� i ",0••;.; 714.,4Z,,,`;,, Y ' ri • M1 ^, '•,•••r' t u'f+RE" 1 a r A '',1,,,,,,,,,,...: ! r tr 90d!■00 t r �'.'file..".,,,• ,i` �st e'rt rWk'p^ vFw r„,f•, 4 SI.t.� r4':rir,a4,t r t Y`•' �`i' • ', cti. ^- r' f1 ik^ yr't� r.i, i ~ C "....;:4� f , r�r v I v± rr; K � v n� ! r r 4 ti IY ,. 1e � . r, 1 i... ' w ,; ` c 'I . w'.,,:f-,4:.,. •�a C , ' r,n „,,.,` -45..,-,..-0. .... '=,-* y� y, :-.4, r r., r ,. L .' . 0- - N, �.�, t ` �tl.Yr 'r i t w ' y i, ,.. . Si " R�' ,. a.," iii „ ! ,'"" i I ,i 'iv y , 4 - "ti .4,,^,„341. 1 ;,a ,x' � , a t J a o 4. ` V e . :4, Yu}4tir i v 4 wlp , l . ' 3 r i�, lr r' r I I rofS .I r i,4':'1 ' v ` ' try r Y ' 1 'The eonerete terr,rtc o the 1parti1) t1t -. ,i� , t ` ' ! 4 1 ;' p" 1y,,i� ' ,,,:r y r;;! Y -4,'10 � Ny c .4 ' ;*� circlet/ ev r L 1S f uni bt. ee� E,, S�l ,k r4;�� �,, pp ti�� � '+ �r i�` C A,r .. `� �'n�i`+ , 't� ,,,,, '`r y ',, � 1 , ' . ,, 1 -•y,'� 4i. �'bv pc!t 1111/Iu ,1/Id gcna1111nits in pots, a. • * r,93 Y 'a,:,u1n ,. 7.,„j,4«�., . . ~ ' .' ;...au, ::.. .ii,G. Lr. r. e y^ .. , r • w.. „ . ` . . ` 'M , ; ... • • .,. .. ' • , .. . ,. . v . 9 , ., . . , . . 1 . " .. ' ■ L . . • t . I ■ ',..' '0:•!•'V'.,'. ....t.' .'4i,ti 11 ,' ....„ ''',, ' ',.■*'.i, 1,J14't...i, , t/ ,,i '''t'i's' 'C'i t.r.:.lo It'" ••••,‘., 1 ' ,• •..., :it>, „ 1 7 ,14 ,,`..,•, •;..,.' •. ..,,...., ,- ","',..,:••Ai. ,,,I,'; ,. , :.h , ,t, '..; ,.. .,• • • 4 ••••,,'.;.••, •• ••:.•li.n... ,,,,,:,'''. ,' •• .., t 1 • , .,, ;' ,, ' ,., •,,, ,. %,e.,',' ,- ••,,,,,,', .,,,•''',1.•• ,..4 4...'....r,..- 40,-, '„,,s1,,,,'.•;;4:•„'oe•:"'' , '.'1,'. , . , ., ••,,• 't, '''''''•*'.. ..,,.. "'''-''';1`'.....",': ..,!'L,;;...„..,ral',,,' " "' l'',; E- "-. ' „tr-:i,•..'.,'. ,... 7 .. . ,„.., ••'''' •'. 1' •• •:.., : ., 2.••:,,-k•-,,?T•V.1f'?." '.• ' . ,,.'-,,,,,:„,-,,,, ./i.:7:if,;4:4:::, „,..:. • .,',..;..,,,,:.'...':,..•.,.F. '‘„,,• ,.,,..4'.;1„1,11,,,f„' .,ee,•,,,•,,,,,•'$,',V;,,••,.•.',',. • .,,',OA 4.• . ' „...,^■4',',",!:,...";','. . •••.,!;.,..:•,,,.,,,, ,,,,,,:,..*i. ,.■'..', ....;','"...,:!..:.''..,''''''''',','''': ' .,...-,',,,.'.'','''''...,,'.,:;';"..,I.:;',,,fr'4,'''',,t;•,',1,,Y:14":'..,,..';'t/';%,(..1-:^..%'44...`:.•...,•'''''',.,:r.'' '''''!• ”. .' '' '.4'''''''''''''''''''''''':'''''',"''' '''''' „....,",:,• . ,. • :.,''' . ,' •: p•' .f„1::,•'//,:,k,,■:••‘:„1,',,,•,' ;:'•%.,.`o;•;' 7,,,,,,t.,; • ',':s!,•''■"'1,7,. ,4ei.'...1t,lit; !,..'"{•1 '■t. ,....■:,fi • '. '''''''''''l'"'"''''''''''' ' . . . . . • • ''': 1 11:11ft4.,, ' ' 7 .,, ............. : .4/4 l'IM:ro, '`.' ‘;Yc, I .,'':',.,';'.:;;;'4.:,ii.:;•,i',:,..,‘'';::;i.:,,•:I ,.:2:..' ,.,., 't. ...1:: ANI)40kr , ,. ' '''':.,...; • ''...;.;' .', , ',..'' V.'-`,..,....) i' .,,''. ■• ;9' / ''''' — * — ■ l'.ak.,,:4'S..,)' . ,. '.4'...V.''''.' '' '' ,'.. .' .'' W..1'''': ' , . ■{....., ---...=7,77-.. *-------\I,' ',..,,":•' "':A.eli,r. ,,, . i - --• '-- - , ,: , ",-;,„, ,,-,,''',.,!,,Y.''''., .'.• '' , , . ,,,z,t,...,„ _,„ ,,,,,,,.. , ,..a,, „„.: ,..,,' ..; .,,.1 'J.:0 ,;'.-:.,,,,,..:,:s..,`,,,, '... — p.,.;.,,,,.,,, ?„, :..,,a„:•';,•'',,7...',.',,,,,,.7.,,,,..,..,,I•.,.„,:',:,.."?,•,•.,'1.,,,,',......,,,d;,%0 ... •.,. ,., ,,, ' ' ' ':',..'"....'..,,,•.:i' .000-:'''''t:1:g!..",...,4*•':`7'.1',...*•!,•,'4,fer':', . .• ,,•. . ...e••4 ;0. -.,i:,-... , .0. - • •"•71+1,•' r...:"•••"""'",‘."'.'..',i ,,,:..... -•••,....,:,,•-.•,.: vi... ..?' '.',,'.;- ■ . '44. .. . ,.'.1:..4, •• ,.,1.,;,.t.!ill;.‘•,.'r ,'(.:,:,..:..,.',1/4','.,,,,,,,,,,..40.'...,11,...;,.,,..'",::.:,'',:.;`,:-,::!.!`,k.':.,,,,'.',1,,.,:.',,',.'7, :Y:1'." •, ':..„',7,,4•••:;„'.......,.,r.... .'''.'„, ,,,,• '..0..,', • '' ..' ..`•„,\'''',,'i .t..,,' '• .t 1, . ° ' '''' '.'''''''''''',... '' '.''.‘..‘.":;'''.''''.•.'"'•, ' ,, ,,.,,.''',.'..';''•••,,',','.i.,,, ,,,' ,'. , ,,t,p," ',.,, ...,:'' ..,,,',,',';,„•,.., •• '' ::it," ;,,",'.„,,,,,;'...4,,, .:, ' • • • ,.t,. '..::;:. '..:.A.: ',i,.';'''.':.•':.'...:.:.....t.4"% ' ''''':.'...,"''''''',..■.'''..,'“'.'''',.:.".;;'. ".r*'......1''.''''.."...:: ....; ;.,;;:', '.'..te,C•,i.'!":...,• '''''.•'.- ',.' '...ii.,'" ', ''''.':' 1 " "'; ''. ../.'","'"•C'..:,‘ ".fr• ,,,,'..''‘1,,...,'. ,. . ..' ',...'• .. ../' ''',..',.,•'',,,C''i.';''...'.••.''•,``:','.''‘''11';.,..''' 'id.' •.....,ta- '.'4,.....1.“. t .• ... ",:,'''.+'' ''''.:.',....4?.,..., ',. ., '' ..• . ,. .., •e, , '. :'•..,;... -"...,,,: . *,-,.'• ' *:,,,I.2:..it,' 4••• ',..: ', •. ;',":.•,,•.4•'„" ..i..c, .i.p."' ,,,,r, ',:q,7•:"'• ,..;..45,..,, "`',="17..". •,.. ,1 i•,.,,,"', ."'",,r.j'.."--,,:1-'..!•'?",•,',.... ,i' ,. '.':,,r,:',''.4.,,i,"::' ' ,4,...it?':h‘•,!' t*"...'",• ,.r., "••L'.,4• 0',,,';".4•. ,,,,,;(,",,,,,,...„•,,,.1„,4,,,l'•,,,,,-,"..',,,,:„y,1000,1,,,,,,,:: .44,,;.,,,,,',..L.4•11, .,,.-;:,-,.,'",•,!,•.'4.,'• ' ...a.•••••;,,.,,,;•''''',.,,,L.'4' ',.'''.'1*.:!,,,I,'.•'.,i •'.."Y.;,,),,,, ''',,'' .' „ y't.-"4'.,..';'.•,.,,.'.i,r'''R.Z1•,',.: :.'.:', l.'".:.,..tii:,':,',*'!'''''',..";,.'',.,',...„!„1:„..';,.;.':'.',,.14"",,,,,,''4':;„.1.,E., ,.,a.. ettl , '. i, ",..:‘C.i.,tt ..%,,,,::.,,,,',,,",,,4••1„/,',1,,''1.,.,‘..•:.. .-..7.,!,-,;..;.,', , / s .), T . , — , l a , ,.,...,,,.., ..-i .-'• '-',......-. .-...-, + • , , . 1,....f...,-.! ...4.4, .....:-....- *777.•*" . ' '' , •,'Sr,1 1, •1.,,,i''ri.:44.1,1.',:1V't, .‘/" ii,'I'',.' '',,,1..' ", '•''.'•111*.','':.• ''', `,. 'r''''..1'=.A.., { •• • VA 0'4')..,''''',./4,'-•'-tv..1' '' '",4-41=',...: 'i . ,.-, •—.... 'T.% .'',4....-:,..er .,,,,,' ',,ria„...;.,, ,,,, ,,,,...,,,.,,,,,■,..-.,,''',,,'','. '. in ` ..1,4 '4'"4 •r '',;Y,tYrii,,It;''P. l•''',',, . ''''.,i',',f.N.r.,,,,s+00' '.. 'IV, '.,:',"'C."4%.”..tf':0'..1:::',4;qqAF,114(01:•,4 4,`‘,,,:/.4.4W.Iti.A.,',.`,.."!"..•'''...'''. • .."...',,,S.,."4,",.''.'.■ir,P',":u."`''',' ''''''P.."','•''';' ,i':',••.',0:1.141,.'ir:■;;;"'',' :''•••• ,.. , .' . , W..‘'a',„'il,i,Tirt'ild:4:';‘, ,,,,,'''..,,•rfo'l,;,.,i',:';'\;;:";:: '''''4i ''';'5":11.'4,,..,;,:',fte•:'-■.:.4'il,'„,;',E,:',`'.2'!',.'.*'.4,4?",:;'":-:',''':: •••1.',:i■:,:. : •-:'::I'',',.,•,,,,,:. ',"„, ,, . ,.....,1.„,, ,,, .,;)t,,,,,,..,.,..,„ , , f, •. , f t'f......41; ,,,,•.,“,,e,vy,ft,,•,.`4.''''',,i.,;,,`,,'.,,t,..,,/..,,,,,,:',,,','4,,v44.*.-,,,,1,4f,..4.,,,,.,,,,,,,,;::.,,,„A,,t,k,,,..•,,,,,,,,,,,,..,, ,.„,t 1..,,4,„,,,,,,,..,,,,,, ,:...,,,,,,:,„ .,f..„. •„i,,, . ,.. :,,.,,,,p.,,,, .%....,,,,,..,,,,:.t..,„..... :f.,,,.:%,.,,,o,,,,,,,,;,,,,,, .. . . . . ,... ,„I,.+.,,..,ii,,,0.4,}.,;31.4'.0„4'444t.'t,■t.,''',` t,t 4'..,:i;'t.,:.• ,' '7,','7',.t..;`,.`,, ' ...,..44/4":.')•.r..,..' • 4..-''' ••• •',.'1;'''.A •'‘'-' 'il•"4'''.. .' ' .." '''''.'''' ' '' •.: . . , ,. " ' . , .. it..,:','"';'4"',.,. f:• ' '..•I,,,,I, .i• q, '• .';:•■,Y, •','..,,,,* :''..."'4, '': . ',%.'' .,'•. ,'•,:■ ,.. ' 4 ' ''.., '' :^'r•."",• .....' ••.'• :„ • • li':'' ''.' , .,''-• .,'' , -' • ,.',,'.•■• ,.•,, , ‘••• ,C.,,li.4 ' ''.'•1!.- ',.''., . ' .;, ".'"'''..:, "'i„,,'.:1 ',...001.•'• :'f'.... '. ,••••,› '' i, "' ',, ',;'''' ,•.,, .'''• ,,., ' .•wt••i '';' .0..,, ',,..;',,P, ,',`,,.., ,,,,,,,', , •,,, , ''. 't'' '•'.'• •' .',...,('..1'..... ..t.',', , '' .'. I ..., :,..,,..... ...r,t,,.$0: ,.',,',"•;•:•-"'",,■:,;.;;:it..',:,:k,.,'„, .':,..: ',..,,,,,, ,..,..',,r.,."',..,',,,,, .. „i',•,!, .,.iv.:-.••,' t.','",,i.,.' ... „ . • . . .'.., • . )'••.'• f.r..,:".'.::... ,",... '.', , ,,.., .•,i:;', '.-., ",'.,...,, ,,...': • .....;,il'r4..',4.;.' ..I' t' ,• ..re ..'..'•■■'-',A%4. :, '.n'''•:"'.• ''''. 'l '. i.,' . ,, ,,'-.• ,,•,.. .,..• , •:,•,i, , ,:....,. ,.., ...._,..,. •,•1,i, .,....,f--,,,.,,•-- ,..,,,•,,:,,,,,',-,..:1:,..,11,>.7-•'••'..):•- '■,,,b,.."•••:. , f ,',.•• - i'•••• „.-•.'t' ,i,,,,',...,:,::,,, '- •••,„f:„,-... ;:.4,.,„,.., J,. i.„.. -• . ,. , . . . . ..• ,• ,;,,„.,...,,:, ,,, .,,.,.,. ..,.,• ,,,•,,••,• •.,..,..,„,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,.„,,,,,.tz,:,,,,;"f4..1,;,,r.:'tt,,,.'',::t■••,..,...",,^ei 4..• ..,.,,, ‘,•,,•,,. ,,,,,,,, i;!,: ,..,A, .,,,:,;;,, ,,' ,..2,,J.;,,,r,:"."t.i,:•.,''',41',,'• '' , ,. ' ,, , ., ,, ,,,', .: , ,■,.i,, .;,f,, ,r,_,,,,i„,.,1 ,,,.4.,, ..,1,..•,,';,,..',.,".f.,,,,,,•.'n,.', , ...4,-'•'..'.'`.''•,'• ....".0.'f'.'.1 '' ''',+ ,." .".''''.",''',...`"' 4A:k...'''.'' ' 4),' "'•. ..,......". ,„. , , , ...:.,...",•''; ..',../."';'",,:‘ ...,ttr ' ,. ,!.,...,' :,‘':'0.'..,',......,`1+ i' .".,.",,'',.,J.•'.:7:,':,'. ';•''x:''.•'''',1''• ■,..1'''''''''. '.' •. ''' 2' :R'''''4;4'.4... ''''',..4'''''' 41 ) . i.-1.0.7'2• ' •' `.',., ••y.,:•''"AA,..■1,1,,:...,--••s.'•'.■,`,, „ 4.,,..0:::.,!.:,,,,, ,0,.,",,,,,,,i1 I„•;,,,,r, 1,,,.,,•,,,1 6,,,•,,,,,• . ,, ..,..,,,,i;.•■ ,,, :, .s.•• ',..,!::,,■, ,..•1 ,.,.,,•,: ' , t,,.„,.....4.,.......= . =v.,..r 1'4..:r.''''..''.. ,".r,:'.,:.'...'','',■,,i,,"''t.-r's,,,,=.,..:L..r*.,rt. "',7".;'...:1` .',"' .:',' ‘ ' ..... ,,',•'''....V.""":.,'•";.'l'', ''■'.•',,' •.',.•,' , ''".;''.',',`:''''.'.'• ''.;:lh,^t',1'.'r',..,..,,,,,..... '.., ' , ....,,,'" ,;,,'"X, .41.!."":11'...4'r tt;',",,r,,,,,,'"'''.'r",1 4.l•.' ,',it,,,r,,•■••1,,;"•',3,•,,,,-,,,".77''.1.'.;;:'4,-,•,'.1,,. ,:i it.-st.`:,•„1, ',',,,,Z,r.t `',Y'?,,...,:or'.1'..'.V.',11:i.:',4 Ot'f.,1.'11..''.1:?','. 1 t • , 1 . From the low cedar fence that separates the garden from helix, The cotilfei.s in the soy tubs are bristlecone pines, ' slit-rounding rwoodlaiids(at bottom o,, plan),you see the iliiigho pines and twisted jiiiiipe7', the flowering plants , • , ' • 11/Li!!? tera.ace. The vine gr.oloilig up the post isHedera ai‘otilifl the pool are changed with the seasons for color, . -.., , ,,'' ,...,•'',,t-.••••••i:„..•••••,,;.,..f,' ,.i,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,.',,, -',,,,,,...,,,,,,,i, •,,,,;,,.,D'.1101t,i, , • • '.,,,, .'"',-......,,,,'"----,,,,,iii;„--.....„.....„ •',.,,.,,,,,. ..., ,...w.--.,............,„„..--,_„,-.-.- .......,,,,..... I .P4,11',' '''...6''''' .i■ii.I":1',4'• ..- ‘;','..;r„,,t.'.'1,..•:4- ...i!;.:•:.,;..,''.'.• . 4 ,' ,., s,.. .,. ,,A4•• , ' ...„110.. ..,Z ' ' '''''".,--*1 ' .i.i$4`:,,,,„c•''',f,',07 :',,,1, ,•,:• . '. ;?:•'t' . ::'i•1 flot.7. s it, 4.4,,,,, ,,, J.,,,,,,,,...,. „, ' y.."',„','M.:', •,,,..1: .,.,'• 41.",..',.',' '. ,., •• • iigt,,..0,..,,„,,,, , 1 l': , , , ; t';'7'r ''' ', tCY:.. "...,,*-44....''.t ';"(4 ,,A7, r, . .'.'+..'.c.r"1. '. , .!! 'I` ^ *''' ''''''' ...,..:,'".•=:-. r',',"., N.P",'..,."1""4,-"qm- ',`•,.' ' ,c'.-1," . _,......,.....'"4''' ?..4,".14":7,''..,4014. .,..1.,goir'',`,34,,'" ' , 'i'''.•4,,,■'. , -,'''',A' 1.,#.,FIA,''''4,. 4",..I' 'A'''‘, '',', .vka..."7:7„,„*.......-''''' ',"' ,,St,..,i' ,,,,r''''''..t..'1,....''ilf,...'''f!,:r!,,''''',i,41'1„4„,1:.,',4:4',,,,,,t,I;#,'''','"'•'1;#11',,4',4::,,49'.'',11'.■i''''?:F"Tf*':"?'''''''''):'''''' '',4'-' fry,''''f4 r.'',;•-•,..4,•' i' . ,. .,•.,. ' ..,',' !•• ' ','..,'•"'•':•,•',..1,::',.;,..;;,i:'11,6,1,:.1. . . iii,b', ' '4'*i"," ,..•.,11e.,(.',';',,..,-:' . . . •,i.,,,44,", '. • ..,,,-:...,-44',:,...'5,,4,,,..,,-,00,'"e, . i,,. ,..41., ■",•,,7 4• . '" ,'"'I...4... y •,_ , , re: , F ft,4 ...MI lri i v.,'' ; .'! ','1',,'It '. •'•.`'•''POI. •• 4 . . ; 44. ' 1, ',',,'.,„ :, .' ;,,.,i .;'1,,4•,,...; ' ,.: , .,' , ,..„. f,,•''',,,,-'„, .- ;;„:44 ,''.,,..:::•,:,';'''',.,.',';',?,.;,,,',,,4 ,'.',,''',"'4,1*,,,','.,.''. t , ...,',";.1' ,4.'' . • , ,4'/.11,kie...t."4'r5.*.411','I ■Liiii.'', r„•,,, ,. ., { A:4::::-.;''',,,..N,l',' '.'',.. 'Nits:,:-,,. •,,4 .11014.;',i,r- ,,,Y!,...3".,,,,,'''',. ;,',''',„,g.,',:,..•*•-411A, .,,, •, r, 41.,. 'Okiiiirt." ''. -,r''.41.•,• ii 7" '4' s • . . • '. ,'I,: ,•:•;,', ',..,:. ,i:::,i,''4,'," ','':',4'';',44.1.:';'''', . `.. • ' .''.,''s.,'' , . ,.•." ,,,,,•' , ,'' 1 .:.o . 1,Le.0'''i.*:,0,/4'7..'-.*7 4-.' log. ;iiio:,',:, ' ' ,r.f.'4:*P.‘,14,,,,,..1-.f':•..-e-t,i,' ,,A."74,14,, ',r'',. 'fk' • f.''' I . 4 • ' ,'''...'''',P.; *'. ,.:. '4.. :4 ' it '•'.'1': ' ' . ** i,. .7'.. ,,• , p, ir,• '•.., ; • 1,. , . ,,,,4 2;' ',r. 41 '". 44 , . : *. r ,,,,., /,...../.„ci., ( ,. . F.: - ,... .,. v.',:kr,' %"'*•• ', ..E. ', .1'1,-,•.'-,,,, :AL0,;•' r''LA'' ' ' ".-•••.,.,. - ' „0,,Ticv''''-',":17-14# . . '• . i• :I•.',", 0•4411§44,•',., ..,.. •. .:* 'ok.' ....:.'.. •'. ,.. ril4 ,`,4,\..,,,,„verl,Tie 1,',,i4lipor e.*.i ..:. :.- '-,:-..!.'4, .:1,% 't.,*,if .,,,,t, 1 . . ,., . . ..j...,,,,,,:r!.1.5%,„,„! , ..., 7 ''." '''' ..v ' ••' :.'' ' ,', •''''':1,,,''.,. ..,' • ',. ' , :1,:'''''''',,,:k44.r•, f4:„ 44'r:f4:."-,r.i,pri• '141i'l ,V.',` . t 1 .. .'•.' ,,:'.. _.,,,,,ft;.,.,.44:,',,„':, ''''',11,ITA.-,'.1 :' ,,,,:..., '.;,.: • ... , ', ''...,.;, ..i',i• *''' . .: 4:'' t.' ,r ,r1;':'".fi'' ''''I,' 4-i,?, ' 414'''' . . ''': ''''... -.4'1'41''''f'';,,1401,1`:,$121; '' L',1; . 1,, ''..'.,t.',..*,.•,,si' ' ,, : .„,‘, :',,,„,,,',' .''..1.1 4.■;.'.,.*OA.,,,,4 4 , 4.iet‘tslo,;--,'1.44 ,0'141,5- -le-;(4)- '''oj 1 ... ',■-•+4, 'lila. ..;- ,.1--. ).,,..?:t„,o,..g ..,,,,,, :','1,0 -7 ''•, '.-IN I:WA!,„„,.• . . ...--, L , . . .. . -. . ,,. . -„,.....„.c.... . it ..„.-,- '1',''''..,I oi.4, , ..... ".•;',,1., k 4, A ' , ' . .7,..ff. .. ,'='2.' , ,y,. .4' , T ' ''Ar, i :,...li i 4.,'" i',.1,4, . . .11, Ar g.::.' ,'V, ,ea•S' e4A it(- '••Ji—, ..1' "' . i,..40,..,4,,,,, ..1/4,,k, 4 0.'* .:', WT.14,'• ''',,,',.'';','°: '4*'';•,•,„..,,,,. ;:,,, 44,...td. iir,'•••..e,,.• ,. •: „, ..,'•'''.7".1)%/1".d.,:i..,,A ' 'l"4.i...',4,, , ''','.,..-,• ', ' eilf. ,,,,.„1.4. 5, ., .' ,,L.,)• . r .,.. 45.• ,4 ,t,..t—Itt , ,, ,' 11.1 •:, . • ..• ': 't,4.40;t.' •.i., ,. .•,%. .1....' .i.:,•v.. ,... •,i,;,,,,,..;1, ,4,,,,,t474- ..• •tp.,, v:4;1,,'0„,,,rti "7,t4,1. : ,' ',,,i,ti'.,','.8`tikei;,t„,,,,,kr•-,.,41 41' ,',e41,44-,,Vr .,,i,..'%'''L4 T41.0.....,,,,,,,,,, '.. ,, -„,.,.',..,.'i,i. •-• . P,,., '„,'',T.i,,,.r.,......,,'.4,,..''''4;'',4; .ri"v.i'A'X'_4• E.'7,, ' ''''it...,fi '..'i,:',. ',INi,,'.., '/.- '''';.•...7'' :'• it,,,,,• •'''g.r!,/ •. %,:"...'e,.. ,...? .",4,,r,,,, ,,,Itite,A,,, ,,, r, It'. -14.,,„':,,,.:;,6,:y7F-,,i1 .01/A,r--7`"' ''', ,cr%.4,11tt4r,!.,, ' •-,' ,'‘rit, 614tit.t.02,. .,,,,,.:......;.„.... „,:,.....,.,..,, *41 '',,i. ' , ), „ ■ A On the opposite side of the hini.efi.oni tiaePtctii ic abate , . i., , ,•i ,..,,,i, •,,, , ,., ,,,-4",, ,A,. A • ;jot. 416. , the eit/.itee t cove/ecaith Ceintl rmandii Sevei.al , ., ,,, '..:. '. el.,ci.gi'eetis fill up the plalitiii,cf bed in the foreground, , ,,, ,,.,.4,44, , c. . .i'• ill ''''. , ' ,,, ,-.„,•.1,,,4,F,t' .-• - 0,' 6 ,."...,.. , .:,.0,„4., ••, . , , .. Fhbtosi Yarn Butht,Jr. ' - .4-,,s,,,re, - ' f,;..„.. ,.. ..,',. .. •i;.,,,.":11,L,,,f4,t):.7 - . • . 4 ,,,,..,,, 1,-,,, ■, .....J.,i,,,A.iitokt,,„,„...,,,,,,Igli,, ,,,',Voi.,,,,* , ,, ' "1.1. ' #,•4 `"(,.' , The garden fomitall, (to the right of the sqtiziniiitig pool . , in the pietif) is a sparkling pool of colorful tubei.ous , .. ,.,„,.. • , '.r',.•• 1.,•• ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.e,,,,,,,..1.,.....i,•-',..:, - .. , , • i ,1,,,.....-„,;•?..-.,,, .,,t,a' --.-....k...,-,..-.,... :........"....,'Y , ,', ■ :. ,.r., ,-,..,^ •I-......',I.•..,,. , ., begonias, blue co7ivoltliitis, petunias, gild water lilies. , ,, • .,, . . , • , .. . , . 4 . 1 .•.... ' , . ,. . .. , • .,..... . . MEMORANDUM I I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON dr' Keith Liden, Senior Planner TO. •,Iva 8..� FROM Ed Murphy, Director, Community Developmext—" October 12, 1988 '� R DATE.: c 9 ' o r SUBJECT: Site Development Review SDP. 88-17, Schuetz This memo will summarize my notes and recollections from the Council meeting ` of October 10, regarding the decision the Council made on the 'Schuetz planned `S development request. The Planning Commission would be modified as follows: i; Condition 1: Would stay the same. a' Condition 2: Would stay the same. !` " Condition 3: Would stay the same, except for the fourth sentence, which ; . would be changed to require a fence along the north property line from 109th Avenue to the bluff above Pacific Highway, as . • well as along the west side of the townhouses and again going �" ` . all the way to 109th. No fencing would be required along the r,•,• west property line. Condition 4: Would stay the same, except item 3 would say 130 units instead n of 100 units. 1 Condition 5: Would stay the same, except for the second sentence which would . read "the Commission directs that the Arborist protect the abutting property owners trees. Beyond this, it should be clear that the detailed plan go back to the Planning Commission for review, with it noted that the City Council waives any farther required review of this , 1 proposal, unless it is appealed or they specifically call it up. ' There should also be in the findings, a statement that the Council has set a design guideline of saving at least 130 trees . ° . r .over within the proposed osed develo portion of of 6 caliper o p p developed �,,, the site W- noting tha t this a guideline, and not a requirement. Please also discuss with the City Attorneyy how the heavily wooded open space can be protected from further development. (I think that the fact that the Council accepted the PD as � units ma� be 11 t ate with the 130 units means I that 'na more tin. y ,. . illustrated - placed anywhere on the site without a modification of the PD by the City Council - (but that should be clarified). . 'Thanks Keith: br/7533D � I I . , a , \); I • 4.0,i,:: . H. ...,..i, i w.,.,r.u;,,..wn,._+I.a,,..-,J,A'.;.i.•N .t,.:,,[.•._.:i.w:.,ii-,41∎,,,,,.:ei:..rir•a,.h,.,,,,,4.w,...4.1✓:.::+..r'r"a:F ,.+.»,...w.-.•.,.,.-,.Jl(:.,.,...+.«u-N1.i..A:,.,.a..-.r..,.. ...,,.4...,..•.,,,ik••4 w. .a,,.+,,;f.,41,7,n,!,,,..x:.,,iin.'4.k,:;,',ro.n.nA,,i'y,.:,,,,,14tW:..r:l,,k7,,,i,,,:wxw14iWi:7•:.:a,x:(Lknsikr.,.x,avuru- ., 4.- j • .. ,, r rvi.t.\ • 1 1 RT.,* rf-i.l.',t° II, , .. 1, .. 'nN} . . . . , . , , , 1 • , . , .. ... , , ,, , , , ., . , . . . , . , . • , . , , AU G 8 1988 ),--,-Li' ' ::. .• 1 .., r „rte n , e, , . ,.. . ,. . Tigard Oregon t , n., A • d• 1 i • I., ar L' • M • R j i , ! • . I I „ter„ n o A 3 a r r.. • t. li 1 •r n i TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NArYzS . C TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX TIGARD, OREGON 1 Y Uri '1•1Y r, :•,:,' ] , Prepated for .'', . CBH Companies 8315 S.E. Stark Portland, Oregon 9721 ! • r .1 Prepared b y 1 , Ki±th1sor & Associates Inc 512 SW Broadway Par t,land, Oregon ,' 97205 (503) 228-5280 i• ?' • ' ,ugusfi +88 I . :•o tt .. r $ l: v• r — /1 c ) , 1 L!} • r" TABLE OF CONTENTS ' J. q I TRODiJCI'O1.�1 • ♦ s . . • • • e • a e a . e„ • • • e . e J. t r Scope of Report i Project Description Summary of Findings •,r EXISTING CONDITIONS • • e. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 5. • Site ConditiTn and Adjacent band Uses • Transportation Facilities Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • 12 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Trip Distribution/Assignment a o I � '+ tal gaff�Ir ��ol�irnes gradOp�er ti n s Access Safety and Site Plan Considerations • RECOMMENDATIONS e • n • • i . . e • • • e Mb 20 ': 1 9 R♦�FE�yE y tF • REFERENCES/rJ44M NCi.w1 a a'� I• it . • • • i • IP '�0 e . • •' • • a 0 22 ',W . r . � I Y I i'rt I II I V J I i a, • • i „ . . I •, I • it I I . I a ' I • 1 ; • FIGURES r ••.. , 1 • Site Vicinity Map • • . • it • • • • • • • • • ' . Preliminary . . .I . t . 3 . Existing AM Pray Hour Traffac Volumes • • • 6 I 4 . Existing PM P e � Hour Traffic Volumes a . 7 1' 5. AM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes • • e • 1. • 15 . 6 PM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes . 16 7 . AM Total Traffic Volumes 1989 i 8 , PM Total Traffic Volumes - 1989 . . . . . .. . . 18 ,it ' r s r /. J , ) i , 1 • k r»rrPwM SIB '.f,A'yA Jk •15 ,N hxar .{ IA+• y 1.'1". .1 nMi'MM ykY+1/1 1"A 4,�V _4A „1 n et vA • , TABLES General 1 � eral L0S Descriptions (Unsignalized) . 9 2. LOS Criteria (Unsignal ized) C� , �' 3'•I Summary of Intersection LOS Analysis -� Existing Traffic Volumes - . • e . • e • . • •' 11 os • ► _ ` 4• Projected Trip Generation for Proposed Site. • 13 xV 4 . Summary of Intersection LOS Analysis 1989 Total Traffic. Volumes 19 • V r. bI ^ 1 4 or . x ). Ix • t • I , ►, 'y r,' ' ., .� ..+I...:.. v}r"la;vu!t�yyL;•,.. tl,`h;P4Y4'r 4x1 L .r.�,N.L 4'a 1A 4e,':+V 4 ."y!r,M L,4 } b.ir.'� h .,�6,Y'1,L blY PLd^.,'l 41,",J er,vr vry v'1,r1 v YYt tilt. t'" r J r •1 1''t'\ r.� 1 lA rlr aL:F r,..x.,�..5 h+'L n1�..L.W,.��' ' y b �rA 1 I 1` `y A INTRODUCTION r tit ' SCOPE OF THE REPORT P A traffic analysis has been conducted to anal,Yze and evaluate . '•' , 1 likely traffic related impacts associated with the proposed Tigard Apartment Complex in Tigard, Oregon. The subject site is located along the west side of S.W. 109th Avenue directly 4;;Fposlte S.W. ' � " a Murdock Street. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map for the c6:. proposed development . Some of the specific traffic related issues ; '- discussed in this report include: ' '' ' ) 0 Existing land use and traffic conditions in the project , study area ` . I „`: 0 Trip cl)a;racteristic estimates for the proposed development of the site. A o Peak hour opera•tions at the site access driveway and on the adjacent streets. o Safety cwonsiderations including sight distance I requirements. 4 a Conceptual design of the apartment complex access ", driveway. ' This report has been prepared under the guidance of the City of ,• Tigard staff. The study area for this project was defined in concurrence with Tigard city staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:: . The proposed 130 unit apartment complex will be built on the r A currently vacant 17.66 acre site. Approximately 35 of the site will remain undisturbed due to steep slopes to the west. The . proposed development is consistent with the current zoning regulations Figure 2 illustrates conceptual site plan for the • �'i � rates a co " �• P e apartment development. The development is likely to be constructed , during the next y; work. and fa.rst building P" •t ear. The site • construction is intended to begin in 1989. . single driveway provide • The preliminary site plan shows a sin ye�ra to a access to S.W. 109th revenue This access driveway is to be located 4q opposite S.W. Murdock Street. •�,, The surrounding land use is mainly nly rrtulti-f'a°milt' dwellings with ,_ ' .sieveral scattered single family dwellings in the area. t . r . • • >r I i . i rr i,',r •u• an rr.x a ;w•r.r rer urrrruawa,xr rA'r ri.+r« r,r.r..r.r .,.• ..... �' • 1 II . �. ,,. It NORTH 11GARD GAARDE STREET McL?ONA@.© , , i , ' 1 1 . • , Shy f 440 0 BULL�-. SITE. # MURDOCK 'TREET r crg,• • • SITE ),,,IT '_,M1H & MU1:IDOCK 'II K‹ i 97,001 4.V �.., ..�. • • , e s. • , • L __._ . 1 I I • L , ' x '' �I,tY.l7Rl I`r6 I1•.4!/ %I xC l p., _._ 4. M • • r l ) � �1 . .tis • ./ 1 <> '' r rw� ♦ 4 4 • ._• . .•r j RI i-4 iiilr, ii..ir P IL._jr. '' 1 ` •••) 1. • ill ill r 1 � I . .• 1 • • ' _ `' / J t .40,,, h 11 ifr , 74 r 4 I 4,1 44 f j I I • - a. tr' JL,,r .• . A. II. • I II /LP/ M 3 : T CIA APARTMENT COMPLEX Fur 4 AT 10 TT & MURDOCI'b 's • 2 ,, ,,. . /'P 8 h... 197F002 Z • A �� . • +M+� ♦ r A/, , .,4.` 'u I-ixn- » r rr rll,pl.M 4,1'. ., A.x�..i,� r . „{ s'/'.'A .1.� r,il� ¢l ' a,,,.'i.Y i ., 'I!i .rlrr;4`t1("�Ye AP 41,%4i%4141 Nt(41apVY'Arr+•,ra, ,,,+o...4 WY'►hiw Yi4r'N4C'A•�iurr .� � �•, , a I I I ■ - � { ° SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ! o The traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment complex J.$ not expect:;ed to significa.ntly'impact the traffic operations ' , of the adjacent streets. The future level of service expected ` during the peak hour will be within the acceptable standards of the City of Tigard ; o The estimated site-generated turning movements at the 'proposed driveway location will not interfere with the operations at . the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. o In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case ., conditions, the morning and evening peak hour volumes were , used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely .r • to occur for two hours out of each average weekday. For the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic . i conditions within the study impact area are likely to be better than that described in this rep ort. The design the drive o e ,desi n of driveway approach along S.W. 109th Avenue �.j should include a curb radii type design versus the standard • driveway .curb cut to facilitate the expected Vehicle movements at the proposed development. The radius style driveway approach design will provide more pay ement area for service vehicles and emergency vehicles to make the turns into and out w of the site without encroachment into adjacent travel lanes. • • } Xt 4 IA f EXISTING CONDITIONS • SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES ' • The project site is currently vacant and has a light to dense vegetation cover on the area to be developed. There is a dense forest on the west slope that will be left undisturbed. The current adjacent land use is mainly multi-family dwellings with a , few scattered single family dwellings. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Highway 99 is a north-south arterial linking the City of Portland with cities to the south. S.W. Canterbury bane is a minor collector, and S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. Murdock are local city streets as defined in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. At the three- a . . legged intersection of S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue, ± ' S.W. 109th Avenue is stop-sign controlled. The proposed access to the development will be built as a private driveway. • I Transit services are provided via bus route #12 which runs along . Highway 99 from Portland to Sherwood every 15 minutes on weekdays and hourly on Saturdays and Sundays . TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK TOUR OPERATIONS The a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the adjacent streets were compiled from traffic counts conducted by Uittelson and Associates, Inc. The peek hour observations revealed that the . morning peak hour occurs from 8:00 to 9 :00' a.m. and the evening peak hour occurs from 5 :00 to 6:00 p,m. The observed peak hour . traffic volumes for the S W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109t h Avenu e . intersection and estimated traffic volumes for the S.W. 109th ' Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street intersection are shown in P�.:g ures 3 and r a 4. The peak hour traffic o... er a� ions; �'r►i in terms . p rms of level of service, y , , the S.W. Canterbur Lane/S.W. �►Q9th Avenue intersection and the ' S.W. 109th Avenue/S.4 . Murdock Street were examined in accordance With procedures described in the 1985 Highway Capacity N a( Re ference 1) i Level of Service (LOS) is concept developed to o quantify degree of comfort (including such elements as travel 1 number of Stops, total amount of Stopped delay, and iMpecime sts ,caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as .. they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. The �9 a 5 ' . •f• • l Highway Capacity ir . methodology ca l t g the LOS at stop-controlled �n tersect�a� �or these intersections, LOS is defined differently t ha n for s ig nalized • , intersect ions in that it is based u p on the concept of "Reserve • 9' • l NORTH . . ,• y 0 r� • u . • . MURD OCK • PLACE (PRIVATE) MURCOCK 7-= —, LANE (PRIVATE) .• , • , i �. /SITE � �. . , , 1.///, /7, , ' , ,, ,. ', ..M URb©CK 5"CREE 'Q` 1 ,/ ' ' .. „Al) 4 km„, , , . , , . , , , , , ,, . nn O , . , . . V i X11, , , , , ,,, , , , e � • . OBSERVED A1M. PEAK HOUR � � 1 TIU � 1���Nd��l�' VOLUMES 7IGA D APARTMENT �GOMPLEX ogtiti► 1 3 , . , , , , ' , , , ,,,, , , ,,, , ,. „ , , , , , • , , , A�lg 'i.3 �i , , ,, , , . . . , ., . , 1 , 197F0tl3. • •. ,,,,,,,!";,• , . , , Nillts.. . .. ,,• , i •� 1 ` _ t • / _ .,.,�.W._H, ..... - ......._ ....... :.... i.o ...,n...«•..c-.,�..0 4. <:.�at..rl,.•..=rll....ti,....V..:..ru..�.a,li..4>1r--.:n.1..,t-�__.�,.. ... a . . 0 It NEIRTH r 1 S .. 1111/44$1) , • f• , • Yi o , MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) f MURDOCK LANE (PRIVATES 1' r.. I SITE 'C MURDOCit STREET , . 4r .y l • ./Y r l/ / i r o a 1 OBSERVED PAM: PEAK HOUR • TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES . d i ?'NC ARD A1,,AF:tirMENT COMPLEX Flour'. 1 . " � [AT tlBT"1�.� ,A61URtl�CK tiO ._'1988. ... 1,' '1 97 )04 i.; .r•,,,, ti I,tt,i,F n,,.yri'Law,l,tth, PC%r h-'.1t"11Ifpt,,,,,'',`4,,4i,t„khSf.Cit4,,,,,+1.^xiK4.h,,,hvh1'1 4,ww.'1 r,« a,•. .,. 01`.Ph.1'•u!1y+9m t• ...'....4 14e.thr hf MAlt httr.tYd144,,,.:"pe@1ttI4YiP'stfhdMAt 44,404.4,04,4.4 V 4•w,t r' { ...+ , Capacity" (i.e. , that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used) . A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in " I Table 1 . A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized . intersection is presented in Table 2 . The reserve capacity concept . . 4 applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were used for the LOS analyses described in this report since this represents the worst Case.., All LOS analysos ' described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms are contained in project files and are available for review 'upon request. Table. 3 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations , for the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/ S.W. Murdock intersection. As this table indicates, the unsignalized intersections are operating at acceptable LOS under the existing peak hour conditions • r , pp , I \ I ,. ). .4.._ .r. i,.- .- - -, . ,. ....,i a-.-.,. _....,. - ...,..... i ,.a, ..,., ,...., .,.,..,.a .. ., ,...era,a...A.r .,..,_w„r., ..,.I.CU ,a 'YrIA.. .:,L,.L...tau.,..W...er.!`-1..:'..i'A•.J„wwu .....ae..+-w..al -_.... , Table 1 k, + GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .r f, .1 LOS General Description Average delay per vehicle ranges between 0 and 10 seconds Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in ` the queue B Average delay per vehicle ranges between 10 and 20 seconds - Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience - Occasionall y there is more than one vehicle in the queue � . • C - Average delay p er vehicle ran g es betty een n 20 and 30 seconds - Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue - Most drivers feel , restricted, but not objectionably so D -- Average delay er ranges vehicle es between 30 p g and 40 seconds - Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue r quite restricted q � Drivers feel E Represents a condition in n vhich the demand is �. near or equal to the probable maximum number o of vehicles that can be acc mmo dated by the movement , - Average 6th Y p' vehicle ranges between 40 • verage delay per veh seconds „ . vehicle r There is almost always more than in the queue - ira one vehi - ]rivers find the delays to be approaching intolerable levels F - Forced flaw i - Represents an intersection failure u re condition is caused g and/or operational that d b ; geometric , taanal constraints external to the intersection ;. .gig sl. i «i."".tr4r'<Mfg',...'00...A!tt0.-p,,..q i,... ...ri!V.Sl ...re!... ; --,..iu.....,„..,.<Y.--?i!«,,,"""aio".I.u,.-......- C L l!, 6•• • • Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA for UNSIGH'ALIZED INTERSECTIONS. ,., Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street 'Traffic >400 Little or no delay 300-399 8 Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-139 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays *When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. 4 .... i Source: Transportation Research Hoard. "Highway Capacity Manual" . Special Report 209 (1985),I 1 r , d I , J • Wt/,.x�.�,��s Y 5 klt,1,�.kx A. r ,r..,.... �,r,. .,,ryr*� �r,�„+a7w�rrww4�nx •-+alh*1AYk't9xiK.,r 9rYY,aph�M�EHYUt±I{l�u`h�AZ�7nY�µYfSrGM�4Y��1/1P�Y�P1Yiy�x nw - vA nr•,•4r11¢u a r .�.�t r..�r..a r�x..au...Y .,. , .. .,..,., .,.w.••�...•” ."' ' 1,f • a t Table 3 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS Existing Traffic Volumes . r 4, f,. Unsignalized Intersection e e R env s Intersection Period LOS Capacity Canterbury Lane/ A.M. 860 109th Avenue P.M. A 810 rI 1 109th Avenue/, A.M. A 970 Murdock Street P.M. A 980 • . , • i 4 kk t• ry 1 . III b ,', r TRAFFIC IMPACT . . The assumed trip characteristic estimates are the basis for the traffic impact analysis in this report. Therefore, special care has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. ,, The three major components of the trip characteristic estimates , examined in this study are trip generation (i .e. , the number and type of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the site development) , trip distribution (i .e. , the directional orientation of, the site-generated vehicle trips) and trip assignment ( i.e. , the specific road, segments used by site-generated traffic) . b Various assumptions need to be made during the development of each p ne g the assumptions component.t. As detailed in the following s� �,tio���a, used to develo p the trip characteristics .or this study result lt in conservatively high traffic volume estimates that are consistent with other transportation planning efforts in the area. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES • I Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes for the proposed apartment development were developed on the basis, cif empirical observations at similar-sized apartment complexes located throughout the United States. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published by the, Institute of Transportation, Engineers (ITE) (Reference 2) , and I are supported by additional independent studies conducted by both the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego Engineering Department. 1 Based on the information described the trip generation �� .� nformati above, on characteristics shown in Table 4 were estimated for buildout of • �� the site � in accordance with the P x�oposec��. site plan. The table identifies the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated y' by A g evening peak hour basks • � �� � y' on a . the site �� daily,� Morning �and e I' b:.qq //yy . I ,.. ,,,, , . ' . .. .i•r ,.. Ir,. 't.„�da x' >+ :r .W ., ,a;bear.t r,.r.s+•r. r w. ,ar «. arr w ;.r r . a „_, ,.. , . n,.. \ r ♦ ./YL 1' V IaGn. .u. r Table 4 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED SITE Generated Trips (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Ho' r Lund Use Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total In Out Total In Out Apartments 130 300 70 10 60 90 60 45 Notes : A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. t i., • • l a' I TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSIGNMENT . •] The distribution of the site-generated trips onto the adjacent ,,., , street system was estimated through examina'tioh of the general directional distribution at the intersection of S.W. Canterbury , Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue. Figures 5 and 6 show the site- generated traffic volumes assigned to the site access driveway and to the S.W. Canterbury Lane/ S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. ! TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS' " 1989 C„Jnditions i Figures 2 and 8 show the total projected 1989 a.m.. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the proposed site access point and the 1` • • unsignalized intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue. The total teaffi c volumes represent the traffic conditions expected with the full development of this site. Table 5 , j summarizes the results of the LOS analy sis conducted at the unsignalized S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the unsignalized S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street . , intersection for the 1989 Total traffic conditions. The S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W, Murdock intersection are expected to continue to �. operate at an acceptable LOS • k , ACCESS SAFETY AND SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The morning and evening in�. peak h cur operations at the proposed access s driveway along S.W. 09th Avenue with the 1989 total traffic volumes will b e within acceptable st and ards under stop sign c o ntrol . The final design of the access locations needs t o • consider the following safety and operational requirements I'� o sight distance, • o driveway width and vehicle turning radii, and ' } Sight Distance Re uireeents The mznyeu_m sto p ping ., s i �kt distance tance requirements_ alon g on g S.W. Canterbury in d S.W. 109th A v enue are 2�� to 25© feet, cased u pon rode dUres for standard roadway design (Reference 3) . The ekisting s ig ht distance at the a,W Canterbury Lane/S.W, 1:09th a .ra -e„x r ,i ^7w`'. x.d'c,s,,,M ! . ,... ,...$01.'.f.l'K!'Y. iili l;,,'e,,:Yd,xra,•w.a1 ,rrya i.,a.:xl+a.,ta„v,,u..,a ap,»r., a.,,u:,.a 4•.. .,. r._•..• ,.,....,.,... M .._,` ,,. .,. .,w. • • r v 0 . GIT • I , ,,r .. r b�, .N�,. NORTH r N. ) ... i. • • MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE} MURDOCK • ... ' ,j 7.• LANE (PRIVATE) _ 4, /SITE i • 1 MURDOCK STREET , � ,I 1 .I ,ti r. Sao 1 • 4 {' �� .. I' VOLUMES A.M. PEAK THOU Q I I 15 ...� AT . . roTr)r)3-) ,...m‘ ' AU. 1988 ri°tiel K , .. • 1 . G f 1 I Jrw Y , i i r r ' ' NORTH • , i ii , D S • S . 9 , •t MURDOCK ' ' ' ' PLACE (Pi IVA'TE) MURDOCK ' i ' . 1 ,' ',, ,r , 77./y-7—, ' ' r' . . LANE P RiJAT E f SITE , i , ''', h' , ' , ''' ' ' , '////. , MURDOCK STREET , • d 3 f r t i 0 „� t000 30 r , ., , ,, , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , . , . , . . , , , , , • , , , . , , , . , , . . , , . 0c�© „ , , , , . , , . , . . , , ,, , , , , ,. , 1 ' , , . , • , , , ,,,, , , .,1 . . , . .. , . ,, , , . . , , 1 , , . , , , , , , , , ,. , , , . . . , , , , . , , ,, , , ,, . . ,, . , . , , , , . , . , . , , , , , . , , , , , , , , ,, . , , , .. . , , . , , , „ , . , , , , , . . , , , , , , ,, , . , , ' . 1, 1,1 _ . . . . , , ., , , , , nA, i a.M TRAFFIC- , VOLUME P'1M PEAK 'HOUR � - ,•7"��IR�J1pAR`t�A ENT' 6th LEA toy; .__ . ,6 . .. 'i 1 " , , , , 9 y1. L M C G r • • • AG�� egr.. ��C� MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVAT ) N MURDOCK LANE (PREVATE) SITE • 1 MURDOCK STR M EET ki • o Ch 0 2Q 5 1► C • • • lilt t eip,, osin it) I . 1989 TOTAL TRAFFIC A.M, PEAK HOUR w, { ...17.- Ti ARD APARTMENT� '�►Mi LE Figure AT X10 TH & .MURDOCK Fig 7 ,, \ A+ Ili, 197F007 0 l TY��YSY �Wp11111w11oYf1' \•)l •`— ♦ ,. ' NORTH 1 • gas • q .i. , , . .. . . 1;f MURDOCK Pl.�►CE (PRi1�ATE� 1.' s; MURDOCK , . ,„ 7-><7--://7 .. . ., .:, ...;' ,: . . :. ,. ,.:,1.,AN,E (PRIVATE .., j .,. . /. . l MURDOGK. STREET i ` 1 y 1 s/ J :A� I * 4 , • Qom► 0 9""t4 ., - r - :' - . ..: . . . . . . .. . . . • 1 . . , . . .. . . . : . . ,. . ,. .. . . . . . . . „ . . . : . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . ,,,, ,,,,,.... , , ,„.., . , . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . , . .: . . . . . ., . . . . . . . , .,. . . . . . . . : . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . r . . . . . •It. j . ., . . . .. . . . . . . . . ., . : , . :1, : . . . , . . . . . .,.. . . . ...... . . . t. : .. . ... . . . . .. , .,. ,. . , . , . : . .. . .. . . . : . . . . . i .: . . t . 1 . . . ., . . . ... : : :. , . . . . . . ,. . ., , ,; . , , ,„ . . . . . .. . . ,. . . . .:, , , . .. .. , ., . . . , ,. , ., : . , . . . . . .. . . . , . : 1 . ., . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . : , . , ., " , . • . . , . . , r . . .. :. . . . , . r I , . , . . , . . , a . .1. . . : , , . . t: , . . ., . , , ,.. , : 1.: , . :. .,. ,. . . • . ,. . . ,. . . . . . . : , .. ., . . . . . : : , . . , ::: . :, . . . . : . . . , . .... ...:: :, r.I 19 89 TOTAL TRAFIO .s PEAK HOUR. '.., :. H.,. ', ... :.1 I� � 'iI , P "` s M �� n Ali' 195 i' ` b w YMI.\ 5AY i . r 1\ 1 t i \ \ m,,♦r n. 4 x..♦ • r •t 1 \N ,'I Y V IMP,1Y f�'IYM/ L'1•Y a A.,0.l..1� ,1, . r 'J 4. 1 M a . J i , \ Tables SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS ' 1989 Total Traffic Volumes i 1. ■ Unsignalized • Intersection Reserve Intersection Period LO Capacity Canterbury Lane/ A.M. A 780 1'• 109th Avenue P.M. A 720 109th Avenue/ A.M. A 860 Murdock Street P.M. A 820 • , • ' M: , 4 • Avenue intersection was measured to be 280 feet, looking from S.W. ; 109th Avenue to the west, and 300 feet looking to the east . Sight distance at the proposed driveway was measured to be approximately 250 feet in both directions, As noted above, this observed sight distance complies with standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Tranrsportation Officials (Reference 3) . Driveways Width and Truck Turning Radii The driveway along S.W. 109th Avenue should be designed to accommodate occasional use by emergency vehicles a'nd large service trucks . The width of the driveway should be at least 30 feet to allow for a single inbound lane and a single outbound lane of traffic . This width complies with the City of. Tigard access design standards. The driveway ,approach alon g S.W. 109th Avenue should , include a curb radii type design versus the standard dr,i,veway curb cut to facilitate the expected service vehicle movements at the A, proposed development. A minimum 25-foot inside radius should be ' used at the driveway location. This radius will provide adequate pavement area for service trucks and emergency vehicles to make the turns into and out of the site without encroachment into adjacent travel lanes. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this study, the traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment expected to 'ropo5 is The+ca.ntly agar A artmex�t com lei as nos s� a significantly p impact the traffic operations, a adjacent streets. The yutur impact . of th f e• level of service expected during the peak hour will be within the p by the City of Tigard. acceptable standards, as defined b The estimated site-generated traffic will not interfere with the I. • operations at the intersections of S.W.Canterbury' Lane/S.W. 105th Avenue and S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street. The intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane an d S,W. 109th Avenue currently operates .. uld continue to do aces at an Las and would so future forecasted for the project. In addition, available sight distance for eastbound B.W. Ca.hterbury Lane • vehicles see northbound venue exiting acceptable stand traffic volumes Y vek�xcles to and S.W.s.W 109th ehx:cles is within secs t wzc increase that w prohibition y standards. the rohibiti.o. of . ., i cold warrant th � limes rya In the future ' sn levels th , �; parking , on the south side of S.W. Canterbury Lane, between th h of g re to e eastern most r mgr , •• , • r r R • • driveway to the Maple Tree Apartments and S.W. 1'09th Avenue. This measure would, increase sight distance to the west from S.V . 109th Avenue to approximately 450 feet. • • • t I I 1 • ti I , • I I , II • I r • • ■ • • Iy 1 , , u��+ .',,,.., ...:d.",,.. .., ., ,.i,i, rl.f...w,, ..r r.,.r.r...wr..r....nr ..., 1, ,r„�.•.� r u.. a.al. r..r r r ..r....rrv., .,r 1 ..u,.r .r.. �r.i.s ...,...,e..n.,.r i. •.. .... � .�, r, REFERENCES 1 . Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual . Special Report Number 209 ( 1985) . 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual : Third Edition ( 1980) . 3 . American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1984) 4 i 1ay ti l � d .�,..,.'r. .. .. .�..1.wr� "i,.0 !Y r er!r Y 4 1 d'Yw�e48e4dwe4�+ �i K, c trlrl �M ht.tY1t.l,w.r r�ki'S�'YV!r.r,;• YN !4, EXPENDITURE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST This form is a multi--use form. Where appropriate receipts must be ' attached. Documentation is important for all purposes. Stap".e documentation to form. VENDOR NO: SATE: 9/26/88 PARABLE TO: Willam A. Monahn lien� Trite, ccour guested by: dm 12290 SW Main' Suite 4 Ti.ard, OR 9722 mmummaimmummenmaxaxscx+srtm========mma=mm=====mohemmoo mmmi mormamimmma'tasmmmomrs,==mmmmmmmswimmmm +!� MISCELLANEOUS (parking, books, subscriptions, dues, memberships, etc.) : Date Desorption Account No Amount 9/26 refund agains de t for transcr.i.t 0--. ,4 113.24 For SDR 88-17 Schuetz Dekanter Receipt # 627 deposit 300.00 r Actual cost 186.76 mrmomm mamsrarMaaeierasKmm uammm=mof smmmu,n mass:m eye=ss==mmuamrasarummi mimmatumm osemmemraarsrsurrattsMmommewmm " GENERAL:HEAL EXPENSE: Date Descri.tjon Amount Account Number to��..,.�_... , be charged:� _ Total smmimme mairmm mimimm miummimmo seas:mmimmm mmftmmamiusredrrisliar=aimmiimu mmieieimtir mimfi mi mlmemmm ommiimmuariieammft' asx MILEAGE: Date Descry a tion. (Include end/start x adin and_ ta ta t miles) AccO t Number: T3�a �• .miles k �==nmui= i xbmczmsestrsucia mmm..xtwlxd,aacatrwommmerm=tis arc m ieab s ia ai e it mme- imReixieMrW+e , ay,, AP AOPRLATF AS 01:: 8i4nntUre. 61raugh petty ct �� � APPROVALS (if �$25 ®0� u� ur�de�- �n�ijr be�iabuc�aed� �,` petty atr): (up to t500.00)Sect ion Hanager :. 41.1".. Putc e i*C-"t s coo C � i i c. OW • TIGA1D PLANNING COMMISSION • REG , .R MEETING' SEPTEMBER 6, 198L 1. Presa.den Mc.,eri called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center — TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 18125 SW . Hall C ur . , Tigard, Oregon. „ • 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Mon; Commissioners rs Barber, "0,44 Rosbcrdugh, Peterson, and Castile, Absent: Commissioners Owens, ryre, Le u ere t t, and Newton.n , Staff: Senior Planner Keith Lidcn, and Secretary Dian Jclderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to apprOve minutes from August 16, 1988, correcting the spelling of Mr. Novak's name, Monfort carried by majority of, Commissioners present, Commissioner Mon abstained, Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to approved minutes. from August 2, 1988, as submitted,,' Motion carried by majority or.it of Commissioners present. Commissioner,Moen abstained, . 4 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Th ere was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS . 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-14 KOLL COMPANY (McKenzle/Saito) NPO # 6 An appeal of a Director's approval to allow construction of Phase I of ku11 Corporate center Oh t h e former Ford Pro—Delivery Service Corp o raiicn ' . site, Phase I would include construction of orte four—story, 57,600 square foot office building and tie, single story, flex-•space industrial buildings, Zoning: SNP (Industrial park)' and X--L (Light industrial), LOCATION: 14880 SW 72nd Ave. (WCTM 281 12AD, lot 800); and 6830 SW • Bonita Road (WCTM 251 12AD lot 400) . SeniOr Planner Lid on explained that the :Applicant and appellant had core to an agreement and that the appellant had withdrawn their appeal• ' 5:2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUR 88»17, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04, VARIANCE V 88-27 SCNUETZ (TOD DEKANTER) NPO ## 6 Rr<quest for a planned d telo'pment approval of ? a 180 unit s' apartment complex 1r 12 6" acres toned t x12 � I ) (Mrd Iur density residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Detelopii L), Also a request for' a Variance to City regulations that requires two (2) access points Oh deueloptment: of over 100 , Omits to :allow one access drive, LOCATION! eetw en 8W 100th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 251 '100 lot 8802 and 281 1OAC;lots 400 and 500). , PLANNING COO MMISSION MI1UTE8 SEPTEMBER 6, 1:988 — PAGE 1 c\\ rr. r .a , • a • . Senior Planner rev', d the proposal and several ti the conditions and made staff's reeommeN„...;ation for approval. Discussion followed regarding the location of the site, preservation of f trees, single access, grade of the parking area, and public improvements, APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION 0 Curl Nase, Ck3H Companies, 8315 SE Stark, Portland, Or. 97216, agreed with the staff's report and conditions. He stated I that they had met with the NPO and other neighbors and that their major concern was the trees, which is the reason they chose to construct 4-p1.ex units. He requested their • erc ineer respond to the concerns about the grade,. o Brad Schleining 4230 NE Fremont ,t, Portland, OR J7213 �, �= �reviewed the site and explained the difficulty they would have in ; meeting the recommendation for a six percent grade He also explained the curha returns were regular street curbs without driveway aprons. Discussion followed regarding ramping, 0 C� , Carl Nast. added that to he felt that 1t 1; a the City Engineer r~,r and their "� • �'n ir'ac.er should be allowed to work out they engineering details. Discussion � .. followed regarding the location of the rental office and the ,recreation • room, NPO REPRESENTATIVE o Nagle Davenport, 1.5100 .SW 109th, representing NP0 tai, Their`main concerns are the road systems, the single access, that the storm sewer system would . create an erosion problem, that the trees would not be saved because of their' close proximity to the buildings, and that this development is not 7 ,� a to the suited tc. this site because of floc. c,�r <�d�. Also, that this development would landlock an existing lot, The consensus of the NPO was to oppose this development, She stated that any t evelopment should be postponed until an overall r.lan for the area is completed, She felt single-family residences would be more appropriate for the site. PUSL,IC TESTIMONY • o 17t7cer Rauch, 5E300 SW Macadam r< 850, Portl,arhd, 972171 , represented' Mr,. arhd Mrs, Schuetz in the sale of the property, He explained how they had taken great care in marketing and selecting a developer because of the sensitivity of the site, o t`c::lra Armand, 14600 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, 0 7224, represcr tihr ho in—laws, distributed a map of the area. ,a that the parcel �t,� She stated �" the north i:r developed as a single—family residence grid has been featured �� ;in the Sutistat ritagazines and books, She requested that ,, fence be imstal1ed to protect their property, She t uestiori d how the property had been rezoned from R-7 as requested irt' March 15€37, to R-12. Discussion followed regarding the Co m irehensive Plan process, She requested thrat they rio bulldozing be done beyond the drip line of gees Which are located on their property, Ghe did not want the Arirhand's to be liable for trees that might fall from haviig' their roots damaged, She was concerned with th iihstallatioh of the sewer line, because of the stcophoss of slopes and I soil eoihditioris, that the hill might come d .lwi onto Pacific Highway, She was also concerned about possible fire hazards, PLANN/NG CO M SSION M IUTL.S St.PT NIDI~R 6, ,19130 PAGE 2 • r il' .. .. .. ,,.. •.i.- ...... .,i...: .., ., -. +,,....,.•r....-_ . . .a,._ .-,..,..,., ..,- s... .,............,. .. .0.. ._a,,,.wr—..4_.. •......w—.,.++....,.F.nrx....mn A...»...4. .a,.,,.«. .,..u._.. o Ray Hainrnerly, 14807( 109th, owner of the `townhouse o the south of" the entrance, had the I'xzrwte concerns as the previous spcaakers. He did not e favor the variance for one access, but had no idea how to obtain a second access without acquiring more property, He had concerns for the trees because of past history in the City and requested some type of fencing, . o Jack Forcl.l, 14815 SW 109th, owner and developer of the four townhouses had developed his property when this site was zoned R- 4,5; He was concerned about the traffic and requested that some . type of fencing or '4' screening be installed to protect abutting 'residences • O Joni ' Peterson, 10510 SW Kent Place, congratulated the developers for • proposing a first class multi—family development. He felt that, enerc • • should be a road from 109th to Summorfield and that the sewer should' connect to the line at Canterbury, He stated that he had attended the hearings when the city had changed the zoning, • REBdTTA . r , o Carl 1liase stated that a 'traffic report performed by�� Kittleson & Associates found� little traffic impact;. from this development. Staff had reviewed the report and found no problems, Ho explained that they neither created or made worse the landlocked piece of properly. Ho felt two close accesses would be more of a problem than one access. o Brad schlciring, explained that storm ihteritian i8 not allowed by the r City, therefore he would be using a dissipation device and would be :0 working ' with the State Highway D iviesion so the storm drainage would not impact the State Highway, Approximately 15 to 20 trees would be removed to install the line and sincext is a private line, they could use smaller eoipmi nt for installation, They would work with the arl orist to minimize dramage to trees Ho stated that if the site wore d*..1,el.oped with single family residence, such as a Tour of Elegance, you would be appalled at the number d'f trees which would' be removed. , 0 Discussion followed t th sta f f regarding improvements to Pacific Highway, the landlocked piece of property, and access to the site. • PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED • 0 COM isSioner Castile favored the proposal with fencing to protect private residences and limiting excavation around neighbors trees by staying out of the drip line of the trees. He felt one access was a detriment to the apartments' but a benefit for the neighbors, hbors{ r. `1 '�1 o Pdo;�l�c�r t�u��hi was undecided, He �was � concerned about the traffic,, Pte.,, fel,t the drainage could be worked out with the City and he preferred a fence or buffering. o Commission Barber was undecided,, He concerns were the variance for the one access and what would happen to trees that die within one year She wanted to see conditions for fencing and reducing the grade to six percent, • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, '1988 PACE ��3 i f , M-4 z4♦1 • o Commissioner Petersoli' id not favor the proposal. H, at the overlay had . been applied . because —oo site is unique and that one access should not be permitted when two or three are needed, He was concerned about the grads on parking and that trees s should not be used to . the wink ing �� • ��? allow for more density. • a l • , 0 Commissioner Moen 'fel:t`. th1�. a f .lie n�� had Yet: the , �r a � tl t.7e density standard and had made a good faith effort. He was ,`�:unr� "7a d about t the storm rY sewers an d parking lot grade, •x' Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to deny BDR, 88-17, PD 88-04 and V 88-27 based on the findings that there were drainage problems, inadequate •buffering, and parking grades woad too steep,, • Discussion followed regarding the PD overlay. Motion failed two to _ three. Commissioners ,Moen, Rosbor'ough, and Castile voting no. �.;. I o Discussion followed regarding buffering * Commissioner Rtsborough moved and Commissioner .Castile seconded t?.i approve t SOP 88--•17, PD ' 88-04, and V 88•r27 adding condition to install.a 'chain link fence and site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the • area along Pacific Highway open, Also, to modify condition number 11 requiring n extreme caution to be used to protect trees ces an abutting a!^oper t , Motion failed two t, three, Commissioners Mo en, Peterson, and Barber voting no. RECESS 9:47 RECONVENE 3.5 . o Commissioner Moon explained tha t his concerns with the uniquene ss of the site were for the trees and he steep slopes, He had problems with the • parking and location of the building on the site. He favored 100 units versus 130 units, o Commissioner Peterson felt there where too many units for the number of accesses, 0 Commissioner Barber concurred, e. Commissioner Castile stated he would like to see fewer units � w . .x. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber' seconded for conceptual approval not to exceed 100 units for SUR 88-17, PD 80-04, and V 88-27,, The reason for reducing the units was because of the problems of access, grade, unique character of the site, and the existing forest,! Also add a condition to install a chain link' fence with site obscuring ' • landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the area along Pacific Highway open, The fence is to be inst4a1led prior to construction, Also to modify condition number 11 requiring extreme caution to be used to js • protect trees on abutting property, Motion Carried Unanimously by Commissioners present, o Carl blase stated for the record that he felt the Planning Commission had' just changed the zoning on the property, I i , I�N�NC CCMMx�S�bi1! MINUTES E;. SEP`CENtBEft` 6, 198e PAGE 4 I I • ... ..,.. ......., ..v.l. . .. yr,.. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NG "1"RnniSCf IP..l" SC.I UI�'T Dr� 1r}''' .� Iw w ClJ Ix It i l l,lT i.r R) ¢¢rl SITE " L ; ,r w N I REVIEW ~a y 88-17 i. . PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Pt) 88»w04 • VARIANCE V 88-27 ' , 0 DON MOEN, With that wo would liko to move onto item 55,2, could we have than r. r staff report please? • i z::I H LIDEN, This property to bra, is proposed to be cievea.OpQca is looted west ; 9 0 of 109th Avenue, noar the intersection �f 109th and Murdock, it s 12,66 acres . and the applicant Is proposing to develop it with :130 apartment units, Tho e is also <:a variance I rOit)Osod to allow orto access d ivo as opposed to the two acc,ca;7S drives that are normally regt,I, rod for this number of units in tl t k.' Community Devo Goi;)m ent Codo, I have a copy of tt't s i.t o )hart up on the wall, , • As you can see most of the units are («Orwcentrat;ocl on the c ast ern half of the propr r'ty, It is virtually all wooded and all of the trees on two west tidy of the property they ar+ shown not to be devolo ed will remain with :he o K C o )wf o a of some that may possibly 11t 1t(;l to be removed to install a sower link that will run down they hill from the apartment complex to Pacific Highway. Which is on ' the left as your looki.ng at that o eta plan. The staff hat r oviowed 1 hc1 proposal and we find that its consistent with . the applicable po1i,ri os in the Comprehensive Plan and Code cr i,tor'i.a, subject to a (number of conditions, I'll just hit some of thaws highlights, I: guoss, so to speak, Or would be that a ,, foot sidewalk be provided along 109t•h Avenue, Thaat. an Arbori,st roport be providod priors to any grading or earthwork, s Ito cloar ing on the site to first, justify the. removal of trdcs on site and have a specific plan for protection of trees during construction of tho projection Sara,:! Alto for the a plait for tha long term hoalt:h of t:ho "f ho s i,ta plan doos indicate the treys that, location where trees at o intended to be preserved at this point r thoy are :Lrw licat:ad by the small dots that you have on the $i,tt plan, And, we t find that the applicant, at least based on what wig have so fare, aPPears to h Meeting the intent of our code requirement for maximizing thi number or qtr oos • tho amount of trees that aro saved during development. Al o, wo are requiring " 0 as a condition of approval, or recommending ag a requir e ont.. that ;they, a RAlSGRXP SOP 88 ; y/PD 88-04/V 88-27 w C°OE 7.: (DeRant«. r) Page 1 it N . N , ' y� U ArA'l 1,..,..iMr... .'I. • ..,, ...ry..• .....,.,..•.. .u, .... .4 .,..J......a.)n.r.,w....x...r. . .,... u. ..--.... _ a, x a.r.a,V-W.1-:.A.x V'rr,.«✓.J.,'. e. V ..N.rn a.a nr....•w.li.A..rV.a..vwhc.r. a • . 0 N ::: ' .,6� 'i „��e A , re 'e ABM •�. 1,ar�t<lscra r:trt a;l.�irt be ar tav;i,cletcl, At i:�t:i.s rtc�:i.rtt: W��? have a l;t:l.��an $ho�,a.rtr� .. conceptually which: trees-,are go:i .ncl, to be preserved,ved, ht,rt we would also Peed a a , — plan for jO t landscaping, l c tnc covering tj P?s of landscaping. �a4ie r•e? also fi.ndIrje' that :based On the situation: that ;40 have WItlht-this pr'opetrty, the ,t;• • . second, aC e s would r �aa ly be of no 'value.A For ono reason, r s you can see the. � , . frontage on 1Q 9th„ Avenues :i.s relatively short,, 1•1aving two' access drives in , close pr•oxim t,y ,would rea1:1y not< Itel,p. Also i,t woOld proi,�ably,; would crenate ' more ea ct r►flic,,ty with the i.nt:,er aeCt;:i,oht at Murdock, which is aCross the street,. ` As far' �accoss "onto Pacific 'Highway; the St:ato,H:icjhway Would net want to have 'a access in , that locati.od't,' and ,tl.sc be cau'Se:, 'of the, grMad Ha nd trhe' tr os Hit would a necessitate qu te: a bit of ar hwoNi and tree ' removal to work an access down, ,' • •.r to E�rac.;if i.c Highway, �;�o we don see hY, v:a.;l.t,re.� in that �a we 1,1., �� t,res X did' ' . r mention that �sanitar�► sewer and storm �sewer� will go clown the,,, hill to I�ac:i fi 'i Highway and' then,. wilj proceed north towar cI,a CrantearburMy ;,c.fuar ,• I guess that � , : „Concludes my remr=rl<s, clp y Ou have any questions? ;r 1C` MGEIj X dIv t . c r a. F tn :the information wemere J"oiidwd in 66M ?a C k t , K , both by the do ie1o: r' and by the staff report) I: had gr�cyat doa,1. of,erli,ff i.ct.rl,at;y . N j y , „ s I !<now ot. • ; � �� � figuring o,rrt�:�oxac.t�l,y� where that: lot was.' 'Do you, Can' you ,.� t+;iw �r s, I+� r,, '," " • , haveM the tax 'lot maps and So On and so forth, but:` we warn't. p,'ov%<;loq with • ' that,, • lcabt lny copy wrier t,. Xt, ,.46t$ M little hard to lociatct it ••on :100th : I • „ guess,, : ' ' c aa lc but � didn't really want ,to do that. ': I ••:1i"I"1.1 LXDEi;Ilt, "OI<ray, InclOdes these two, pops, what am X doa.nr C;an't - w , road the map, upside` down as ,:well as I thought, okay, we~' are 'Over' her , and ' . ' ttat ioc} M�cIt ~ t r A�, . ' M0C:,,111, ,Okay, so its ,:right , in tho middle 11,. a W 1 111 v:4_ i MOE 1 , that is this strip O in the r r' . . t", L !ti „C t. Crh y r I ■t Oh:,111, An oa omor'tt: or r6arl, ' I I . � . •n a . t' Y , 12�1111CC,RIPI $L;1 8i,..wl.�" '�D 0q.:..04 8t3 �27 $C,OUE!Z (De antel'4) : Page' �.� •: I . I II. . . .... Jr.,,.,,. .. .ra... . . , ,� ., . . r.. ., ...r : r. _�.._...._.r. . .,r .. rr.. ,. . ... ...,. .......... , ...A _, • S.... . .. .,M, • + i 4 ' a .A • • ' w./I v._.,.. ., - .. ,.. ,.„.. v. ..-.,., .'J... _ ._. - .._i _,. a ._i r. .. .,a . .. I ...,_. .— -.v, ...._a...,,.. ._l,-... ),I...i-.f...f.K.,.J...../4 ...,.........M ,.J.,... ,..,..., , • .w , r • «tDl1, No . ts uh, it reflects ects a lot line adjustment that was done. My tAride.,rsti.Ancli,nc i. t'te prorierhty toner on t:hc north dial Ia trade of property with) the property owner to the south, exchanging some land that had frontage on 109ith for 50 feet, Somelone olse can explain that better than I, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER ROE 3OZou 1 , Where's lr c tor ? .' LID1L1U, t•'k c for`s' COMMISSIONER R CASTIL1f,', They're down here, • • LWIDEili, Hector's, down here, ,� « � �I�O��+13t�i��Ut�,ll, Oka y♦ MO :111, Oiler y, so this is IZOSi OROUGH, 1 , 1 f , , f 1 1 top of the hill , LW ;DEIU, Yes, really just, about the trop of the lii,l:l♦, CASTILE, Before you get to Canterbury, / 1 Bev iral people talking i,ng smite tInie q . MOEN, I think this might almost oven be the top of the hill, ROSBOROUGH, It looks like i.L. LIDJ\ is, its very close to the crest. i I ,r �I �► testimony Gain help t.t� out there, Okay Maybe you ►�Cjl;;:111, Maybe some �� the •l: � l � ;� I ,, '•h could point that out to Lhk, other members of the Comitiisstort,,� Okay, . COMMISSIONER S IOlt R kARlWR, Ex3.w tse me, a TRANSCRIPT V �� �8 W I � /�� 88-04/V 3� �j �� l � J � � I W 1 f ) Page „ • • Moi:N, Yes, BARBER, :I have a question, y ' MO EN, .Okay, Barber, • BARBER,3ER, "On page four where the Engineering n Division mace their comments. I'm not sure they are recommending that one access is permissible or whether they are saying that there should be another one, In that number two, it says, -'The Civic requires or access per each hundred, therefore two access are required by the Code, The applicant has requested a variance, or access is requested order the impact,” guess the were just commenting e<,fuctrc�c;l ,Li'tel ctc.1 limit 1.i�c. �,IrIH)ac. they' rather than recommending? ir.,xt)t:l\I, Yes, at that point they aro commenting. We have the discussion . relatinc, to access, which is really the opinion of both the planning st af'P and • the 'engineering staff, starts ta c')11 page seven and ends on pGdgt:. eight, And really based on tho particular circumstances here, we just did' not see any particular ul.aar merit In having second driveway , • • BARBER,El , I have only two other short questions . MOh:NN1, Go ahead, , • BARBER, O h page nine, i n i, , it talks a bout tr ee removal and 14 1 there will be at arbr)rist: report; outlining methods of protection, if 1however , 8em0 of those trees that ore recommended to be loft there die, wi"ll. they be replaced, ceci, wi;il they need to be, well, will • hiey be replaced if they do die? The reason X rn asking is because I've see that ' happen, where certain trees were c 1 of : and they died subsequently and were not replaced, , LX,OL N, That cer,ld xinly could be clarified in the, conditions of approval. At this point the cc, lditxons do not address that, I think that we're presuming that if they foal l.ow the arborist; report, protect the trees adequately during construction, that that shoul not occur, However, it still could evert if , they follow ari;)ori s t:, 1 mean, 1 guess they are just bike a doctor i,n another way, the re not going to be 100% correct, ect! TRANSCRIPT w I R 88-17/PO 88— l h / M C 7 tE w ( 1 ) • I I I BARBER, SOMe Of their patients (:Ii.e1 LTl:)E111, I mean SOMOtiM08 they May fool that it will and they still won't, . for other roason$1 • •. . BARBER,,! And one other one, I'm sorr'rr`tf M� E1j "okay,1 ic , u ahead. , . . I I I I r , BARBER,,' 'On pac o' ten, in number six, it says that .the Engineering Division Y 1 1 1! cross 1 .� r 1 I \ . ! 1 f I Y recorrim nd that: cross ;i1{l?pos and parking g iarre a s be I"f�cit.rced to r",;1,)IaP` �t;l.lrlaltt!ly six portent.tent Is a Ir ocomriiencat t:i on a Iroquiv'omont in this case ' MOt;,i\I, 1 think, • road that too, I think wo would have to change the wording • it Wo also going to make it ra :rogt.rirrremontf We'll Iii havo to t:k c:irc:I e whethorr' thrats wr ' what wo will want to do urr` not, LIDElt1, That ono, I think will, the applicant might bo able to speak to ca 1 r r agree this r 1 .� . 1, little bit l,yc!t;�c..r ., ;�, .� that Lha � :I.�, t:.1�:I.� wording a.� a 1r�.trt:l.r., bit, BARBER, Loose, LTDEN, Well its not quite appropriato here,, 1;at,r•t., the situation i 3, is that tr1r+ pr Nipo:soc.1 d(asi.gr7 moots the standards, trho concerns that Engineering had is I • that t!ey have some parking spacing that wer e going to be going sideways ceways t;c., I :,,. the slope at�lr and they were just saying that there were going to be a lot of problems, s C nothing e s1 lots of dings ct cars oul I y tahe You Open the ? o o r and don't quite got the handle . { . ,$wh0000p . { there it goes . So its not really meant to be a ne t i' o1e 1t,, 7olras w they do meet the requirement for grade, its just from a oI er',l you know, using the ;tire, parking there and s+ forth that they just feel its going to cause tome problems, MC l.rlil,, Okay, maybe we can have the applicant, will have a chance to address res that I had one questions, one other question, them we can got on with, if - you COU'Imi s s i,ono r{ Barber' are you? I I , II 'TRANSCRIPT S. C � �� l rPa ��N 0 /v 8 S CHa» Z (D oka7re ) Page b • • 11Vr r «.-.T. i, .. .. .,.i _ •., ._. .... ,, ii I.. .. 1- • i.•.1.. s A.„,......'. .._ . . r. „nrl.... .I,w.•.., .r.._.ur., u....1.... •_._ � .. rte.. r 4 ■ IAR Y ' • i� s :� rn finished, MCaEI1k, 1tO1kay, Got your questions, Now if I could 'just find mine, And this ` �' Y! � that N7 k �' is just: my igo r���nc, :C tress, but on p ag Pour, 7 t� says ��he i•� I �rts recommends that curb returns rns be utilized f or th e sitos d jty wiay to G inpYove ac1otsibitrty in and out of the , 11t > What do you mean by curb ot1 1s` 1 t„it��.11l, �Ilr�•,;, ���s where on rit.rr�ifae��r Pour. MOEN, P&r,,•o four, page 'Pour", item four,urr`, ri•< hit, the e lasi sentonce in itom foul" guo s a its 54, �� 1. N .' r! right � N M« N LN�CI„rt:I\I,r I don't I tti r� an rarswor right. now let me take u look at that site plan, . IYr&y h)ca I can s< what fang tr o irr,ti 'ic s Mof•� ,'f .�: � , w t i�. r �,.r r ��. w was r cM r .r , I didn't,t .tit ;� was mot t t .1 .1 , �1 , a, hc " of this report, I went ti e tG i at and talked to Jerry about,� �but, wo (,)tdn`t Ito over curb returns, s MOEIli, Well I found somotl :i.n.y thi<,at. I dEidn't understand, I A1'llR, Mo too, L:i:DEN t Okay, let me �,a�oo, MOEN, "Yes, Comnii ssiono Pt rrlsori7 COMMISIONEP PETERSON, I have one question concerning h ti J why 99, arre we o talking about any huff., stroe t i.niprr°oVeniearits or anything to 99 at this time, , LIDEN, Apparently not, tho State Highway Department lA r>, xhfttrrYrorJ of this proposal and the applicant will hoCd to l t a permit from t:ho State Highway Division to work to th o right—of—way; and they will be having the sanitary sower installed lr d iri thr right—of—way, but there is no rr qui,r o ient for r• halt`- tr eet improvements, PETERSON, Do you suppose, be ause there not having t an access off of 90 is why t:h ej'rr,e, not requiring that'? 1 w TRANSCRIPT SDP �� ,�1"�'�'l•.1 �E3 t` C) �U' .�' „� w�., t.l � I� � 3 tI ,C# •.�' ,. �I �,l,r�' �Rari ol^) Page 6 • • o a LXOIEI11, I' ll check with the State Highway .b:lvision comments. I have the Pilo . hero •A: can answer that in a minutes, maybe a 1itt1•o later when you got into. _ MC)1 1tlIca1 don't fo �' r e t; to ask hi i.m again. , Lxh►i i1l,' .Ask me again,, ask me again and I'll r ov w 1 MO)I:,N, Okay, Very good, thank you ,start'' Could we have thkd applicant's h)i"t' 'senl•at:ic'n pleaso, n 1 1 L i ! I v areas,If I colored might highlight . ' could ,I put it up there? Pretty muchi the sail ono, but just colored outline, My iamel is CARL NASE, I wok for CBi•t' Companies, thri developer, at 3815 SE Stark,, Portland, OR 97216. f ir/st of all we ag rl e with staff and all thti.r, • conditions in thoir roi�or�t aric1 don't have an problems � to I 1 y 1'r t, >,1 �liis car objections. ,t�t. whtat: • they're, in their report. Originally wl/ieri wo s•t art.id out with this wo met with thr ri ki. hborhuod association for their input and hbroughit them soriit! . preliminary plans and wt tried to work with th o i,icopl.ui in thi a area and wanted to be in a friendly type rtealat,i•onship or rapport and wo brought it into .thy • city for pre -app and worit, through t.1/ic process and our Our phiilost•ophy was that this biggest issue would bra trees, with thie rio:it~j)/b rs and that sort of �" '., thing, So when we wont into planning we looked at building only for r pIox btA.t).alirirg, Each building hias four units to each, which is more oxpen i,vo for 1 us to build as self ot,ident as it is, wo have o.xtra walls . Wo could hauiid eight-ploxe y and lino them up like barr,i,cks and mow down as 'm any tr/cos a% w ; mood to, but •t hii,s way, with four-plex buildings we hiavo more i itax i.h •'1i.ty in turning them and situating them to stvc more taros as optimal as possible, r 1 1 / 1 1 v And, and also riiatnt�a,:r.rl tho existing grading a$ much po l :Ilo, to b alit` open " sp�aco, and thon also the denser for'ostt area down towards Pacific Highway, Which is rr•ro 1. y not i"aasingl. to build, to grade and as thick as �forest as was, Basically we feel that we conform with all tho planned: development, Code, to proser4vo to the cjrtatost oxtohit the oxist ng landscaping and 000i space. And as we said in the boginni nr1 we sat down with tlio neighborhood association and tried to tale Oh any input that they had and tried to been' as cooperative as ponsi•hiblo and hopefully wo can so).ve any Issues here 'tonight. • ' TRANSCRIPT D1 8$-17111 89.-04/V 88-27 SCHUl:vrTZ (C)oltanttar ) Page • op • ■ Okay. 1U-W », hc �: � � . Do questions,you 1a1� a1 ' MO EN, Okay, 1 had one question. Commissioner Barber do you wanrh to lead ��i' � Go ht ari< , 4 I fy 1 \ r r r My r � M question l:.a��.c�t t� to� �J �' � rt � ,x�� h�, �I�, with lat.r�.1.�1.►.►��,�,x4 You said i����»a�.. they would be all four-p;1,ex' 111A;;r , Yeah, k3 1'21;3 E1 , Are Bata then r �� going rye: ' o build ci �;1'�C��i(1 Y �l �i r two, two level twelve-plex apartment ent bu .ld irt,js r , r , r4 , , �IAsk4., EX0aU3�'! ft , in the middle there rie yk �h, in the middle there, extu tl e re' X didn't , out of context when I said all, sorry, . 'i .4 r . . \ right the, « , the r n M(�1w111, Okay, ��ls��:�t;,�, oh, okay, �r;1.�tl�Yla in '�1��, the two in �f..11►� ►,,����.e►ry court yard, t k6‘j. I My question related to the parking, The staff has, staff has recommended d that the slopes that your proposing for the pariking lot, at least • there is some discussion there regarding difference between five percent and -. .tell pe1,4ceilt 8 i I w 1\I L,' Right, right, , MO ill, And if Jf. road my ir ti ri1 r y1 �. the t P conditions '4 Y1..�r �+�r �«���a�3,�.r► �,�� what� sl.,�rr�, ';� say would be that, 1 would interpret that the City would like you to ► r attic five " • ' . r per�ce►'rt, gr.31de on those I 4 rN + 1 r ... r I 1`t1At31�, F,i tr o rri six, watt, �J4 L r • I' MIr11, lik(( 11Y; 114:4:1$ than L kIr.i., lots u r it tl.lat way. I think it,.. was,aa, may h)attt b !..)o en six, TRANSCRIPT S R 88-i7/PD 80-04/V �� '.7 sc bUw � ����rte ) Page 8 Y ' ' \ E , r r ,, N • • NhSE, When road t,hiatr, we obtained this staff report frr iday, than I road , Ghiat I riprretcc1 it as styi.ric thiat, thiiy still, wi:aritod to work it out with • our on ineeri also, So to be,' r MOl:::IU, Six rericttiritY VASE I'm not an oxperrt in civil oncj:tneertncj, could I have our Engineer a orit up an answer, that c u est:i.on for you? MOEIti, ;=;u o, yrwuh, that would be alright, 111A 3E, Brad, d Y v ';m BRAD SCjHLh:";I11ING And I'm W. 8, Wont and fi sc c iYato's engineers, iaricl w e'r r , located at 4230 NE Fremont Stroot, Portland 97213, In J erora1 you want t � ; stay l:) two( Ii five and six percent for comfo t of the people rYu;si:ri tho parking I r � 1 ♦ � I ! i 1.�.. . r1 H lot, Opp riilrig doors, i its on a stoop ijr Garin th. doors el and d.i.ri98, t.h ire$ lit::) way around thiat, But in this particular inst<ar°ict, we tniod to isarro trees acid that si,t a is hio av:11 grade,, our know, :f� you look at 1 h o topographic map J ,� you .l • can , the 1 1.. i , i 1 � � �, � tl , over hero you ccf Ii see, at the to�a of the ti its fairly ly `'lFa1t, but c s you got into, pass this a"e , your Kro )a; g into 1 0, 15, and strto places 20 percent cjrYa,ado 1 you can't fight nature, you ti got to work with what god' s given you to work with. two whiaalt wed'ilt? tried to do hero is, in thi:i,s section,ion, wo tar:ari't k� .. Iii have any chioiltwa but to stay wi't.h the 10 to 12 porc ri'ty grades , Theo t,th, if your going to cut it down to like six percent, what your going to end up doing its moving a wholo who lot of dirt out of this:re or moving dirt itrii What we've . .Y � � r l this point and v rc back � looked at, is we wt rt:r to start: at this pL i.nL rand rum thr:c grades back at, five por1icont, wo would probably be building, what we would call a cut bank, or fill bank, fill slope, that would probably h+ t: catch up to the existing ground � urrit:i,l you jot ha 1,f .,w ay down to Pacific Highway That would moan that back, X „ , :1 its sr<o if X can som , 1.11 t;t;lt, bit of cilrtionsIon in horror , Forty scale, This is about 10 percent cent g rado right ht e so what would happen is that each� oho of these linos which rripriosorits a ,design contour, every other ono would be o:G;ini,riatt d Y So you would have one two throe four five six seven eight nino, approximately nine foot of fill mator lal you Would have to place l ri,jht hero, i Y . Y 1. � Nll � tho ,' 1 71 �, '� foot �i.1 material i:ri t.; u��� to �a Ali u1.) with �t.h�� ,�rrr o When you t� 1)i.rt,. five trt� .�a4� t�, fill ryi�r � , ,i, s� Ir �1. T'RANSC t XPT GI 1 88-17/PD 48-04/V 88-27 GCHUItTZ (boltanter) Pac10 .......,.., ,. ...,.,. ... . ., ., .,,,. ,. „ ..,,.... .,.. .._.,.. ..... �.. ,,,.. , .„_ ,. ._ ,. ....a,...,.., • at ►st�u two' to one grade. What happens :i s that you end up burying 'Ll�o roots of •' all. the trees, �, ` / ♦' N here I + r foot r', ' You' ll put in, t17� ones up closes Iac�re� will be �a�l. nine �cac�t vf' fill, as it goes down it will get less. And if a tr e, goner/ally speaking, I'm not arbor'/:i.st, but from experience, you put, a tree in more than two to three f=oot of 'fill, its clone. The roots art going to suffocate its, you know, its grown for !O years and its just is not going to ,ci just to .t;hu shock 8o tIi t s 'Chao situation with the g► Lados l Over I) ai e we have a little bit of flexibility becauso it is flatter up hero, This can: be drug out on this side. I 7 t 1 r N words these l i'e 5 y Sl , 7e here "e ) Hs e 1 L foot drops i 11' elevation, they can be pulled up into this area to flatten this, out, This is • at ton pe , cer)t, I woL iea estimate,at:e , ti .clht be able to get that to eight t pc?rct'?r)t, By going to eight percent there is a retaining wall. here, That w=all. would probably be four f e o t; now, it would probably go t.li;a to ea six 'foc'a'l retaining wa111 x would c ;c retaining walls so that �� don't t 1�r� to disturb, d the trlt•os+ It 'would also oxtend this rotEai ni;ncj wall up here and thoso treos in this vicinity, those are probably insignificant trees, looks . like ono deciduous' , + 1 .� evergreen, .\ a and c�►t e., Ja tr►t they c,.y w ea to 1,<.I I�c» lost, MC)ENN, Would it be possible to build a retaining wall 'along the we st .si.c',Io of 1 1 0 / did change 1" N got?the:! property a$ well., if you d,1GI c hange th".! `>3ope'� to got? C;I°II.«E 111It11i,, You can, you can build retaining walls in M k::I11, As opposed to your, T know what .;ours saying, as opposorl to tho slopes ,✓ ECHLI;II\W\1( , tartar/ hero it doesn't help us that much, Where wo come into the problem, you see right hero you clot room to stretch the ' grade out Its flatter right here, So what you do is increase the grade here, MOElll, I tondor1stand that, you 1 4 � tu' ~~CHL,.l...i \!Zi11O, Okay,, over here you don't have any room. 8e o you have to get from this grade MOElll, But you said that if you took a five percent or six 'peiYlcent slope from he top down than you would end up about 'rti,no feet ill tt'10 ! / , 1 , T ANE;Cl'IP.i SOR 88.17/PD 88-04/V 38 w sC,HUE Z, (t) l'antsr) Pago 10 , • • , ; • , retaining wall back hte..r e, Y hi, you can ,c that that, the only hir cbl.ern that thakt presents is accessing down into th(;:)se. units and there carry uti'ity fir^ONa7.oms that you (Day development. t1 nine foot retaining wall, of ' course, would not, would be not real prr`acti c b;lc; Your f'isrrest: floor of your unit wot.►Id be looking into a wa11 MOEl, Wo ll you would have to step it taJn or sono ,h7 i7 A , , $Cli••llx,E: 1\I:t11IC3, Well you don't have you would only i:it~ able to use ono start wall,There's no room to stop. w � we stopping, the walls down y� ur� you �e r r got. r • to move tho units back to allow for r r orrr r You can't have thto units right up into 'thee wall, And what are phi.losophiy, are concept on this was in order to have, basically ho impact on the tr'ok'!s down hor e, exc opt: rear' where the buildings wo ro sited, we've held to th o 'natural ground uit:nd irrighit here, So thats what we were' thinking when w4 did that, And we cloy know' that we have ,;;et/Ggrrr grades for parking. I do have another comment, there wai , Somebody btry ra soc a ' r different issue beSido the parking that did have to do with ear`rcl:ine ri.riij, . Ohi it whit; thin: curb returns. ,l.,,ho normal pr,roc dur o in are 'apartment or multi.7faryiti.y area, or every a singlo family residence, Whi !ri you put your ciri,ttow iyl in you • hiavc what you call curb cut and a drive way apron approach. But what this appears to be saying to me is that instead of putting a driveway apron in, you • put just; l: c:. a r40�t,►l s ew : r >$ and that $ h>1°0 bab y a>0rr >h � saie�e r the street Murdock, 3 Cron,,, the way it wound probably look'' alot nicer. I there are any other questions on engineering I would be more than floppy to L qtr►swrti.r1 yes , A I 1 i r x � stop x C 18171: x:, Wily art.�ul. lri t1 you s t i r. sta p th0. ri)a rrk rig it dOwri S 0rit0, >h ► i ncrrrarir nts or a r foot? I ' S C,HLE X, X j , You M^a r what we've done here r now Y t a` f ba s i i ai a y, a s t H stopping situation. How do you stair step a parking lot. You have to ramp, r yo Ar talking about ramping it down and bring It out � CASTILE, When your angle i$ coming down from your road and then when ier you pull in,' might have to build up sty i.t1 to come levol, there drop down TRANSCRIPT SOR 00-17/PD a8.04/V 08-27 8CHUEA1Z (Dc l<arrterr) Page i.l ns .•r ur,.v.r,a uuwv...rw..,,. ,aver a ' I S 7; scI°ILEx1li NG, I understand what, your saying. We: use ramping. Okay in this situation,ion, li.ke lots say right in hero, this is all parking on both sides. � , okay so your talking about maintaining five., six por'cont in there, you've go & nine, maybe a ten foot island in helve which you could t ako down at tears 'iaorcont or fifteen percent grade, Oksaiy, "t"hrough here you can't do it but right hore • for ton feet you can. I don't krrow if you have boon on a, first of all we have a lot of drop in here, your only going,, r.t jht now this is a ten percent,cent, If we, what is the City maximum, lb? So you would be looking at gaining a , foot ta.rrci a half right t t:htr•ou lrr the island re< s, You know ,its possiblo to do i • that to reduce E th impact, :C think its real uncomfortable „ for anybody who lives es there, , think its, in my opinion ity Ya o uncomfortable to dr ive on t' soiii thine, like that than it is to park somothing and tae careful of 'my door, int"'iAtA i O it works like i,? speed bump, Your going down iand your continually I. getting jostled and when your moving in and moving out,, if you've gilt stuff stacked in your truck, its jolnea. Anyway' thalt:a my, opinion, We Glom',t., I:1.kr' to work with :1r:t i ways 7,ikE that. • MO1:11i, Okay, Any oth rr, questions?.or1s"t IliASE, Any other t:feae sti,ons for me, Thant, why I thought it would bo i;ost if 1 City i•,Irgirroor and our Engineer get togother on the final plans and you know' I look at tho most optimal l wa!,T '' handling that; I know thr t its difficult, , some of the tar ob1crirts that arise with that site. • • MOEN, Okay, �� question, do 1 v.� ono u , BARBER, I t,i� r' 11 f I IIIA8E, 1,Suro, , . 1 center recreation, BARBER, � Ini�r�rr���r is the rental �r..�r�rt,.t<rF and the I e�cl �a���.�orr, room going to be7 NASD' Sure, its usually one of the front buildings . The Architect doesn't have it marked, The Architect is 1.11 tonight too, and ho couldn't mako it, i. TRANw CRIP T,s1 i '38-i7/P0 88,O4/V 88-27 $CHUET2 (C oKant or) Page 12 ♦ iii i i, i ' fi "F :a �� of from '1C. l3 f t t;i�L,i�, The�.. i �.�:�.�c.�E i *(. ask(� ��;� ��c..�:��u";�,. :r.t<. the r� �.�..t.i:.�� c.�' J r.r:f.y 1��i.l�, f� c.rr the Architect says that there will bo a hundred units plus the rental center and rec ro ati;c`)n room. Not including but plus, \tAE L , says a huncirc d units plus . BARBER, ro, it says a hundred th . ty units plus a rental cent r and r ecr"ea,xor't rooms s l\IAsL:: Either its not jolt ntjfi,ocl on there, I know that that counted 4`o, at 130,units, so, I'm not, I don't think its included in it, that we've di lete ti, That was something n in the process c s s of the design review, design n appr ovtaJ, between �t ho Architect and tIao owner that :t wasn't involved in and I can recall and I can't answer. rM . MOENNN, Okay, that answer your CNt.tc,7tion, Anything else. Okay, If we have any 'a other questions we 11 ask, IINA:.E, ,Thank your very much. MOEN, With that we want to move onto the \tPO presentation. I 'believe we• have a Margo Davenport for I\IPO number r s>ix, I'm MARGE DAVENPORT, for i\IPO it 6, I also live on :109th, I doh't know how many of you have been on the Planning Commission for how long, but ' ho problems on . Little Bull Mountain go back b ` MO EN, Excuse me, :xcurs e rm e could we have it quite so that we can hear the r+ t es•t ,irrony, Thank you. Go ahead, DAVENPORT, The problems on Little Bitll Mountain go back a longs ways, I've • boom on the l\IPO a long time and oven before I was on it one of the first reports that came out of the NPO said that Little 3ul1, Mountain was an area in Tigard that was worth saving, In fact that was the main thrust of their thing and they cited the trees and tla��y other asset of Little aull Mountain and. When tho Comprehensive Plan wa; rut into affect it was zoned single family TRANSCRIPT S. R as 17/PD BB—04/V 83µ 27 SCHUET (DoWant er) P rr, t ta a4a ° r i r' unit with this ' in mind, our1 ptr'txsc?nt: pr'obll ns on Little Bull Mountain scorn to bo the dir oct result of City Council planning on account of Westwk,od, I think • thiat:s when it cot: dumped on us. The I\PO has dorm dono aiot, of talking about Little 3ul1 Mountain over L7c yor ^: and considered and tla ray been c th or proposals . I . . for Cleve lohymont s up 'there and ono of the main concerns is tha road system, because e i.h erc noo ls to be t unified plan that wx21 take into account and not � the 1 this plan Y � � �, _! andlock the, laroporrty adjacent as t;ha,s plan �is c, oInc to cSc for scarnca of 'tho 1 •\K •S N 1 r/ ' \ important 1nNN area, And also, to give to two access, and I, think that is really impot'`l.ant `I. because you have an area up th ai'L of heavy fir trees, a timbored aroa, You et na forest firo (.t ) there raging, you've got one actors, you get: a •tnea across the 'aCt:c•?ss, you've got threo hundred and scame people i I there. Sumo of • 0 them may r q ui r x wtoo l chairs and tll1gs I How are you going to got t iey out, Ar a you going r t I �t l Y C 7 r N o people burning uL With one access i road out through thrar'i , If your had a Wrap 1 would like to ;show you .the problem with t.ht roads too, Is throrvo a map that shows the whoio area, have you got 01,1e r MOE111, Flo has a kind of a small scaled ono, I 'think, ha does, DAVENPORT, Okay, This is t:ho property right hero that i$ going to be developed ped anti this is going to be landlocked, This pi,occ hore will harrc no , 61t.CO$S, MOE111, Oi ho(r, than, can that one go out to P;aci,fi,c. Highway? DAVENPORT, No, this is very stoop all along hero and they won't lot anything o to Pacific Highway, When th y tailcorrl about developing hcforc they talked ;aboutt,, road that would coma clown and dump onto Naevo Road, down hero through 'Lhho:o } rvoper1'tri.os, which iS ror71l.y logical, because 109th, this way is very steep :std dead onds ups hero and t:hcrro is no way that r utrimer4 field Warrtws, all all this traffic from all th eso lapart:msnt s and trhi,ncv dumping into hutma5etrvt~i.ralr , So they are very violently opposed to anything coming passed this dad end mere acid coming down this way, So you've go all t his othcr l roport y that you harm to worry about boi,nj 1anci1ock d by this uiov 1oprntnt, if you allow it. Also, they is all treed, this whole area is heavily forested u hare, : live c rrsr~" hero, this is huavri1y forested d in hero. The whole area has a lot of trees, this is all forrvosted, This is brush and trees in htilAr TRANSCRIPT IP,T SDl 88-17/PD 08-04/V 8e-27 SCHULTZ (hc+I ant er) Page 14 \ —/ . ' and forest east in hor o, "That, was one of the main ti::+„ncorns of the NPO bc 'Poi c , i hats criQ of the reason why the 11110 says there should be a unified plan before anything is a1.1cwad ors, to develop, The traffic count, X wont over choir ' • traffic thing too , dowry at City Ha1.1, and I was appalled at the superficial I report that they gave on 'trr'aff'c counts, Certainly was not coil p .c t , the City • did not even 11 know how itany units dumped into :109th that went; down 'onto , Canterbury, but they c:ticl look it up for me, After I called in this aft::arritacn they had it. You have the 1, 0 units in this development, you have 75 units in Canterbury Woods, you have 76 units West something Pry West ono, or two or 1 • • something, 74 units in another ono, Anyway its adds up to 850 units th<at l ira going to be going out of the st root, 1C) t:h, that dumps :r,ryto this vt.ry steep thing 'onto Canterbury Lane, Also out onto Pacific Highway there t where` th erg is no light and its already hard, today I dr osro <<tl;, t:haaro, and its afro dy hard to get out onto Pacific Highway, If you count scwvaii cars, or seven trips a ' • day, which I: think is what tIi y count, you've got 2,520 trips coming out that ' I 1 Y Y and that H a Pk� � n road, from thaw: things, and that. scw�;ms Iik an awful ;lot: of traffic for that IittlA street to hold and X don't know if tha't:, moots r cc,luir ern,amts or not 1 b cause I'm it;at; a 'traffic t cj noer export, Another problem am is tho storm m 1, . sewers , ••roc:Iray when X looked at the plans, they said they wore going;�rtg to " collect all the storm sower,r , you see there are no storm sewers on t i,'ht ic% Bul1, Mountain, We pay sewage, storm wirier rates es but wa don't have any storm sower'', . which is a very sore lacy;int, with some of the people op there, Anyway thlt y wore 1 going to collect it all in a pipe that came off here and tjcd,ng to have a 11, tli:1. blacktop area running into o or E pipe h ora and then it will discharge down ` thao hi,1,1, this way, Wol.l tNhmt< looks just find, but when Canterbury Woods tr,ras,: ;li developed, :r live crown below Canterbury Woods and the City didn't do any planning theta about storm sowers and they just about washed me, ► f f the hill, I had water in My living room, wator running around any house, that just came down th torrents, So I threatened to sue the City, so the r.ngineor, and now he's no icr'oerM with you he's loft, but anyway ha tal,kad to the fellow,and so he wont and put and pip es in and runs it ovelA to the road, it comes down 1 100th. Well its dug 4 ditch now ghats about this 'deop along side the road and th ats finch right thk r'a because its confirand in this canyon, but when it r oet on ,down the road, why it spreads out all over the highway and w sht s all the V gravel off' of the a treeh down into S unmaehreJd every time it rains, which isn' t so good, And I think that if c cu let t th in do it with the storm sewer TRANSCRIPT ,'"ir`I R 00-17/PD 80-04/V 00-27 SCHUET2 (Degantr r) Page '1 7 . r • there, what going to happen is tFitt they will erode the trees and you will r 1 rarobab�.y dostroy more trees, 1110w when the man cartio to «hto NPO and we «aikt :1 about saving trees aaitt:l , tht:1rtg s, WQ E sm ct him about those : e s, that they look f ' like they are going to save, This i$ a very pretty map and it looks like they 1 arc going to sat tho try os. but he, admitted that when you build a building ,w and th titYlo . ' fir N hero i 1. t dig, , , ;i� ��a big fi;>.� t�► �c. a�cl you !t�ttt� �to ci��, c.�►��t�� and ', , , , . �that your� � , v, really not gUi,rtg, to :rave tf'tose troc..s, iaoc.<xuso wo saw it happen in CartterNbt,rr;u' Woods, wcy�� s�;ax�., it �h�`a{ap ;n down at Aik)c�r t;�Qli , and w�. are convinced d that you r don't save treos what you have a development Like that, 1 think that the' thingi might be best just to cloar cut the thole thing If your going to htrauc the development, be c.t uso :I don't think y our going to , avo the trees and what: • happens when you �ra±� ino th em i s t hat you have a hazard nd Canterbury Woods had one down :nomobody's neck in tthG Iast storm. I guess they had two of them destroyed part of tho condominiums up t1t ro, J) cx►atust they had boon damaged , ,. - • . when they whore doing their excavation The 1t,...P{art ass of the parking,j, that your brought fhtt (.rty,' makes it obvious that this area is really not su :t irrl to tlt.i, ^ j type of development <artyway, Sep? if I'vo got anything c,lso hero,, Wt 'vr got 1, the landlocked raarN'c els, the str•ccat traffic probloms,, the forest Piro problem, i' . if you got fire e o p 4 h o o and you J t your people trapped i, t L o t , tto storm Y ,'. 'sewer problem and the overall probloms artcl .t..htor oforo NPO 6 strongly objects , any type of dovolop of this or any other thing, no matter how nice e hta.s one k;. ' might look, until, there is a unified plan Little Btul,l. Mountain, ' H, , MOEnl, Question, Did you have, did NPO t have a chance t6 ttko a vote on this i ,,., r3AV5:i\lpoi «r', Th��c y c! .dn't vote on it because there was no Actual thing, but hratr�a i•t1= r�r�'°r�z1 w th Phil today, h called m , anti wo conferred with the other ,. i people and I think that they have a unanimous feeling, the fooling of the NPO n was unanimous at the time that this was, , MOr';a\t, Thats a consensus Okay, thank you CASTILE:, What would you recommend? What would you like to see in this r.5rcofac rty, .. TRANSCRIPT $DR a 084-04/V iU l 4 r ! d m , A DAVENPORT, I would 1..iko to see the Planning Commission postpone any 1 development on Little Bull Mountain until they have a unified plan that: going to address the problems up thaor^o, I think that you have serious problems and • I think that thte whole thing hoods to be addressed before you go ahead wi,tha any kind of cis valolanak;rit, :C think II raat Tigard ha$ alroady, sort of gono ahead without adequato thinking and ] Link that the ti,mo has cothe when, roaIly we ' I7t!t d to look at wi'lats going on I ri, b causo wo h v ?n got very many more ' things left to save o ? ar are v e in the way of livability hero and : think that to mako Tigard ard a r oa11y terrific Tarr Ka that we had b tttapr; start takinc. i.ratr1 . Consi.dorrati.ora th oso things, CASTILE, So what would you ar o asp,r. f t•r property? � , r a , i � « ! 1 DAVENPORT, What would I propose for the ; r•opt rty"? That this Mort 'postpone until we • '„. CASTILE, Yc aha, but what would you like to see on the property? . •1 fir • DAVENPORT, Well, I think the or';Ggirrtal, Comprohonsive Plata that had this ,. pr'ct:)ert..y as sItic,(i .a family, I think it was zoned 4,h, was actually a very .good idea, haowovor,, :I know that it has boon r ozorrccl, and I realizo that you have those se p,)rOi;a1,taIYas, but you have to grant vari,aaraco before or e you can go ahead w':ttha this development anyway, and 'I think thi4 is ai good Limo to sit hack and toakc h _ as :,t►k,it and consider that maybe you should look for .,a playa Por, the wholo area � 17!rc)rE anything is dor10 up than ro, Does Caat answer your question? . CASTILE, Y08. DAVENPORT, Okay, thank you, MOEN, Thank your With that t o sti.mc,ril on the, from the I11PQ, I 'would like to" movo onto the public portion of the testimony, Wu have those signed up, both in favor and opposed, I would ii.ko to make the comment that I recognize orau ° of the partIus that s;i,t stud up as an opponent, hwdna Anraaancl, who is a pursorr,al acquaintance of Ise:ne, but : don't feel. that will offo ct my j uci ument in this mati,orr,r so I plan on voting and not disqualifying myself , Soy in ,other words I 1 ' don't see any conflict of interest, b v TRANSCRIPT 8DR 00-17/PD 88-04/V 88.27 SCHULT (1 uI4antor) Paco '1 7 it • 1 / 0 •' E DN{A Al\MNlnl\IG1, ;aiatrne 'lore, • MOEI\I, Okay ''' i^:t I want to move onto those in favor of the item and eSit�t.fsil me for my pronunciation, I' ll try to do th ► hest that I can The first one signed r i s a: •r� tkrt� it .t�;at�i � :} is, is S. ( .y.t rt�.t'I U( � Its pronounced to Peastrak and I'm the broker representing the owners of the , `I . y , ' ,, here answer •1 ! to far from ii1i property�t:y a.lnil >>r to just Ilt ► c to arl�w�.l any questions. MgG::i\i, Okay, very good, thank you, Let gee Brad Schtl.r iIniitg, • • SCFlLEII\lIl\iG, MOENI, I'm sorry, you've already had, do you want to add anything more? r 1 S(.rHLE.l»i\I.I,.I\IG, No, I will or rebuttal,. MOEI\I, Okay, I've go l Roger Ranch, • Rauch : , • MOG",I\I, Rauch, I'm not doing vor"y well tonight, • My name is ROGER I AUCH, I'm a broker, Portland, Rauch, Piestr &k, Inc, „ Illy • partner and : t'�eplr o scalntod the Schl,c.!tz in th sale cr P the land, We also have been n fatlti1:ia►r with GBH Companies s t''olr 15 y:aI'$ , , , , end of tape. —, , askrld us p'1 ' to rn rNkeL the pi^tapolr'Lty .`+,rlr d v !1opr11r�1�tt;. th h �d many e l,'Lc:±tr�mi,Y,,4� a 'lo what:. • ,1 developers and how to marizet the property, At the time, as tin sure you have had Many rat c;It;rest here for develop projects, wo had quite an awry of developers to offer the property to We as brokers and in conjunction with', the Schuetz' elected to go with a local developer, rather than to go with a Now Mexico developer, Graiit'o►rrlt:a developer, that type of thing, because the Schuet.z's and ' , I the broker recognized it was a very sensitive parcel of ground for a development, And we took it to the Harris 'Companies because ho is TRANSCRIPT SOR 08-0/PD SCHUETZ (BoXanter) Page (if;, `'. , AI S I. I C5 I r ti!r luIr"onmerltai1.t conscious J He lives here, he' a<s been o'c� r r ti+; I 1 for is and �, G,�Lrta,.r.a niy comment t"t;11 t;l1t�. f71 t.1j'l�l,+t+ is that it �.� rx local developer, Ho's , ,,' put a lott, of time and a lot of money into working; w,ithi the problems that are u here on this site and 1 +Irh,+ink that should be cost: :r.clor ed, Thank you . m0EN, OCcy Thank you, Okay, " 4a t "» aal c; cs those signed up t favor of - . the project, now wc , triovo onto the opposition and with start, with Edna Armand. :: __-L.. Whom I S:i+cjrriod up, I didn't know if wo were opposed to th property or not, . just t:.o got ttha rrre on ttho list, pl':Itl, kay; or,rl.c,f you identify youri>olf for the record and your address, I'm ED111f1 Ai\l1`JANt), and for tho record I'm using my in—laws for the . orr°d s that wh otrorrar testimony is passed onto them, 14600 SW Pacific Highway, ,which is the property that I ,101„(1d dike to talk about, From talking to the staP previously 1 ncatacoc,t tth a all theta things aro wr• itlrtra ri without anybody toeing the property, So ;1a would liko to introduce you to the (1nnand land, property. , Which :1s the b1.(Jro in color, \ .. MOEf11, Oh the map that .I was looking ing% for thank you. AN11IA11f1:), ' os, J r r , , J knew what ;t; was going to talk about, no , , laughter . 1 ; , , Okay,, Its important that I :tr1Lrr()CIuco you to tho Land bec< c;rs a there i no mention of it In the : ttaa f report,, T1Jlca staff report rococjriiz +;t7 the / i+rir) .a Y 1 / 1 i N ! J the li 1 1 Y i.A r P nr:ir:l.y dwelling to the south, it down; not roc:�rjrr izcw th si.rr�xc family dwelling I, a fir, the north and would like w ��» �rri you�t,r ttc treat this .3 abutting single family residence, this develoI;NY!r: nt"i This dtv�, 1oI n1C n :h$ next C:Ioor"r to what has ■ boon f4 E t;Uro�;l in aunsot rn&gaziri+; and Sunset book; and the �>a��hxoml i that this nl � Armand property ras, boon developwd, tailored to the t aas around it. . CA PLANNING h�1 J l G fi+M�� � SECRETARY, N � � �� r � � l 1 a a�� for r t h E � w� c ti r .} , ; 1N N Oh sure, Ih,ri is J ust rn e article that t oo ix r for you r,y y t Y did hot think trha,, you whore aware of the piece of property,rty, It was built in the thirties, so its they have boo their a: l s , about � i ry TRANSCRIPT If"P' t+wDl 88-17/PD 88T°41" 80-27 " rSCfIUE"i.lZ (0wl<r nt err) Page 19 r A Q • ..t _ _ .,it i- r —....c4: ,r_ . .i i .,.a. -a.... - ..... J1li..i......, .-._>..».,. i i. r A• most of :1/io 1;ic oplo who go up and clown Pacific Highway do not recognize rai,zc it. '.t is very nicely hidden, And Mr" , Castile, you asked what Mrs, Davenport wot,rid . propose, Talking off the top of my head I would like co' soe something like . Tour of i 1•eganco maybe there, f9warauso that woulJ take a fc w house and little p1' co' of land, I don't 1<rtow, It 'wouldn't be as thick of density, This t�� I; a very r nico house, well landscaped, and right now this dovelopnoit i$ going if f ait � tho corner of the apartments will a� La �a�� from tho a porty line ' • . ' to this house, And what you see in thro picture is what exist st that re, And thatl. . is whhat the people from t4°ao apartments will so o. That house. Okay. I don't . • . 1 I 'know what kind of pQcrpio will be in tho apartrnon•1 , But t would like to seo six foot neigh minimum cycl,ono fence so that you don't have strangers wandering 1 • ' into your private property. And �i,ts, very important, 1ao'caune that, this house , : r • I5 what other pooplo would consider an attractive nui a�tct, There is a pool ' , tho re but you cart't LiS0 the pool now ba,cat.i:c, the city says you must have a . ftorrco around he pool, it its a nice empty thing tic r&, vory beautiful, its n riot: tic rsy chic ttp1 "1"hor�t�± i$ �a very nice pond that: on t�hr a side, but u4 r�,y nice gold l i i sha i ii there.l Arid Mrs . Armand is talking about covering up with dint,' and I say no, b C LI$0 ;Lc*: is nice and its, tIi&'ts what its landscaped for and you can't 8top doing,iii , you know, to protect yourself from the liabilities of ntwrangor s coming into your property. So I am not against the c1+: iio11oprtrent, I ' know that J cannot I 1 Tigard. Y• � . know t,h at we carrrnat;. s;top development iii 1 ec auso they do` have the money, they' ll go to City Council, they'll override whatever you decide, I am realistic, I 'm just trying to protect this property ticwg•L door, and 'tryi.rng, to be realistic, saying there c must be some things s that, you CAM do to safe guard a I single family house next to 130 units,s, Okay , For many y i:ar s they have boon , ti ry lucky to htatrc the privacy, but, going black to the zoning, I woUld liko to ,. talk bout: something that happened last year; And on this thing it teal about Planning Commission mooting March 3r'cl, 1907, Okay, And we're talking / about: site r"A"' , If you look at : t o "A", trhi.$ 1 whrarr" the zoning was changed, ,yV'G4‘ Y n n according to your records s fr'otn 4,5 urli,t s per acre 1 c 7 units per acre., Mot I don't know where from this record, March 3rd, 1987,, to your record, April, the . following month, how the rlem ty� changes frc.lm �7 to 12 and he owners where not rlot�i filoci of htc� cFr art u + , y"swt i�riow, rYtay o to iJ r i corr�pl.o o ly ou : o1 t ••r u t i ri, I: c;on't: know wh r� w it;,' with, with omothi n 1 ikwa t~h i s 1'`r-u know TRANSCRIPT S R 80-17/PD 80-04/V 00-27 7 CHt 1 Z (DoKa rt o r ) Pa g e 2 0 ,, 'r A • __ �' w i. I. y .. r t 4 ,t P • MOl:;:l\l, maybe I can, let me ask staff, I remember somewhat this, the, its hard to forgot that meeting. ANNA tD, I'm sorry I wasn't around, h 1 MC71 111, Well, my recollection was, at the time that the City w as, or actually I thie Planning Commission was asked to pick the least r«s1 c. f a multiple rt ,�►ti� of i . evils, Wh ih really translated trc into taking density that would have been on the property that Aihertsons' i$ now built: on and transferring it `am OP 1.aCc irl`-1 I th0. City. Arco It s0.0M to t71t! fairly (...a,r ty cm, Gitic t think Commissioner Peterson may have been a ri ar{t of that, Or was that • 1 L I l„htSg11! Ye<aha. •• M0E111, Made the ;ut fie;aasti.ora, that given th a options that (we hi.ld tha`l, it r+rr:arl • , the most s :ir)so to put t;1i;'• density al.ong P&c:if IIi♦jhwrxy in touiE.! ?orcn, Now 1 , . don't know hGw it charag �i d f�i oitt the c �,�i ji,ntat concept�o f R•,�.7. wh.icch�; is What .can o- , the, whaich, was the original plrxri when it was brought before ours group, to � , R-12, rn not sore. It may have boon discussed at that mee r�,n Because a, it was, public notice was given in terms jai", that the tissue was open, Al!Ji\1Al\b, wl"hi<at it would be R-7, . MOI\t, Well that they issue was open for, discussion, some wa made a recommendation,: and : don't ri't remember, off hard whether r 'it�was for l •7 or R-12, but that we dial is we recommended to city Council, Well basic iI t :, ' they came (:10W11 and asked us to lout: tho density somewhere,, and we said, won. this is where we think it ought to be, and it went back to Council and that may have boon whore i this happened,c~ but : ' : • ., . • , 1µ,D 111, The way that I y emt:mbor it R-7 m4ls originally proposed and that may , ,y have been what was advertised and I know somewhere e througjh the hear,irag s, L - ' either at Planning Commission, you folks, bayed on the testimony, recommended eni~ded R.1,-12, can'�'t remember, I. n . � h'IOl:.lil, I t„�,ara. ,1. 1 TRANSCRIPT ;DR' 80-17/PD C 8-04/V 00-27 CCHUEIZ (Dekantt+ar) Page 21 . ,i 4 / .. Ire .. . n FN, , . w went t City Council at wry, Or you recommended R-7 and at , th o hat ar'in s of City y Counci,l it was amor7cic!ci to R-12. I don't remember whaer , ;, , , originally contemplated, or surjccjost<ac,l that , - ,, ;I,1 fact ,� <:�t�11 ! (z,171e�1911,)t�i that� �6t< was UI,,L� d y� ( � ., . R-7 would b< the possible zoning, ,t'ust, with looking at all the different fearent . . sites and what might bo possw kale it was doc i.dod either hero and City Council . or just a� City Council: tx� : �� a1 • would ��. ti r» t � r Mr,n h .� '� �MUI�t�I, i�is you � o�a 1,1. X11 w �( c�fi.c..1 ,a o r17 PETERSON, No, I remember r° t poc i f i,c';Ra11.y talking about this property but I dcti not remember r what, if we 'c;lor:irie+c:l 7 on 12 ,� POCo, Well, knowing are normal bort, ww would hGio probably have I would ' think, loaned toward :tta(0rr0 but. d d PETERSON, What a1e a w X eTQYJe" that there w s f 7 c c i i c talk k o f this i s property, of this parcel, . ' Ai\I\IAt\ll"t, Sec :i: don't know wi'tat s legal or neat, you know, when wee i o talking about di s i,t.y w $0 'tfii*is something for you :i dust threw' it 'out for your ' . purposes, Whore you go from th oroc :1,;3 not my concern right how, . ^ , MOI N�'� Well, can't, can't' answer your (t,ft�$t;lon, T gue!s:3,' to h),o honest with . ,. you, 1 trw momlt,or discussing it, but. .qty rn mop"y isn't that could how it might„ have scat changed Paco 7 to �12, Thore may be a problem thror°o, and. there aie'v,y .'! may not. be since wea had a subsequent mooting for the City Council As 'th L .. .. /, well y final deci,s;ion and deponding on how that WAS put forth, you know, w 'just make • a recommendation anc;l t hxcwy go with, or toll us whore to jump off, 80. { RO8i:Ol OUCH, Keith is this the last paragraph in the background irtfo r„►mrat .on, talking about the rodesignation approJocl by City Council in April, last year, , r�?f 1i Y c f t r AN NAND, Ycah, the.is a month later, so there WAS) you 1kr5ow, ,.WW TRANSCRIPT IPT ���$l t� 88-17/P0 X 8-04/V 88-27 CHUM �Z (Do Kantor) Page 22' r , e + 4 i 0 ' • 11111111111"1111111111111111.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IF: • (/ RosBo.tcDUGI."l, "l'•h►at:s, that looks III< its going right there to the : 2 right there from the 4,S, f1llih , Right, but I c :dn h know where, how that came into being, 1 ecausG• the only " H that" received s the R— and so as •� understand, yr u'' a►�:�y r»t.:h��e ��•�<��. w�� �z�i�� if .Y�� don't &tt rid those mo !t;f,ngs, ' yot.t don't got ahy notice what $o o r, MOEN,, Wo.►.l you do have notice la rat;s its, that the d u.r 1 s y.ty .i•s s uo is up for discussion, Allll\lAND, Yes, but as a land 0(0errY personally, t understand what y ou a o saying, I can't oal1y an;war that, Other than rtLa .o is a,.wayt a problem,aalem, a$ you know, , . ANN AND, Y :I do, MOEN, L. me ask one qu.stion on h,l.$, you`uo got:, kind of a nice map on this 1 N ry,•� s rM:� ;a` ri I I «1 1 •1/ here the (� I •Y", w far il, 1 and north L.17, ��.� pretty �r1,��r► �,� r1�,t•.�►�r..�at:z��;l on 1`yi�r �. and t.l�� l�"t,rs<a is show, l"•1� f � is the property. lino Prom, : guoss the best thing to ask, is from thc corner of the r , , , , souoral talking , , , , Y . UNKNOWN, 25 foot, MOEN, To thto property line to the south, UNKNOWN, The original property line, t:h on we added !4SO ,foot: and Y i,; Y strip 50 foot wido, So Wo htavo about "/,.y,l Poet, MOEN, Okay. 80 your, now 75 foot, and, and guess that includes s thfi se trr o that are shown her, and sip on w + 1 M 1 •I I{ N K , I ` rr you 4 1 PETERSON, ��;xu,u► +� me, �, ►�r ;�; r►�� confused l��► �.• on , t„lyt���� ►►��a that v, at o r.► r i r r map � � TRANSCRIPT 1 SCRIPT S O ea-17/PD 80-04€/V 08-27 CHUt 1 Z l: of{saritr r) Pa, o • • Whte+rc the Allll\IAl\UD Tho map that i8 cul ,trred is blue, the section that is colored in blue, • • is that Armand property. And $0C-.1 tl7t'„y have been very fortunate to have • secluded spot, because on the corner its marked cemoti r,y. and they have no • problems with those neighbors, and the south has been rt undovelop d so there has , boon, its boon very nice to have nature there, The bask, they do have art P II• � strip. ! i �J 1 I ' Y empty vacant 1 mean Up abutting 109th, its not developed, and its quite A distance 'before you hit Canterbury apar trek nts I So, , , . , r , , contrary y to staff roporrt, the north part, of the property is not adjacent, the "north part a one lot, and single family residence, Okay, my concern, with th o ed c I r r m of the building ntg hexing 1 from S rom the pr'•opor{tty 1iiie, if th o r{o is anYwaY, z _~ know ''that tho developer' wot.tic1 have to go i;auyonci, tho contractor would have to '10 iaoyoiid that, closer to they property line to get the footings into the buildings, and they trues that are on the Armand property,ty, tho e sPr !a d, they 0,1'0 very ()id, Mere sprre„ad is wide. And hasrinr.:1 talked to a landscalac.,r, he suggested that ►itaybo you would consider, the developer not bulldozing underi any drip l ine, And I said, woll this I s not tho Annand property, b c usc the , branches coo boys red their property, but he said maybe just as a r ctue set, f;>ecauso whorl you Jo beyond the drip line, atig a of this branches, your also going to curt thte roots, And the coriccarn here is the liability, for exa np1;o, Mrs. 1:avontaort t&ikod about somo trees Pa1l,i.no to some units . And I don't Want thorn to k)! liable for tthio trocas Palling into anything, Bec ausc! it would bo, not as a result of their action, but as a r{osuit of somebody's action, but when th t s o trees start to fall, t ioy aro old trees, they a o vary big and Q �! `r heavy tr't-�s, And ;I do not what tti Armand to be 7.i.ablo for anything that happens there,, `;o, ift don't know, if thats a conditions that can be reac;uost,ed, it would be very nice.1 I'm also COrlcor`nead about this sower line r aI , going r r. ! � �. ti � J�! I { . thins c{o ngg to r,;J0 to the bottom o Pacific Highway, Illow the reason why, �ltts all loft therl•Io is haoeauso its all undt yr lropi.biu l The soil conditions are o ver ► it ?stitnaklo t1� "� i�t ” years �y husband use �o talk about when the y built tho driveway ua to tha o hotsti, they h a>'c to ho af«i { ovary storm and start r picking up tho rocks and putting it bock. DOCAuse`, it..$ called, what he calls junk r+rock. You know, As ttht water comes down, so co the rocks, and so does evetryth:irntt else, So Mrs, Annand took it upon herself and started planting all of the ivy to hold the rock down, and basically that 'clogs holly, and thin she • TRANSCRIPT NS l wCPT 8 DR 80-17/PO 8 O4/V, 80-27 SCHUETZ (DeKariter) Page 24 • 1 ( , . • - , TV ieai°at t'1roe.trjh and s waart od ;yarning laces and theso k ind of things, 80 on • account of tbh€ro effort,or't, thtat part of the street, close to Pacific Irii. hwaay has boon Itopt very stable. Wheaii your start to excavate . for a sower, line, I don' know what will happen, and I don't know whet thca aiterr tIveas are, But : don't want to soe that hill comp dowry on Pacific Hig hu4y, ��cats G as you .0 loo so tho rocks, your going to loose the trees, your going to ;loos d . everything, it is steep, Okay And thaer'o is a rce;;u st I)y staff about the drainage, instead of ono p,i )o, maybe spreading it out I would like to se some kind of recommendation there, And thca only other thing that I could adri, is, X don't know what kIhd of saafo gum; cl thore will bo in thin hot weather, aartcl' �;f there You know,ae±c�t.I,c. e,I�a come ; y � I I I � , � w thaats on •coilSidorat;Lor for you to think about, With 130 units, And thats my thing] MOEN, Okay, Commissiorizr'l, au y e;;t.trastIi:,is? Okay, v ry good. Thank you Okay, is it Ray Isamtrrerty, Close. RAY HIAMMli RL?, 14807 8W 109th, I'm a property owner in threw towrahiot,tsea, • that is in the se ction immediately to the south of Murdock Street,, whero the entrance is pr'otactitaeacl, :t: have thrta :,atit4,a concerns that most of the people who htaatoe`a spoken •0 MOEN, Quick c uo;st:i,ort, just for my clarification, looking at this map,. would that I;)u in this area here. HIAMMERIK,Y, Yes, right— "I`h a.ro are two townhouses in that area whore your ;pe r1 is. MCH;,N, Okay, Thank nk y u HAMMERLY, The concerns r n that ;X kraut' ar o the same a$ most of thm po pi o who o ttat,i4 spoke r . The mason :I came tonight, specifically was for the request for thaea variance of tho (.xCGwO$S, tho ra(rrvowrays, Afro ady' its a tray high density area with Panorama .I, II, Calway, Ca.1way Hills, i$ that right? Caratorbur1, • Woods and Canterbury Apartments on the oorrik r of 109th and Caat t4 rbury, which also by the w ay does food i r10 100th very tticse to Canterbury Lone. Its a dicy place., do tho ACCO$y Of 184 units,, aat least 130 !'rat`s is somewhat of za TRANOCRIPT S R 08-17/PI7 88-04/V 88.27 sctiui;.'"rz (D0i(ar"t err Page ,.h d r . I LTA r H t ' 1 in�Iuro�t: c�r7 rt r�tymind, :� ot,h� r people have mentioned, the concern r~r otrer . the destruction of the tr oes is question, not bociauso of what we have heard A tonight, bua,: aecaui;e of what always w��e�rsr;' to Ii ppen, And as Ckd fe arar��:f, • country loving people we would ii:k ! to think� that our governmerft; servos ,us,, ' but many ti met tIi'i government and thac: local p ooisl.e are ki,racI of taken for a , ''tki, ride The Aii ertsons` thing is only the Latest thing, where they knew that - those trees whore going to go down. I cannot help but 'fool when you dig down five , A roots big old trees going j . �;r,uc. t six feet and t�t.rt, o$"� r uotfs that t.I�ose ,� ,, � ,; �t•c:. ca is�t �•�1 x have no objection to the development as such, I do want a little protection from that and also the incursion into property, I don't r oc 11 tireirc, . c anything g rabourt fencing around, around the perimeter or whore it abuts . d v iopod property. X would think that it would be vory appt,4olDriato to have , ■ . i ti's If �. � � f 1 rl H .1.. . P• tf, f' rf , eastern :.l 1 1 w fencing along the r..�ast;er"r3 l�+~ar cl�.r where �,t,: abuts t„IrF..� townhouses wl�c..r �. I live, :t don't secs any ait(. rrtatities for, for a second cir'ivoway site and :' don' t know how that could possibly be resolved without the acqW.sition of acicliti,oral. _ pr�olaer•ty anad tar^obat,>>l,y thir x i r�ovement of :I,Cy9th, south of the ctead oncl, c 0 , wbarteOrlta iit adc the COryt1 tat that the Ding City people wouldn't stand 'Poirf that, ,; - well,, :t Guess tho King City, or the SummerwfI aid people .rather, carry more ' weight that the people on ;iO9th, whore it is improved, Uh, but we don't ° al ly 1t <c that either, But if there is going to h e that t amount of t of ic, /' I think only from the standpoint of practicality :h a t a sec a tr access is rite ad d to that property. And if you have any questions I' ll be happy to answer thorn. , o k �. ,, MOEINI, Commissioners, any questions right now? Okay, Thank you, Jack Fore11, i I'm JACK FO1 i,;,LL, X awry and w6l s the developer of the four townhouso units artri �P , still am part owner c���' two at :i.�t8;itti and l.�r817 SW 109th, Then we aetiui;r��=!ci thew' property er'ty t;:hyr; property was ronod for a four unit, like fur pl,os , and we got a minor, I guess not <a minor, we got a subdivision beaus y It was four, hoc use ,.a it was divided into four units with "O" lot line. we built: thre two buildings, teparato title to the, to each o.f the four units, Two of them where sold, ono _—) to Mr. Hamrnetrll.y, and tho remain, the building to the south has two units in , . it, I and a partner continue to own and rant a rental units, I again, i.rtuoiu;ed real estates, real estate 1orrci.ing, and development, so that I'm not ,,, saying that you can stop devellopment. and I'm not opposing ng ome development in • Y there, however, at the time that 1,0J developed that` that ' was t TRANSCRIPT SC.rR 08-17/P0 88-04'/V 00-27 SCHU 'l Z (bel anter) Page 26 , n o. • . f. zoned, as you know, for R-4 J 5 and we anticipated,cip tei;d, if :i t where developed, it would be as single family units. But and the, the property st:at;:elrterr't. in thk.. report on unit three,,1 I mean ir3 item :three, vicinity information, is also riot correct All Mr. Hammor1y points out is that there aro, units to the, there are r four units to the east� that are not multi—family. I don't consider a dangly owned townhouses i`tan multi—family, although thats a that gray area, I guess you , could argue the iaoirtt, But I think that s "backs, retention of trees, the traffic concerns, and i fence our rni lYlswlJ.rt issues, I've seen al lot #1 properties whore you've looked into the back yards of apartment and they ,', become, tar k •come a very tnsilhtly place, The property ow iM and tenants >> that we rent to pay iat pretty high rent and we try to maintain those properties well, And so I think that some form of fencing or screening that would . separate the properties would be beneficial, • MOGi:1Nl, Any questions? Okay, thank you, It looks like J'orn Petersen, Aye!, jORN PETERSON,RSONNI, 10I 10 SW Rent Place,e, "1"i ;alrsal, I ot 1 adjoining property to .` „.-,' t te7 proposed development trte;l I want to congratulate CBH Por proposing ing wh t f looks like a first class multi—family development here in Tigard. , My questions 'are not directed to the developer, more to the City artci the Planning ' Commission. In the past there has been proposers do v lopmc nts in „Lit;tlr Bull Mountain and at that time the concern was the overall benefit to the property , owners Arid to the City', :I do teas that if 109th could �be completed down to King City, if sewer can be brought along from Canterbury, south, that would ' remove any objection that I ,have to this development. M0EIii Could ask jai quick question, �» ., , �. '�, 1 J ..� Where is your )l"'o p `r c ti d? 1 PETERSON, "a lot t � I c � �� You've got map? A 'ti 4 ' M 1 Yt 7.3, 'These,r e L 4r S a~ L t a hero e � Okay t • sa E S l, Okay, MO lll, Very good, 1 just, a frame of referents helps me, ...c\); 1 TRANSCRIPT sDR 88-17/PD 80-04/V 88--27 SCHUETZ (l e k utter) Page 27 �. ..� ... ,� :.w. s .. .. ... „, ,,. ,,, _, ,_ _,, ...,i i......__a.. >- _ ._ ., .... d_.N .. .w ,.r_+d1,..Ham.Y„y'....a . ..F •,...k ,.., I M..-' . PETERSON, Again, once again I would li o to mention that there was some . , question as to how this came to be zoned 12 units ja r acrt rather than 7, I ; ” it attended •t;iia"h meeting and it WAS lively da•tct.r;tior7, 1 think you will find that if thi.S property was zcii;;ci 7 units per acre you would t have to romove every . bred on it to rlotrcl•op it, or as tome people IsrePc r^ it would be economically unfeasible to dovelop it, Like Marge i < vortl;aorrt I'd like to go back to the rA " rA 5 which � c.r.a Professional.�l a ,�� that .X: had on my l.ar cw�y�.r�. ,�, � was C�.lryl�i�:.r � 1.� f�l��:�•i"�:.�.y ° 1!, � , � . So if we can take stop back I would be cioiicht d to do that. Loo, , . . laughter i tiOElli, Than k you sir''', "rhat c.onc1ud 0$ t:f1Ws 0 s:tgilled ups to $p ak in oppo8ition, r •. . 1 gt,r0,ss � w0uiri gi.tro the d err&1opo.r. a f aw morilcar1ts if ho wot,r1d l.i.l«. to i:dcirc ss sori oft the c�c,��i�c +m s rri::1i„seta and (�aat,rso) well : would ast< your to limit ' yy � 1 points I N! i 1 i• N ! � yours' :if� s�la( CIfIcrr i .y to .gems points i t” where ra.i.$0d, coiymonts that you , I . would like' to make on thorn, � . A. 1. CARL l l.: ItI A$t , Yet, X have a co0Plo of itoms, then t n : think thi- Engineer ra w a few f morn, One ;l,ssucr camo up st v rai time is traffic,fic, We had traffic report t 'r 17 re f c r rm to by R%t 1.e:a o rl and Attociates, who o c r rAl is c c,ii,l e n t;l.y also duos consulting for t ho City of tlrca;ham, t toy found no problems l,>1.ems with t ho trip goo ar a. i,on from , i. this I i M ; A , N capacity I 'rA 1 '4 this dev'�1o1,ament ox�� li�a lirl�tiy the capat��:r.ty of he stir oo'i:s R t ov n peak hours 1 L and I M trh >,L whore tery Lr1r' 1�lllc ar�,caa, Mr, l.1 i.d n you didn't sore �:trry problems r ,' " •, with thct traffic r+ port, or any recommendations that would have come out of s f LL The Cn in .rinj Division had hone, i a NAS t, raid you praoplt too rho copies of the traffic r eporNt? , A several people talking , t , , I guess your recommend t: � i.on whore put in the staff 1 , • • rropoe,t:, , A , , In terms of some of the po plt � in their i'�u s ii)(t door, , . ! I'm not 4ur o, but t;•h a singlo family ~soul>`!s that oro abutted to the property,by, I don't know if that proport,y is eorred multi—family or not and if it Is 'I don't think buffering is required uinert 'from ono multi—family lot Lo mothor, Is that 1. rr,v 'h t Mr. L id tt r'1 i i I I' TRANSCRIPT S fR, 83 L7/PO 88-04/V 88-2Y SCiUC Z (DcNz rt c ) Page 28 1 o ., . (p : • • S t. f. • 1,x1)1:111, Its plot an automatic requirement of any type, Planning Commission t. could still find that fencing 1 y�y .. 7 4 1 certain ' I thllr of some z� r�L. would b�:• aapyi,.l��e�p�r� �:att~ ur�e;lwr� '` Oir curlIst4Kirl�.es, , haut; its if wo had situation $ si.� r7 wh��r'r it was �4 rtg:le.. family . residential zone there would be som e kind of site obscuring buffer y r eriiHee , , o ,thor vegetation or fence, In this case its not automatically required, however, based d orr the specific circumstances of the site and $o forth it could ;st,lll be applied. NAGS, is just didn't 'know if that was clarified orr, what the Code had cl Ir,o.<:ad on '' A M7t1, k think normally Yally itrw, not, haute, but when we have a hearing and tileres , certain circumstances that seem to warrant it, 1 guess, its at our discretion . thiat we miGgh1t dc: that. Par"ticu'lar'"ly, its orb:l of the reasons that we have , Planned Development, you know Planned Development designation i,y to, Y s to f look at certain special, special ci cumst ace s, for, to allow a little more .ii'1 ;, depth review of those things. . . NAG 1 , Yeah, Oh , I agree w1 th your process totally, i r s a good process. Lana ; Back was a jssut that was brought up, unfortunately private apartment Mouses i , , # the roads are retained as private roads, We'rer riot creating a land locker, , making *ny land locked situation worse and if we were wr would be more than a willing to help elevate th c problems, but �f: don't stye how we're, if there i,s, a „ l ;i.arid locked parcel, or a parcel that has limit ed access, we're not really .. worsening the situatienr The accesses, two access point, I th,inr, ., ,that if we were to have two access points close' together up hero anywhere,, you would make it More of a problem that it is with one, You would have them crossing over, T this i s my idea, The traffic r~pop t that w! had, that wo had didn' t reai i y address s thin problem, We rshouic;i have maybe asked them to look F:at that 1 , i ri auid r' por it, so don't lavai7export opinion on that, but ry, own opinion, 1" 1 1 let t e Engineer s a��k �r the sewer J ira, toi :ru i o r down A the forest, dense forest area to Pacific Highway, I think that was one issue that was s brought i.p, where! i t might erode than soil and the whole hill come falling down and some other problems that, that:, and th ats all 1 have to • ary i TRANSCRIPT C1 It i SDIfl3 1Y/PD 00-04/V 3U—.•21 $CHUE`1Z (t)r~i 6Nanter) Page 29 r\ • • MOEN, Okay, I I 8RAr,) SCHLEINING and I just have a couple of comments, The! first comment that I have was addressing tthre storm drainage situation, The Engineering staff has 7 , identified that detention is not allowed in the City of Tic therefore,re hr �, one point" disposal would not be something that Iwould be designed or built that it would di hoc , a dissipation trench enc;hi most like bu lt no that the run off from the site would not have any, what wo would call,, point, discharge, there woul.c;l be no pipe, a t would 1 a run into G� � rock "i1aec ditch, < k x r h J ow,, and g o down, :•. fare already discussed the siioation of our discharge with the State people ;. t and their only concern was that they don't want additional al run off,. that was the point; with the detention. 1»,et? Gunderson over at the 'St ate had ask that we not impact the State Highway, he other item is hhe situation with the sanitary sower", and stabilization. Contract( s 1<now how to deal with that, The, its not going to a public line .',,.hr : runs crown that hill, it wil;I, be a public lino once it reach Pacific Highway and then turns up and goes to Canterbury, Since it will not be in the public right—of—way, and it will not be a public lino, it gives the contractor a great deal of flexibility on low he 1s go:lfc to construct ttl at, He doesn't have to bring in l%ar ge rrc k hoes and cult a swath through the trees 15 to 20 feet wide, he can bring in smaller equipment, he doesn' t have to putt his sewer linen at incredible d ehs1thls, Hez doesn't hiacrc. to install )rranhol s, he can use smaller clean outs and all those items will help reduce the impact of the sewer lstno running down that a . y M) «1 , ° .w, how raA y trees cx you, as a guess, do you think you have e t:cs'� take . out to do that? 8Cinti«,r (:Itl:(NG, I would guess 15 to 20 trees. T r t s tab guess, We htraven''tt1.o c aat.:`!<.1 any trees beyond what: you s +o in tthQ reap, nrsyttit)icj be i,ow that dense forest it was economically unfeasible for the owner to be paying for that, A question. was i dc;lr eSs about construction within drip lines of trees,ees, uh, generally its, a enert:al, rule of thumb is that the drip .limo of a tree delineates how far the roots go out. You can got into a drip lino a' little hilt, your usually gains roots,° to run into minor r ewt e have tried to keep t..onsfti^t,tc e.i�c;r�t out of ��1n1,� 'drip r. r. � r�' 1 . „ , linos ih the trees that wore to he drip, t,., ; n4, t .� .,, .�ti« '�c.�tw �r r.r�tt�e�n that�was under �hrrr.. i drip lines those trees have been removed from ' • T Ala! c;RtP"1" SOR 00-17/PD 80-04/V 00-27 $CHUf:wTZ (Ic l<; rater) Page 3 • 1 xa ,��. .. I 1 i et- the site. "rhos ar o shown a$ (%gone;.+, W 1 do try t11 leave, when they are y 4 marginal, wt try to 1,e at/G? the t:Lr"4't:� and a Ar'k)oir•:L$t will aa;3:1 t��u$ in seeing t, ' °*•a. we marl develop some I<i.nd of injection fl dings to tho trees, and othor typo% ' of wa•t;(•ry .rig iit cha►It:,sins that will keep the tree alive, "1"hags not always e ` suecee f'U1 and I'm suro thrat everyone he,r•vt as seen <;lev ,lopme nt$ that have , tr:l od to do ti'lat, pretty soon the fir t.rc..c. turns brown t antf its gone, Its ,• • , . either try or cut it up ho fore, tea.thout. trying, Another item that was brought up was putting s;inglo ram i/1•ys i,n hore. The Tour of Elegance was mentioned. , • I'm the r ngi.ne or on t1°lea Tour of (a;1oe,JanCe 1 If you worvwa to taut something in 1.i°k1. a siirl�io family (:ouc 1,ot:mont; i,h hle�r't :t think you would be a11sc)i•ut �iy ro. appalled at the number of tre $ that go out. Tl Tour of Eloganoo this year , �;'a.. we„ probably t 1f lost 75% of trees, You and u1:) putting in a str'oet, a city stirred t, ' 86 foot of pavement, you end up with sidewalk on both sides, then you end ut;a e . with driveways fioK oue y house, which are 20 to 75 foot wide, gip feet deep, l hor es no t;:r coos ie. talc d ,clew aye, , Then you put a throe or Pour thousand square foot ?c)c)t print for houso in; and what we havo found in dealing in , heavily wooded areas of single family i es,t(Iotll>"o'!ti, if your working with 10,000 . square foot lots, which are fairly largo hots, you will be lucky to save two, ' three trees. If the developer doesn't tal<e t.*i rtl out, as on as th o homeowner gets in there, tries to plant lawn, shade is on the yard all day lone,, no lawn grows, the y cut thorn out, In a couple of years you end up with nothing, The OarrIreton Heights Subdivision down in We$t Linn as the perfe ct exalale of that, It was heavily forested a oa, were put single family in, saved hundreds o treos through Ih e.�:nsti uc•tr ,on, a$ soon as tho builders clot n gat hart ilous� s, , there th oy all went, Anyway that3 ii end of my eotylinF;!rii::s y Any questions with . regards to nc 'neearii,rlg I' ll i �' ' u questions,•r°' 1 IN YY �`e,. . Mt�t;:N, h7aV a couple of ques ions, f you are putting sal sanitary sewer e:Iown to Pacific Highway, what I$, what would be inappropriate in routing a ILf,' ' :1 . $tor►Yl yeowagea dtryainajc lino down to Pacific Highway and hooking up with storir i { it F+ !, sower \ r w ���.. .. Srw!'•l1,.1:.;�:111�;111�'�, It, t�hlel► kola t�+� stc)►�►ly tarawe:�t system in i�a;ar.°i;•h'i,t.. Highway, they tltso the I r ditches, and actually is bettor r t"or the all eround systom if you don't' ' ho sooner" you cam get it out of at pipe and t:4a9,sper$e the water tho hotter your going to bo, lay spreading thlo watori out instead of ereating a crook during • • TRANSCRIPT wHC ~ Kl /Ca t KO4/V 48-27 L tJK" l Calt r Page al 1 i V • • rain, where your going to got, an erosion and that, sort of thing, by spreading it out y ou really r'cadtace your impact, You get more absorption into L e soil so that by the timo it c„jotrs down to tho Pacific Highway its as if, you 'scao, • its the same amount of rain falls on this property wht thcr is development meat or not The only thing •that development does is Ir►ct��oaso the see which the '„ water c t : to it, So by dumping the wato r up at the top of� the hill trhtat' ' '• • spood is dissipated so that the ciovo,t.c)tatttera�t�: rands up having a very small impact, before, the before and after differences is greatly reduced by : -. discharging up at the top of: tho bank instead of the bottom, Moon, So you intend on putting in muhti.pi+< drains, is that • $CHt"EXIil;z;i\G, lidoii th►at$ a design ciu stion that we would work out with the City, There is a number of ways that you can do that, You can put in multiple ,bairns, but my personal prof. lom with multiple drains is, instead of ' .lavi,tic ono discharge p:1.i;)r , which is jtutst, like turning on ra hose when it ra,iii mg, you have Lour' of them tow, four or 1 i v of thorn, So you c�nd up with four or five gu1lics instead of on , Wha° I r y o a 1 l J do a a my a ac t x co is dig a trench about t:htroo feet deep, wt h)t.lt: a pip in the bottom of that ditch ° that ha 3 perforations in it, all the water goes into that pipe, and this ditch is ~full of rock, and it fills up 'Liao ditch,ch, o r'Piows out of the ditch, and then runs down the hill, its a dissipation d vico, it just dissipates the watNr ,r!, takes it a even disposal so t.hter'es no erosion problem, MCt:'III, Okay, Okay. Commissioners any questions, PETERSON, That original qucasti:on of Koit.ht, did you find about Highway 09, „ID I , Th is is ►alf—stroot improvements? J • LID 1'.1,N, We did solicit cc.)tat►y)ents from the State Highway Department, of course , I Mss jurisdiction of Pacific C H ir hway, t:ht y did not rt qu a•t half—street improvements,e tot ts, it doesn't:: speak, their comments don't: speak to it, so X don't know exactly, but they, well for example Hectors Nursery Yley askod for TRANSCRIPT "BUR 80-17/PD 88-04/V 80-27 SCHUETZ (DeRatiter) Page 32 P+} u�. half„-stroet: i:mprrov meets there, so they certainly do ask for if t hey want it, I'm speculating that there might be a relationship hli,p l etwoon not requesting it and the itnpr-oven nts that are anticipated at Cantorbur''y-, there e m ay be some •f,. road aii lncnt i ssuos or grade itsu that t hoy don't half—street want this :.mrtovcamont.$ in now because something ui,ti,matc!1,y is going to be changed, But. t$ far as to why they didn't required it at this time, I don't known ; • ., / there Al •,.^, , / that M()EIt1, I think i you maybe you could aac:lcirrc�s , t 1i r c was .cants concern k.Ilat was 0. raised by the (1fPC) which I found kind of interesting sttngI rind I think kirk, of valid . and that is, this business cif, for ono thing, the city, or somewhere,ere, +.'Jr" . somewhere we did d c.rroate a lot that t wart, a lot has boon °r ootc cI somohow that • doesn't have any access,s, anti m ybo they heave. easements, t don't know. The to N! •. dir° tct::l.y to tlle south of this propr!rty and the general al lclrcyst:a,on of accost to • h)rC I„t wty on l,Ni.ttlo Bull, Mountain, could you comment for the city on that, as to what, you Itrlow wheat I'm talking about, You didn't, maybo you didn't get a . copy of this, did you soe a copy of this Keith, maybe you ought to have the,;, borl a'fi.t of that, Her es the it shown hero, this i,> thlr one that they are concerned n d abou tN, but just in rye'.+t rra.:t, that and the c;Orimiiarlt was mado before or s r t hat, not, you know, ono lccc1 s might be tho only think practifal r F) you still fec :1, thlats trruc as wcal.i'T Lx1:)I:MI11, As far tits the one access, I'll really stand by the I:ticj±not r•i;nj s recommendation that we just have the ono access , I think its really just Y 1 Y 1 K 1 1 •h ,K not, N The ..,� ' because the spacing in N)t�1t:w�lt�r"t i?,rt..cNt':1�;��ta��, �hllc�►t c � rtcatw that much room, "I"l�c� city ."' standard typicaliy is that if wc havo 100, or rclirrrrnt for 100 parking • sp;:aces, t,tp to :OO, or it too, could grab the Code. It atar•i os a l,.ittita bit h)±tween commercial l and arc s i donti,al., Well really y our Code says that if you hlavi than 50 'dwelling units you should have two accet: t s, and then there is as provision for providing E till. additional, access points, but then your to :lc ,rlq about an additional 100 parking sI:)ac os, or typically rtnothlorr~ 50 u alit$, so prrclba:abl.y at around, ti7u way t read at. about 150 units thc.lrre might be a requirement for tllr cl, or there could btu, over 150, Alto the Fire District, r ' believe, commented on this and they Pound that the access in and out of the site would be acceptable, As far as parcels be L ng landlocked, There haven' been any partitions approved, to arty 11Ilcwledge, that have creat ed those parcels, my guess is that they have oxittcicl for some time. Would also r oc d to „ . •'. TRANSCRIPT 08-17/PD� )� ��W 27 S r ) u l Z ( e apte ) Page 3g , it :' • .. r r. . rl n .. • r I ,.1n1 ' . .r ' r ••1, .. - ,rr r 1 yyy check the owtner°'ship, records ds :� a�� if, in fast, if they are under different ownership or if they are just different tax lots for some reason, MOBali, Okay,y, Comlmti:ssion r s do you have any further r qu sti.ons, Okay, Very good. Thank you staff, With that :I would lake to Close the Public Hearing t «y y1 the Tet .tt g f }W Commission C Ts c us s ico I Lets start w it1 C T T's s l t r , : CASTILE, Thanks, MOEI11, Well, would you like taus to go they other way, I' ll give you that option. You only have one item several people laughing & talking ng , , , • r � I CASTILE, I certainly would like to sera a cyclone fence or fencing and some , trees in between private residences iClence that are existing and this Jeveiop►rtent, oven ri t:Iio gh, I understand that the private residences i,Cit ncc property i$ zoned RU :t2, t also would accept not allowing any excavation around rt ighbor•s trees, j• with the :Cle as that they are trying t;o save their t,.rr ees and to ti to a • M .� � to save M 1 !' II1 fit to tN I�fij.' building in, with saving the neighbors hkborls$ tr aes and staying out or the drip lino, And in regard to the traffic, I guess, :i: 5Jt.t>G;ss ;t: think that by only having ono access that t:htat:s going to be a detriment to the apartments, but it will be an asset to the residences,s, h .:at.t there c won't be table to be aW many people come out at t;Ji'm time and it wi,i ,1. be more of a limited access ortto the r property, And there would create leas cctifusa:i.ort there, Others than thf t (: would vote for approval of the complex, , MO,:t11, Okay. MP", RQ;#btYr"t:.tt.tght. ; • . � I'�O;t;:4t)ROUt.t••l, :: think that tlno issue of the trees, I think that most people I°` like trees and trc,►st hat the rit~tte.lt i;t:rs are sincere that they will try save as many as they Can, rar d everybody will be happy on that point. Tht ! traffic is ,..a little bothersome to me, .0 think we have a 1.ot, of road, ' I hopefully all roads se that: are within the capacity that they were built to handle, but that doesn't necessarily make them pleasant to drive on The t : drainage, and :l assume that the City can work that out with the developers w rs atn l °, something workable can come out of that, The fence or some kind of a buffer 1 TRANSCRIPT RIPTi SU1 88-17/PD 08-04/V 88-1.27 8CfltUE« ( t , I , 4 • A• • • I ,,.., �� 1 e ire oar,° ]le, x think that there are some things that . �area, I think would hoc. lay �.�'e_ <ak� •� can be worked out there, To be honest I'm really not sure which way I would vote at this point:. :f liked to think about it a l.i.ttlrc bit more,' One thing r. 1 1 1 "1 t iIyinc iii favor a o t,h that <;I<a ��;� bother me, ,�.;� when t:h�� only i;ai~,eti1�:l.G.� you have testifying the applicants, :>~ like to usually see some rnorto people, surrounding property .. ownt;ars or what not in favor vor , . , , Tap ended, i, , 1 �' � �� � � h3f�l'ZI�I�C�, "I�1't�`� <�>>o access for �;1.80 units is sort of a bother to �tt�c. Prom personal �xS� "7� i;�, � live in �� �°�� whtr� there was only ono a����� �'� �� a r< stl t of that, builders, contractors, and ev ti rosi<.lt ii s started using coming private property wh:1(li wras undeveloped a$ rr second access, I do understan<:i that the crii r'1i'1 in the Cod are ov'd.ck rit:L 11y mot for this variance for this or acct s s, (.48 'fear a$ tJi ? trees, I'd like e to see some sort of a condition ion , whoro if a tree dies within a year , that something similar, not as largo, . ��. would bo plan'ct, I'd like to see sumo condition on f ttici,ng, I liked to seo , a condition r'gardi.ricj the Ertj.'trtCi ring Division' s recoituttortdattora on reducing r thro cross slopes on tho parking i.i7e to six percent, And Lastly, X didn't hear ' anything that address the plarnc< development ouo 1ay and C, I ur< trstaoc that thtl!rF, i.s �lar rt shaac.ci, :1.f /ou c n c°rrl„!. a o . ur� hrt»�rlw ; c r� 1ar~ use<i by the t<ar�ants a ,ts <�sia'S.on ,. hlavo, 'rn not 8 L r o how I would vote r4i•c:ht: at this n ornur~,nt , .ILh)a'h.s all, 1101i111, Oko.y CO►Yi►YSi.sstoner Pe totrlson -7' PETERSON, Well, can't remember l xactl,y how this zoning wont on this, but I ,..rt . d) know that it had a pl:ann(d dovc 1opment ov«r=lay because we wartttri to look, ' take a special look at anything that come me th rough here with this piocc of • I • Inr°Port;y, becauso its kind of a un i.quo piece uP hirrahxorty. And what w< 'vra got hero is a development that has ono acc !ss, where two or possibly throe should ; � be required.; Anri we have parking r ra es that at~`K 10 percent instead of f i.v or six, And we have all the urtbuiinli.h10 land, hothiN dente with it except used to irtcr•�aso the density on the hutixikb+I land, which I don't think i 8 a • . w • ;,0, to x see no reason why we should approve this, I think that thtot o at o • lots of pr obl.t t s that have to work out, n , TRANSCRIPT $DR t 0. 1 /i D 88-04/V 80-27 80HUE rx (D kanter) Page 35 , • I ( �- , • MOEN, „ „ . that was you comment on the density was, that was addressed 4,n here somewhere if I an find it, staff could you help mo out, The comment on density, how many units, I don't know which page its or it talks about how • • many units are allowed, Or maybe that was in the applicant' s letter. LIDEN, I know its in the applicant's statement, t.1 PETERSON, Twelve acres, a little over 12 acret, which would be about 150, I guess, / L1DEN, Well i• t just address briefly on page eight. M()EN, Okay, 4 LIDEN, On under a chapter, the R-12 zone, satisfied that this proposal conforms with the „ . „ number of things including density, 4 ., , MOEN, Is tho, „ „ , , , okay. The applicant claimed that site o 12,8 and • field sure sh ey ow re ex ed that one ac of this is in sect of 25% slope, which . , 1■• would make it sensitive lands, therefore you have 11.8 acret for 141 units together with a, what 25% density transfer? 1$ that / :, thats what he says, what$, bottom line is a total of 146 units possible, ROSII3OROUGH, Is that with the transfer? MOEN, 146 with the transfer, 141 without, according to his figures, And thats where he get a 130 units plus his, you know, the center and recreation roofl I guess my turn, We)1 I would like to have a clear sense of direction Oh this, but I don't know if I do either. I tense that someone else, some other places on the Commission, I think that there Iii$ been some interesting things raised with respect to this, you know, access to both other properties and duel LACCOS$ out of the community, I think that its valid to b concerned about that, you know, the developer comments, I think has made the comment here in terms of density that, he has met the density requit.emonts, he's fit this property on basically the 11 acres. If you look at it, he h actually squeezed it on, you know, roughly, just looking at it, two—thirds of the property, I think that we have ended up with a development that because of the TRANSCRIPT SDR 00-17/P0 08-04/V 88 •27 SCHUETZ (DeRantee) Pale 36 7 . 4 *4 ' . , ' * ' ' ' , . _ . . ' . • -• .• . .,. . ( ..., , ' , nature of the proporty, is, is more donso that it would otherwise be, in other . '. . • words thores more, If you would discount the part thatt a stoop slope and , dense forest and all of that, tho property thats loft, is, and I think that , , . , it a good faith effort or hi part to try to, to try and save as many trees , . ., as possible, to do that ht at h located all the units up in one certain area. You , •• ,. know, part of the purpose of a plannod dovolopment is to create tort of a , . $pocial community, or a spocial, how should I say tt, somothing, special • ' , dovolopmont that 1 am asset to the community, I'm not suro that, in my mind, l . - if this, if this moots that criteria exactly. I think hos made a goods faith . „ effort, I think that. I had concern about tho storm tower and a lot of the ' . .. other things , I don't know if thoro is a nice mitigating way to do that, It , . - • sounds like if w put they requirement that ho keep$ the parking lot at six . • , -.. percont that we o$sontially defoat the purpose or tho, of the plan. In othor . words wo lote ti' trees. I think probably the traffic probIom is going to a ' . . , . , , . problem with that, you know, wo zoned that area R-12, it going to bo a ',,.„„' ,-//: '- problem no mattor what unit, what goot on it, I think that this is postibl ''y, •//,- ', you know, he tays, wo've come r under, just unde , hos got just about, I think, ' , at many units as he can physically fit on that piece of property, You know, as . - - lot o1 developers have come ih hero and havon't boon able to squeeze that many i , on, Right up to the, to whats possible, X guest Ii boon successful in iv •'4' ''' , • /2, . • senso, but I still havo some problems with it, I don't think that gives anybody a cloar sonse of direction, bocause I don't have one, I have twine , '' 71 , . .,, concorns with tho dovelopment, as ' o whether its the right thing for that ' , proporty .,•,:„ . . . ' . ROSBOROUOH, Which hr ch take$ u$ oe? , , , . MOEN, Which 1-akos us where? Good question, , C,ASTILE, Ono other comment, .., • . , ,., ( ' '' MOEN, Okay, Mr, Castile, , - ‘,1'.. .-. . - CASTILE, I WR$, 1 am concerned over the storm drainage coming down over the ' , • . hill, ospec4a1ly in view of the fact that, you know we're in the process of , making Hector put storm drainage in and then the next two properties that are , . •_ there, then all of a sudden we're into this property and hos hasn't evon mlado * any provision at all to take care of tI water, Except to just dump it down' . . , on the road. SOR 30-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeRanter) Page 37 ,,, • _ ,: , , • / , , • , . r @' r ti•.,. • • fMOEN, Is th is tied into the, at all, I'm not sure that I'm familiar � �t ► th e Hector property, X think that I was }' F h L E• , • CASTILE, i Iectto r 's inighrt here, You hrrow, last week he OAiY►e in, last meeting he como in for a variance in order to leave they open ditch hero,o, and soon as ` • . ' these other other two properties here develop then he will, have to enclose s f ,. • • his, put sidewalks along the front here. So, that WAS a condition f or his u , Qri►OCle i. And .;so we're, Just up the road. • MOEN, Okay, Well I would make the, I guess they further comment is that I (:k l i.i7:i.tiy feel that because, we've taken an area that is very, you know, in . .�; ger►era , character is righit now, in effect, single family and wlrllO changed it to R-12 and now we're looking at building a development th►<tys at, very close �. to the maximum R-12 will allow, right yext to those areas, If we wore t s ; favor this proposal, :I don't :see any way that we could possibly do it without 1• • looking at mitigating the impact of those adjoining properties, And I think i that with iaa planned wined deva lopmear►t we certainly y have the right ai7;i, the obligation to do that. Burt, X guess I would o'iti r'ta'ai•r► a mot:Lon if you want to get things . . started. PETERSON, Then I' ll make as motion. I make a motion that we deny Planned Development 88..,..04, Site Development Review vi,eaw ;;DR 88-17, Variance 88-2Y with the reason being inadequate access, possible storm drainage, p ssIblc or story $,a „u". drainage problems, and improper buffer to adjoining neighborhoods ■ MOEi11, Okay. Could I haw o second, • , BARBER,R, rseck r►rl, . J. r MOEN, Second. (: guess further discussion, a ar CASTILE, What does that do to us then" I. MO EN, Well, would suggest that we might, are there any other items that you f could think of —laughter- . in terms of findings of fact, in addition to the items that you h►ave already mentioned, Cori mi.s s Toner Oarber, • i Pr TRANSCRIPT S1?I' 88-17/PO 48-04/V 48-27 i cHu1' Z DeRantt,►r) Page' 3 • r t I ' , ie al ,....' r, ri i.. v. '.,.+.. e.,r a.,n m r rr r.,..r.•n,...... < .1 / r 0 q I r 1 \ 91 r I µ' ' ' • • OAR E , I'd like, perhaps to know how this meet: the planned development? don't quite see that it cIc)ras, :I still ;see the dense ?orost, but I'm not sure that �h ton ants are going it b b„ stoop slope, wo it, so I'm wondering what it i.s that makes this a planned , 4” development:, is,', ,, OE N,, Staff, do you want to address that? . l:N:EI0I f11, wea1l, the lay^ima ry roasort this is a pl,artnecl clevelopine.tit is becatust~, planned development overlay zone wra��� app1,�i.cc) to the property, so the dov ioper' `' didn't have any really, criteria, , J t hto:�c y, As fiat at s site development review , b r:,� ;; and planned e evolorl nt writ,rha ai very similar, there both, whether its u r .. site t development review, which is handled at staff Level or a planned ' ,.,. development for an apartment, multi—family development like this, The standards that aI)l:)ly are very similar, I think,n7k you still pct. in some of the , more subjective elements like, is t fence for buffering, in thii case, Are t:h0ir40 any ot.w'hc!,Ar thing's that yc want as fa. as e >t tt ; a1Gt ,$ , ' concerned, I don't think there :is anything:l :i,n .the Code that $, ys It has to hta active open►� ,4:)ai ea :i,t - , r I s can be passive. I mean we htcavo situations where it r � ,,'< ,Y71 l' )o t wot l"nd 3, 1C `Cr other reasons, other than he stoop;) s lope you • V don't want people in there, q d its perfectly appropriate to just leave L t , ' alone. just that i t°+'s « r�area arrct►a � � ss .., , „� ;i tht�tt� �/t.t,► l.+~���I� ��ah aast�i {�+:�'r�Y��,thal,y if the . developer warm, they could put a foot; path in there, or something, but thereas not much that your going to be able to do with that, that stoop areas, just °` because of its steepness, I think, • MCOEltl, Okay, ).,,;T:Dra:til, 8c� I, you know I would think its juste some of the other elements that you need .'to take a look at, do you, that have been discussed tonight,ht Do yoU x ? need fencing and who does it steed to be provided, 1$ there sc mtathi.nr, with the orientation or the buildings that should possibly bo changed,ed, Should this, setbacks in tome cases be amended,r,1, : think those at F the things that the Commission should under the PD, or look at Under Pl , i�si . • TRANSCRIPT � i r � w fy J r � W y v � N w M W • Y 9 ' * okay. . , . , PETERSON, The other itortl I had it was the 'are too f.teep, . • MOEN, The parkihg grades? , . . PETERSON, „ . „ . . , too stoop. , . o :11, Okay. We have a mot.i.orl made and $ et.)nd eel. Do you h lt a good fee:1,, •••••• . • doos everyone have a good fee.1 for the root:ton as far as, okay, With that I•, giMss d cal 1 for a vote, All thosie in factor of tile 11)0t OM a tutele and • secondod signify by saying E ••• . • f)E'lli:RS0111, • . BARBER, I, MOEN, Those opposed, • CASTILE, I. , .. ROSBOROUGH, Nay. •,, MOEN, Nay, MOEN, Motion fails throe to two. Commissionor Rosborough you want to ROSBOROUGH, Cr I take a quick question of Xeith, I think that the hit problem in my mind right now is tho buffering or the fencing, do you have any , • • ' , suggestion$ on how we would approach that LIOEN, Well, you, it$ certainly within your authority to roquire fencing, - . . , The requirement could be for either chain link fence, as suggested •by some people, or a site obscuring typo of fence, It seams to mo that the concerns, • • maYbe about buffering, or you know, access to other properties as well a buffering, and you could, then also specify whore you think the, fencing would • appropt.iat • MOEN, Question, aro the all two story unit long' the front, . . I TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/P0 08-04/V 8027 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 40 • r r • • • • 0. • BARBER, Except one. . .• • • MO EN, Except one? BARBER,ER, The one near the entranc(.! is single story, , � MOEN, Well, I would entertain another motion, , : RO;iBOROUGH, Okay, I will make a motion to approve Planned Development nt 99-04, Site Development Review Sf)R 88-17, and Variance 88-27 with the additional requirement that the applicant provide, and thti., is where I'm breaking don, is just to what extent to provide the fencing nciing anca or i,1e,tffera.ncj, I think that thaga tt ai.ra areas are going to be to the, irf1: .1; get my dit"(,acti•tan right, to 'the •p , - north and also around the other c xi t: ng tcawnhtouse. , to the south of the ei7trancS«, Any a)trhrV r , MOOEfli Your proposing, x well would like to say a sight obscuring fence is , «r, going to take care of it, that c ertainly would help, but the other problem r., , r that you have is that t you have two story units there. RO81 OROUC31.3, ;I can see whore the chain link fence nce ins going to cure some of the problems, you know, its going to keep people from wandering Oh and off, but ther%s nothing to aesthetically pleasing about a chain link fence , I think I would like to see either a chain link fence and and some kind of 1,t nd; caPin around it to provide some sight O r `,:e°uc ion, ;I'm just not sure what the terminology needs to be to get that into the motion, • MOON, Mill :t think, :t; guess I would like to ask the question of one of the 46 people ple who"a brought up the question of a chain link fence, I think it was Mrs. . ED NA r Mill t ill , Well itg basically for trespassing, and hip you put t a site t+ y ry�1 y M� ) y y few y •+ obi?ctltttitlg fence, in t i ew it will r die and Yf yin years �t at�r� rl;>"� ��t;�anc,l fall 1, e�try.t ,� ��,, you „ ', know, Mrs, Armand hag planted ivy there, $o I think that eventually the ivy will grow over the renc c and will make it a sight jhtt obsc.ur"ing fence. just to keep them off of their property, TRANSCRIPT SDR t 88 � l C � #t , • pryy' ; I i 111 � r � t ^. • ( 11 1 I • M�l Okay,,,y that i1 was, fa y I . " • .• ' , ANlltANl), ' And she keepr/ is ',keep i Ottlgut i.r►g, the f 1 r,:t azi'rd. . ' .• . , Noln, Of the sight obscuring f t'1ce otr• ;Ce r fonee as <a f i rel i1azalr1c! : : 4:, : , •• . • MRS i" >?II\IAltit, Itlo, trh►gait property up there in the summer time gets ; i dry, so if yOL1'% ± got: a 180 unitf'a', out 800 people, that ccuuld 'move, sOme of� t°rh em morn o '�I� Y 1 cu / f ep�r . , ay d t h y dropped 's 'match orGnything, it Would just go right.,, � , : { (,i11, ..rh► t.a :my rre6i 1 wo.vT.'y 1 s , I " .r MOEN, Okay i 'dory good,. And the other propertj Owner ,:Mr, u Nt c . M ' •.ti V i M r r .a 11(�Mh'tl�f�l.�Y, 'Yeah, ow lar�t.al7:l,calt� r t��li.Iltf is, y..3 not as !r►tac..1� of one �al8 <slcCrQ�S$, i'..; • . i.ttuc.l ht trh��t; � concern►r�ry hc"o, �:i;, it i.;�, i.t. t r the sight itself,1 `, "!"h back ',:of, our ;IC CHk is only about; 10 it f'r'om the pr'i'Jperty linnet and t,he: IJ1CJU$,G itself i.,' ''''.1 another' 10 feet, now we Iu ve a two story house toes, so we would b4 looking eyo z • i leti'c. i to' r,,ye level with he second stOrly,, "rat doesn't bother, me too much, ' �. The casual transportation of :people across the Property' i more important,: -, ' plUs the acct, on t�h►c back side of the property of a! multi i unit ;)rOp rtlrt, . sc tr►ot;�i,mo$ it can ot. pretty ugAy, mossy, The ground ;l r,1Vol 't�bsctar ing of the ' ; property lir►t; is more important than the fact that t1' I' s ttwo tort i s x ' ' • don't knew what the setback is on those living units from our property 'lino:, : ., , ' a Do you know off hand, I, y , L ::x:i i, "Twenty Poet, . : } • HAMMC;;RLV; OIIiy' twenty Pct, thats A0 feet from my eyeball to their/ ' Li MO EN, Okay i Thank you sir, , , pl , ' . �. . 'HAMMERL �, I �c �rlr��, the cycl�f� "c �ct �: ,' ��s�ia�y' with �and�c�p kg' I '• along the 1'-u'I C ' , M ', Do you wa L to 51'1;1 with that,, ' • b I 11; � 1 � 3ti /a lV � v " lt �i i l attcr 'Page � ".' 1 . il • ,a ' ROSBOt OUG,h•l, Sure, , CASTILE, buffer? i RO IOFOUCH, What tho correct t to minoiojy • sover<a1 talking same time. • CASTILE, A five foot landscaped buffer? LXDl:.f\t; Well, I think if, I think you would have try option or you ,ou1d oven have the condition optional that it pith ,r hao a chain lank fence with $'Ite O 9CUr:tiSg landscaping or a site obscuring fonco, I^ r • MOEINI, Th4f1 you J:i V( the devel,opor t.ho option, q . RO l OROUG)-1, Either ore, LINN, .ithk r 01'10 1. T ROS OROUG;H, Could w e, can wo includ e these, two options within in the motion. l:„;x171 N, You could or if you want to specify, f7O: I;sORO11GH, I think I'm FORE:LL, I would just make the commont as ►writ of the property, adjacent •"• property ►,wnk rs, :C think that a cyclone Ponce .is a ugly Force, • kOwitaORROUGiH, I do too, , FoRELL, And there ore solid fonces that can bo built that can be 1,or , life,. cinder N. K ^ V4 P, 7 v1 �1,���;itai block f�r����, or 1:r t���1�u��.i wood f�i����, but ��f � quality ����1:�ro would lxo ..•,, • or more rl;i l irtc to th e residences on both sick of it,' as well a$, far more , than Uho cyclone 'POI WO, TRANSCRIPT 8111! 88. 7/PL 80-04/V 08-27 6CHC ".l'1 ( Krntwa.r) Page 4 r, t • • MC7rN, Oka+, RQ;I3OROLIGI1, Koitht, whtaat w w thta two eAl•to itre that yot., had? Cyci.ortc. artti,� • r I..TDI I\I, Sight obsclur°ra.rt, landscaping or sight obscuring= f or7ce. a: MC)IHN,.' Sourl ),"7 1111 ' I v,. RQSBOROUGH, I think, ' I MOENNI, Sot.inch to me if your really tl'ly put, i cj tho buffering ferling x,rt to m ct'lr .t$4) property wt cers objections, I would go iad a make ti7; mak e thr northern �, boundary bra a cyclono fortco with vs jr:t t1 an, you know vegetation buffering ancl the ,a It��, .r one what 71s that, RosBor ouw i The southeast 0 . MOEINI, The southeast, the south and east, not the south and-east, -your+, talkirtg. .� bout that one. a ROt:380O(iGi.i, Y05, this is urrdevolopcd hero. a«Rl PETERSON, This is new fencing for some of 1:he adjoining neighbors or forl• all cr f the adjoining neighbors. AKINANC), You rI t ask for ii:, ;TORN PETERSEN, Wail: ca minute, we're getting pretty 'far., afield hore arn't we 0 1 ! 1 preference to the type of fences r ce.::s Vh at • I Ike 1711$o{ 0 : A l\1 1 1 1 A N>D, 01(iay sI c. • • w � »� your ' w , .' � 1 W . .M •a k MOL:1tl, �WOli,, �.t, your mota.R.tl•t, :Y: 4UH 3S you catrt t o ht t�K,l�'47Artr,) put ,wht t you, wit in it. i I TRANSCRIPT:F"C" SID 00-17/PD 80-04/V 88-27 8CHUETZ (td<antt r ) Page 44 , M • ' .. .,a.,,...• . .. .....,,, .., �.__.. .. ,,it ; a'. RQw13ORdUt:,H, Okay I'll finish in o ff" with a sight obscuring fence to the : z southeast si d and'1 a chain with sight obscuring Y.rinr north. I i MOEN, Okay. commission Castile, 'I, , CASTILE,1IkE, Make a suggestion maybe that we put it to provide a cyclone fence, owner, � u axc pt as approved by owner, or adjoining y f t hey would a`wceptr a ceda►r/ P h-.--,, fence, then give the, give the owner, you know, „rut it in that they've got a M , . cyclone fence and allow the owner the privilege of, of d T 1 RO, Cv,otGi Or � 7y other �ct�i tx ,y��, accept by � �� adjacent���i ir �p�p r owner, � .�, , ! RO:yI OROUG1'!, Cafi`t w(a do that, 4i CAS f;It.�i,w, I think we can, , ,' MOE)\t, Y0 i " 1 ti►ASE, Excuse me, are you saying any other fencing „ype, rrr �..: CASTILE, Oh,, wood fence, ce, { ,I NA~~E, i , i i brick soddenly aamc to my mind, i CASTILE No, e 4 i / 1 a 1 laughter „ . l i i 1I, : I i CASTILE, Your doing groat., The criteria would h , the top of what he would ,, • be required would be a cyclone fence or anything of lesson value as approved, 1, UNI1NOWIlt, I i i . i i i 1, 1 i Y 1 i i 1 I 1 i/.�r{tAgih li'�►ri N # I { r , L� r talking same t n�e Y' a 9 I I ^'. TRANSCRIPT $OO 88-17/PD 80.O4/V 80-27 SCHUETZ (DoKa.n't o r) Page 46 , . c . r .,..r r n�.,.. , , ) °IF :NN, Maybe, nice w to do either I"It7i � r y trhta�., Why� don't�: your rttai«.. :J.� �� rM 7.i.17r±r a, " like you said, either a cyclone fence with a }buffer and a, or 0 cedar, you know a sight obscuririg fence at the option of the adjoining property avrt s, , either er,K way, Then the property owner • r;t?: I3Oi2Ot.GH Has input, Yeah, I think, or any other fencing type approved by the adjacent: property rty owrn r moils that CASTILE, Of lessor value; • MOEJll, Well, we'll 'have to get in an argument about values of fences here. ." CASTILE, Well the point is that the re not talking a brick f w� �, : a that s why y I was using the cyclone 'fence as a bases a of; value, fit".use that will `cost them, he most, '' ti i ROSE OROUGH Okay, Do you have that. • 8° C7E" f R1 , If I understand st aid this correct your moving wi th apparorral. providing" that the northern property owners and the townhouses to the south are provided a chain link fence with site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring Ifence t at tho option of the adjoining property 'owners UI\U INIOWN, Excuse me, not to the south, SECRETARY, To the tahN , MOJ.,J\I, To the oast, UNKNOWN, Wray not to the south. UNKNOWN,� �1 But >1 � wca cJ talking about aouN the townhouses s, g ,C;;RC"I" iRy, Okay, to the eat okay. O ya , W(1 j + Y' ( 1 i Whores his property thrt he keeps' asking 5y S utJ TRAN8ORIPT 4 80-17/PD / 80-27 80HU~ Z (UofanL nh) Page ,46, .-,. ..,... a—, .. .. a.i r...... ,._. � �....._,• . . .n I. MOEN, i-u S property is right jht l.1tore v , CASTILE,, tk we include t1'tat:, ' MOEN, :t [:Mink to be fair you would have to, • RO,BOtOUC° , WAf he down, a long the southern portion ion hi\i114hi\iD There is a private home to the south, 1 j; make ii t �g go on all three sides of the MOEN, � I� �think� that, X think :i.•G: ought ���,� �� 7 GP Property,' . I ,» y�1 4 ( ��` "5 ( 1 1 CASTILE, I think 801 ROSBOROUGH, Okay, L. K3ARl: ER, If you would have two different kinds of 'Fencing I'm not sure that • would add to the looks of the neighborhood hood at all. CAGTILE, You wouldn't see it, • S a You wouldn't see two of them at the same t�,ime �.i��f��7Ut�l 1 �r iZC� , CASTILE, You wouldn't see it. .� BARBER,l.1 , Well, you might at the corner. Q . CASTILE, That s right, f • (� S8 OUO4 Oka cars . further amend it to on t�h�e', the fencing r� gruirement 114 l.1�`�WtA 4r#I�/ Okay, to the e e s t< to continuo that around to along 'side the south, MEN Oka y M RAt8 RIPl S OR 88-17/P0 8E-04rV 88-27 SCHUETZ (lleKanteN') Page 47 � !S! t I f ii excuse 1 1.' • • II•,,�1��11t, � How far, �.>t�f.IM� fns!, �how far to� the west, x.111. the ���,� �down the hill, � . part of the way, just where t e development is or 1� Mt;t»( Take the Several g; a� 1 k � T � wit � �� 1 i , tw c, , 1 ' way talking ��a►9t�. �.t;:�m�. 1 , " 1 1 3 5 . i . map N t � t r rt i that ••. ti�,��{7f�C)t1C�l•1 � Unless I. � It��tr�ct my f91�a�> marked wrong, � � think w� need to • continue 1"l the way down to t7o� d the wort: a 1 r1 ,�, o the•� i end �f� � �:�a get 'the r-1 ,:�I �{,>�:.Ir'ty at , � bottom. MOEItt, Two sides, open to Pacific c t»Ii•g;htwa , Art Skits that wants to hike up that hill can, • • • » • I1I � What 1 l •t t 1914`1 E � �.t91if�.11t, .T; thti.r�Ic��you ryt<.acl� a comment c��9 tai5�» y • drip 1• CASTILE, Ut t like to include'i 1c � t � M the � � t � � adjacent�� t � property� 1� ,u � w�c x Its � that the contractor not excavate e t.nd r the drip line of existing trees, MOt \f, Existing trees±rya on any trees or on, under the drip limo of trees on adjoining properties, CASTILE, Of adjoining properties, And that would, you know, that; going to be, :t don't know, his twenty feet .should more than coyer that, • 7 I hila�t, Y k a CFSw�"1•"11144., MAryi:)e, t F sti.i,i• htakre ;i.rl tl.ver'o with thhe Arsk)(.1rr7,st, he catise ti.let. some Co 1KitG« 7s where they can, they can cut in a little bit, li kr if the`u t Y ri ,-rh something, 1 �' i t N be r got to run a sewer taf :�tailtc�t:i�i.f��.1, i�htr�t. it isn't going ►, 1 •OEN, The only concern that I have 1s that, you trow,I wo, go through wrestling with those conditions to try and matcht to put this development oY here, this piece of property, Are wo working too hard at it,' fr •1 w � M yw 1 �:. ..atu »t" think � i� l �1" ; TRANSCRIPT S UR 88-17/P0 68-04/V 08,.1,27 $CHUETZ (l OWantcr) Page 40 fi w • }1, 1 �. . . _ i . , . . h`I�7I�I11, Of course they aren't all that major of, major of a, ' Ding, brat, it seem x. . . ,• to me that for, some ways for a planned development '',, . , • � • : CA ''f'XL..E, How cios'e < h'r t�a�1e trxc.es to ,hit rarxoper�t,y ii,rle thlat: yours want rlt to r ? .r i. I r tI ( i:a US'x ., , nt t1nl I u r r "Y�. 4 . I A111( VC , Well w o ~ 30 ly ,reeti <a .0r t1eiri . I CAS"IN LL taut hlow, clo;3c to 'Lhle ,ii.ri ', • i • I A111111AItti),, . h"h1ey,''10e . r;tght on t lie pr'ol.at.!r�t"y line, , It hlraar+t't: la„ 1n Ifu1.I.y :�t,t v.eye cl �, � as I �t Y i e there wi,1i be quite ��. hyMber•� of R~re thiatY. l,l y�Nt:,� h���'� as far aa ;C cari ���i�.t.eritYY�r�, � x � - r I been they will Ic�Me clo:e to:, bit no survey � done x , x chly sure • . : I ; . I . I CAS'ILi'�:,, What do you think is the develOpt r^a you 1<r10W, . how (;:an you Orotect t your" tr'eo„, it r , SCHLEIN:Cttto, We don'ts know how we'll, how We'll irnp of the neighbors tree; at i,, . Y ,,� +1 r Y � ti Y t i 1�1 V / It,�'i s tit11e Y ,SoItio of t h se tree,; out there:, at: ,least ' on our Side,:, have drip, ' .. Mmes that afro 50 root•rxad,i.us, covers s a 100 foot, , . I , , I A 1�I t�N 1�, 50 foot, in radius?: K a r : -�CHLxf INII1!0, Yes, 50 foot diamt ter'', r 14AF4DE17, That::would be x,,,, x e ; blotr,hl t:ailt,06 Same tire , , 1 I 1 I NI M H Y R Y N rY r . .f 1. �4J 3J ti.rl( h l 1 � Slnl 1+�1 '1 SC,ItF..t,...x;llt�ttiC,, t:F1t�i �,� some „big 1:t et�,� in, :that area. �. �) r. � Ott �1�a L the 00Ioining property, X 'dov t ,know, how,, It will 1„0115 otr the deve:l.opment,, a$ w ' 'far a%: : awing .th c noY ghhhorx tr��t►e:�,, I ;read�.y. : I ' r r • I I . ,I I I R 1cRt " shf 88-17/PD 01104/V '88—27 SC HUN Z (PeRaitK r) Page I4 r ' ..,i nix,. r..rw r.v...,-I......,... ',,. 1.'i..,...,. r'r• ".u. ,....I' ...,. ,..u.,.,r..• ...... ......... a ,.r..l,.r , ,.rv.w, r.,..+..: r I' I' I vNflr 1 • ..r ....: v.wr...,r... .. r•v ,u. .I. 1 r , r... n...^ ...r i.,, .....r.. r.... t ! N. see Y » � '6 ANNA ND,':i .one. thing that you have to take into consideration,�at,ion i s that i f 91� ►AIL , C � .et �! � f a� . . you have evor♦y look at a fir ti"t.o thaats gone down, there no tap roots, its all on th o surf aco only, is holding tho tr o s; up, and the prevailing winds come from tha<at, d:a.roe t:i.on and one of my greaat concerns is how thacaso ttcses are going � � � �� • ., to stand up if, e; poc tiai ly if there is any mutilation to the roots at&i i and N I N going 1 �♦ » It.r tla��tr are ail � t.�a go down, for instance on thao Maple, we:Ll they atrlor taho �. ones on the far side d are going to go down on the,! Maple T►.oi` Ap ar'tiTae:!rlts ThaGats wore thy are going Ia ai to co down, So I think that its vory important, that eveiryth itigj possible be dorm. to prevent those. trees from being weakened in any . Morn, Okay, • .`yet.. JQt1 PETERSEN, So if theso trees were cut down, that would decrease t r fir r o , hazard too wouldn't it, MCOEI11, Okay, alright 1 1 1 ♦ r laughter r♦ 1 r , , r We' ll h&vo to Call an end to public comments is p:I.oGaso, Keith did you have ono comment, L,II)E»t11, Well, about the cone rn on tahto trees, certainly can take a logo at condition number 11, proposed, i,i you w<antrel to specify 1 ♦ i . 1 1 1 to ttlako surd J c hat ho does, pM io n noises 1 r protection o1 the trees, 1 1 i r i 1 I one would lbo that the plan dal with prlotc.ct»ion and long term health thtat, are on the abutting prtoporty, but I think that you can amend that any way that you N would like to take care oP, to make it a little more specific. MCJt:.ltl, Commission t;osborough, its your baby Still � long �r' 4 r any �, rN ; RONyl0ROUGH, St .1.l. mine? , ♦ 1 1 n long pause 1 I don't have pany strong feeling whether rM wry riec d to strengthen n thtrat up, or not, ' MO N, Okay. Your second does though. CASTILE, And the uh, something in here,, will take (Ktrl .n' o ution in . protecting the trees oP the neighbor, and you know, throw it throw it on the staff to TRANSCRIPT SOR t 17/Pt) 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (L,lt"wlfmnte r) Page 50 1 / ?jr "'1 Y v ., • U • • V •I J Y i i MM W MOE, I', I think th&t's one way to handle it. • cAs I Ii,.E, '/eiah �Ta a.r)st,ire thr4,1t we're doing etiter ythyf,rIg that tAie �:�,a�7 • • CASTILE, Voice our, that we want extreme • MO Al i G�lr y PROS stD taUGH, :x don't know does that need to be included in the motion or just: I. i the Y )rci to urge staff[ to take as many precautions ons as possible. MOEN, Oh, X th :Irik you ought t o, make it ra part of your motion, SECRETARY, I've modified c coiu ition number 11 just to include t ttiat ext 1 lt caution be used for protection of the abutting property owns rs trees, MOE:.INI, I have ono question that isn't, directly . related, but it impacts my thie ughs on the matter, The uha, these i$ to the <a'5plicant. 'If, or may to the staff, I guess, that the site map shows that 109th, the right—of—way'f—wa for, 109th jogs to within it h n i ry close of the property lino on that on ono cornea. Its this little triangular piece owned by another party, or row s that ; , UNKNOWN, " tat M part his, that . part of the fa townhouses, f�h1 � a and they� a► built C � that,t , On that 7 : ce. UNKNOWN, That point is empty, but its part of that property that belongs to 1,1°1 first of tht " i'e.)t,rtA towrrhr+eta,3ace: ,� MO 11 I'. see. I'm looking for another acc s s . laughter , , .f the l price is right, right? TRANSCRIPT , DR 00 J7/PD 88 04dV BO—27 S CHUEI1 (Ookantor) Page 51 q r - V . 2M1, . • • • UIVRNOWN, That property is, well it was owned by the developer of the . condominiums, and one of the restrictions p1;aced upon is that no structure could built upon it and it would be landscaped, and he did landscape it, But the City made us acquire, that property tol add to the total square footage to gist the required density for they four units. MO?11i, Okay. Alright carry on. Made and seconded, • F ROSf3OROUGH, Hope I'm done MOE , I know, we've done a lot of work on this thing, ROSl'OROUc4l-L Still been doing a lot of struggling on it wT � drainage coming down onto the r�oarl CASTILE, What ak�cxt,li4 t.11tw��'cl>< � �c,. � ,� I RCCS 3t2O1t = As l read this, Engineering Division r serm to be somewhat satisfied there that, with ~ 7ear conditions there that can be Worked out. MOI'u,i11, okay, We have a motion made a seconded, Lets vote on :1.t Moen, Ouesti.on, all those in favor of the motion made and seconded, signify • by saying CASTILE, tOSBOROUQI-I, • MC I:;IU, Opposc„c,l PEIi�t so111 lay. »..4 RS ON, MOEN, Nay, MOEli►, IX think we need about a five minutes recess, TRANSCRIPT SDr 88—i7/PD 88—;04/V $8 $C HUm Z (De Kanter)) 62 /. • t 1 • .. .• ..:. :.. l'4_.i, r...,...r..,.._....__. ... _. ..._ .. .,,. ., ,. r., ,.......,..•., ....u.•_ .,...-.PWisa,.,.a a.....1t ......r....,.]'31w y . SECRETARY, h � � , � �� and ��� nay.. d., 4., Could they raise their hands. t' MOC 1, Okay show efhanr for those in favor, " ' lets have a roll call, I didn't hear it right, obviously. • S iC:R :1AltY, Okay, CJoi.t ►''eue�r� `` • MOI;N1\1, (11ay P SECRETARY, Dave Peterson, PETERSON, Nay, • N 1 SECRETARY,ARY V ,a:a l a Barber. . BARBER, May, r i 1 SECRETARY, Dan Ro sk)or„ou ht, i O$i3OROUCi"1, ;> S; C RE 1RY, James N Ca3L . le , r N »P . MOEN, Okay, the motion fails three to two Motion for approval fai'ls thtr�c to two SECRETARY,ARY, Did you say your going to take a break. MOEN) Yes . I'm going to .a�,� for a +G1 � minutes recess, i~ � going to , , r oconvdne and five minutc s to ton, Lot ovorMybody think about this for a ' •CP minute, .. i i i J rEC��wW�Cti/i�l�+�,t�It11JEf11f� � �� � � � � � � � � � ;; TRANSCRIPT SDR 08-17/P,D 00-04/V 88,«..27 r HU I.Z (Dokantor) Page 153 y. o w • 9 ,Y' - a.� . .r. ,. MOEN, I would like to reconvene the rateetirig of the ;"ere;rar'd Planning , Commission, point; at which we had left off, I guess is that we h a d two faile d . motion r'egar'ding this item •r ,2, One in iG"Ztior, and one in opiao`ai,t:i•on. I tjueet ' '''' the, one of the I'"l'-iitit;>on r for the recess was to give everyone Ga. chance to , recharge there batteries and come up with some good now ideas , And I think that they property is a developable piece of property, everyone is concernec! °oust Little i3t,t1•:1 m ouritairs and hour it turns r'rts ot. t;, I think it is urii.t:,ttai`! to the ' , aar"oas and it.; something that we need to be careful ful, about how we develop it and that;s why the pl,arined development designation, thats why the Commission wanted CG to see it and wanted to have some $ , t, developed, . i.rt�at..t t: �a�, to how �t y ;l: think, .I guess, I'd make the comment in reflecting on it. I think that the 7 � x• l � is frii�. developer • has made R good faith effort in attempting to save as many, trees s ;s possible, :I don't think that the Commission would expect anything less of h:i,m. I think, ' I think tl' ts, thats what we wanted we set the plan development here in the :� � tNst place, The concern haul~ and guess' i t.hsat. g ��s haven been very' good at voicing ' but I think i n k .A.'v K r' . to ' words , '! i' '' t:, 4 figured GGI ctltt" 14t way t1 tlt,t t� I in wta!•GI:� We've gty'". i .12 • • �:. � �� � � �a l,1!'1:1.'�. a .}at"t:t?a.� here, that ,�'lit just going �approximate ua � �fs�('Jt;}tr'tJl:;I•i'(ti.�tS.,�.„� , Land some at..r''Gi:,, The developer and, as property so, ias design ated,lf�S , tiF ! is i part of the parcel t.hiat is very dense forests its vt r4y difficult to develop, : t e almost impossible to develop without removing a tremendous number of trees. Arid there i$ a significant port;ion of that parcel thats steep slopes . or very heavily l,y woodead, Its difficult icul•t to get in uric! out or it and have access • . to it, So what we have dorm we've takers all the, basically taken the density ,m. that would be on this whole parcel and we've moved i,t, over and placed : t r. h, ; just roughing it here, approximately tight acres, looking at that mep, And 't ', think in putting that cier sity on that knight acres, now we've created some problems and there is very limited places where we can put buildings anti we . can h1al1clie the siolac,, for the car parking, and all of those thongs, and its ' I created a' problem in that we have a lot. of units out, that are feeding c.,ut, . onto the road, and its made myself feel a little uneomf?t rtable At the whole 1 ce e i r p t h :, Aid X guess, ir f was looking at it, 1 fool personally i , comfortable with a development that would be more on the which ' acresµ i order c f a 100 units, ' 1 a$ opposed, would �� ��� 1 : times 12 Urli(7.8 ts tho' acre, more of a 100 units than 130,E X think that its a planned development ent , because the s is t e$ uhique and we somehow how havt to f irid a way to make that work , anti work with the developer toy 'do that, Ahd while the developer, X think has . mado ut good faith h 'effort / ' case, t , 1 1 thatµ ,1 � in this �:� tts not star r ��.�atr hos mot, At' 1,oAst: i,h ° x i , w I I t I BC Its i� SOR 08-17/P0 08-04/V 80-27 sCHU1 "i z, (D I anter) Page 5 ',"43," . a e M1 i , 1 city J A♦ r f • 1 int»i�t' on what to �<:k with this property and how to develop in a way that best for the City and the people who are going to live there, Thais sort of my concerns and X guess that I would ;ask other Commissioners for other , comments, Commissioner Peterson, PETERSON, Well, X t;hii•nk' thats my general problem too, realize, well, I agree with thiaat', :t just that: that ther e s too much, too many building in the ' , space 1h&ts available to build them and we're running 1.{♦s•bo all kinds of problems with trees and parking and such, and I think that, if its scaled down, it would fit, but right ht now its too big tho� .fit the piece of property,, An d • also with, with fewer units I would be mor v in favorable to the single access, x just think that the r es to mrany unitb there fora single access to the propart,y i MOEN, OI( y Commissioner Barber, BARBER. AI agree with Commissioner Peterson, + t 1' 1 I f I � Y • 1 1 ♦♦ r • rI s I . r�b,af��r��sUC,ll, I w�>t.i.i�,? like to ask either l�t~SI�:h�� or the applicant� ,� ��li,t��;�tric�r�� �,f they have 4a better, number of, how many of th oSe 12 sprttcy acres &r o we 'using as' proposed here, Oo we have better th an somewhere around eight, 'kind of number, S Cl•tL ININQ, Somewhere around eight, Nh.,,E, I think that thrt:, maximum number o.1" units whore higher than 180,� �� � � r MOt f\i, Thats correct, , sChlL ,1NING, It should also be noted thirat tho, , most of that eight acres is buildable, or the remainder of that property is buildable, th+ res • ,.. apprNoa,IriraLo11y or acre that is excess siopOa, 1'her es nothing Ira the Tigard Code that th t wo ld stop us from building on the way down to the 1 ' 1' tho its 1 y J i Gi ty I fact 1 r � 1, , I �,r than t..la� i'�+�L �..�aiatf ♦1♦iJ�, a planned rl�v�♦.:�.c�►I�r7rF1i'at TRANSCRXPT S 1' 8 3.17/PD 88-04/V Oa-2 7 scHU TZ (DeKanttr) Page 55 • • _..._...r., i ., ., ., ate_... . ._ .....4...4...•,.. ...r .,...... ...s,-. ,,..„- ,. _,. ....,u._+,r .....:e w .r4.. i+..-».v .. w_. y ...., .r V Yn • " Sci••IlrrErt:lll iN ,' Right:, other than that; I'm just saying that we didn't have to • hold it up on tho hull, . because of grades, the ,gr'1<,cfts ar o 20 percent, you'd have to, in excess of 26 we t can't build in it , tho os only a small aroa in n ` excess s of 25, M Okay. li:111 CASTILE, ]: would Sure 1i.ke to see it smaller, you know, X understand there . ar^o a lot of units thore, and I would ho, I,would be in favor of that, MbEl1!, I t.i;,ss, Comrrai ssricaher°rs a I $e0 it we have two options, If, if wo wc:,r r to be in favor of, say 'limiting the ciovelC)pn ent to :I.Li units, I think w' could a say that, :i think that if we were to ask this Developer to redesign the unit, • :r • 1-edr•sig n th1c4 C; tie 1oprn rrrb for 1.00 units, tl',at we rioui i 1.11<C t o so o. it again, We could do ia couple of things, one we could table the motion and ask him to ego back and riiaciesicn it to a :L00 units. we could ,Mass it,, I guns: , tho conceptual a approval for 100 units with , • r `r,• r 1 units �� I � i Gr,r(l.f�..3't;� that wo see �th1�! Cat7!'�i�1�lre+;.l, approve the detailed. I guess thrust ar^o probably tho two two options that I 1 tee • 111Ai�lE 4 .1i" {{ i PO11 , Yes sir, INASV., Xf I may say it 1t$ going to be ra 100 units, we would probably, with t h I'1 price 1 tit' t:.11+. �r t» 1)l»i :a �� 1 I �.y, , 1 1 r , , , it' would not be feasible to raotiel.oIa the r r {'/rotor°`ty r' , • .. MO EN, Okay, thar>ats duly notoc1, X' understand, Thank you, I guess we have, ta�rr°I, orn our Commission, if its a 100 plus units then' wo Ftakto thadioclk, ' or . r ai,nrrt, t c .;1. ti.ri��lt f �,+� .�� � ha au! "!„' 'notion it wt�►t.r;f, �i.tar, wIt i. hra� ,f � �ar~It�hh1H.. � I, r a'ly would fail. nut 1C think, really as a Commission that wry would bo bettor' 'r sorl v d by putting down on the record d what,' what we I feel is the best use of °h 1""I ✓p:i r tJY( 1 1 1 Y ,) 1 1 r TAPE IN.1 LI I �N 1 { 1 1� / t Y i t TRANSCRXPT " 1 w � y 1 e I w 1 V A i L r I Cr . 1 r * , PETERSON, I make a motion that we approve Planned Development 88-04, Site ' N- Development Review GDR 88-17, Variance 88-27 conceptually with the stipulation that it not: exceed 100 • units for the reasons that this is a PD and we have problems with access and grades, I would also like all the stipulations that were included in Commissioner Rosborough motion, included in my motion. MOEN, With regards to fence$ PETERSON, With regards to fences and trees, I would ii to make one! ' additional item about the fence and that i$ that the fence goes up prior to ( - . • the start of construction, MOEN, Could X add one more finding, and that is that, that the, one of the i reasons for limiting it to, for this motion is, and th'? reason that we feel it is a Pt) designation is because of the unique character of the site and the old '- ; growth forest thats, maybe old growths is the wrong term, its probably second, second growth, but the existing forest there is of prime consideration to the - . City. PETERSON, Right, include that, • 1, MOEN, Second. BAROER, I second. MOEN, Further discussion. Also those in favor of the motion thats made and . . seconded signify by saying , PETERSON', OARBER, ROSSOROUGH, CASTILE, AND MOEN, 1, MOEN, Opposed. Motion carried uiin i mou sly X wish to thank the audience for being patient with us and letting us work this ono out I'm sure its not to every, thci decision may not b to everyones liking, but its what we feel is best. t might point out to the applicant, I'm sure your well ' . aware of your rights to appesil and so on and so forth, Wo understand that you wore making an attempt to make a quality develooment and we appreciate you efforts . , ' , TRANSCRIPT SDR 80-17/PD 138-04/V 88--27 ScHuti:Tz (DeKanter) Page 57 ■111 � w.. ..�-,. i..•i v_u..„Y.. .�..-. -_. •...s.�1,-..:.,., _,_ ._._r .. v..t,... ,.,,_,.... ..- n.,v .(.., .. i.x.,.-r,.,,.. ..... •, ,._ ,..,,.....«+...f i,v„ ....xk....v.n..,.,,r...w.,kµ. •. v.�..�. ... e,t �J..Yr •• ' Nr1SE, My personal feelings on It are is that, essentially you've change the ft zoning of the property, Mr,7C���11, Your we?. ,come to your f eek�i ncj I\IP w , For they rocor d • • END • • • • • I , • I � I i 4 n t� 1 '1 88-17/PD 4r U 1� 1 .. ¢ TRANSCRIPT�` �I�r� . ��' ,�� ��".�� �.�i{"����,� �U�I��I`t l��w��' ��1„�� b8 r T ' It • Y , . - � - .� i�..... � .. � „� i�,. -s ..- - .ate .- i,.. A ,„ 416.,. , LL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 it " l'w , . . SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 — 7:80 P.M. '' TIGARt) PLANNING COMMISSION ' r/ , ,f t A 1"IG(1RD CITY 1-lAC.1. TOWN HCtl,_I.. s 13125 SW HALL. BLVD. ,, . TIGAARD, OREGON 97223 ,r' , 4`,' '; wF A t 11'f ✓"..µ!.'f ,-, WW'� , ' General S nfor�niatrxora Y • CASE: Planned Development 88--•04, Site Development Review SI;)R 88-•-17, Variance 88-27 REQUEST.,: Site Development Review and Planned Development Review approval to construct as 130 unit apartment complex on a :,,, 12.66 acre tree covered site. Also requested is a variance from Community Development Code Section 18. 108,070 which 6 , �,. requires apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways, Thie applicant 1 �r..` . requests that thiee proposed development be allowed to he served by one driveway. 4''. •� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 2O1ING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 1„tni.l;s%acme) and R-12 (PD) j + (Planned Develropriieant overlay) i APPLICANT: Toe DcfanlcI ON1ER: Florian and f i7t Schuctz , c. 720 NE 34thi Place 80 NE:l4on Close Canby, OR 97013 Read Deer, Alberta 1 j, LOCATION: West side of SW 1O9trh1 Avenue at the interiseacttw.i with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 281 10AD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1 1060, , Tax Lots 400 and 500) ' + 2. 8ackgrc i.rnd Information .i: (. n In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plari Revision r•' c. (CPR 1-81), which included Tax Lots 400 and SO0 of Map 281 1060, to 4 allow a zoning designation of A",..20 (Highi Density, 20 units per acre) j with a recommendation that all development on those lots be brought ' r before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit" Developments (PUD) and thiat thie density in each case be rrioviewed as a +Artiion of the review process, Thie City Council reviewed CPR . 1-81: and remanded the issue batik to the Planning Commission for further review after giving the opinion that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was exC!ossive in relation to properties includOd in the request. Upon review, an Ar-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for ''. the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the tone i' ” 1 designation, ,�I�1i' (�2 i� 1ri'"I" _" PC) 1 8M,..04, ctilrl� 88"r17, V 88..".2,� (C,C�EtUI�i x� PAGE 1 , i r ,4 J 1 R Tigard' 1 . , When the '! Comprehensive Flan was a ck ledged by the ' Lark) . ,' . ryuat.ion ana',oeu i Commission o n Conservation e1cti arrt�nt � (LCDC) ir��. 1383, ��the majority of � Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was redesignated Low '' tensity Residential and given a corresponding zoning designation of • , R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4,5 units/acre, Planned Development ut?l.upment ouerlay). In December , 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Al.bertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the 1 . R Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located t the , ' southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific ' Highway. This proposal • requested redesignation of these properties from . High Density L . General %�'Residential to Ccmte�caal , The result of this decision was the . removal of about 400 potential multi—family housing units from Tigard's t ` inventory of vacant, buildable land; The Motropoiitar. Housing Rule �, (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that 1 . • � Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at it 50 percent w.° multi family units and a net minimum' housing density of 10 dwelling ,.. units por acre Oh vacant buildable land within the City's Urban 1 - Planning rea, 'Tht.. Albertson's CPA r g� � � � was granted on the condition of rdesi tio' o f sufficient residential, land to higher densities to make up for the housing' opportunity shortfall created by the decision. . Tax lots 400 and 500 were included in a 24,9 acre plan/zone , ' r'designation from Low Density Residential/R-4,5 (WD) zone to. Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull . Mountain area that was part of an approximately 50 acre r"edesignatiz rt to higher densities. The rete r igna t i ns were approved� by the city � � � Council in April 197 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)) • 3 icin � of orm ti n V The subj0Qt prof rty is surrounded by properties zoned R-12 ,, (Residential, 12 units/acre) on all sides except to the ',west across Pacific Highway, Abutting zones on the west side of the highway, from ' . north to south, are C—G (General Commercial), C—P (Professional/ Administrative Office Commercial District), and RH-40 (Multiple Family' Residential, 40 units/acre), The city limits of Ring City aro adjacent . to the southwest boundary of these properties, • . The development pattern around the site consists of multi—family • residences to the north and east; commercial developtmient,across Pacific _., • , Highway to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels covered with tall ' . fir trees and underbrush with one single family residence to the south, SW 109th Avenue and SW Murdock Street in the area of the proposed deue c�ptnerit card f=ul,l:y iriiprovid, 3 foot wide $t;tf'erat�, functional ly lassii�i,t(9 as hc� a1 strerat ;�, i0 th ltvt rive cUi'rc nt: y rii,ad rands approximately 200 feet. set.rth of the site Right—of—way for a possible future connection of 6 109th Au ilo conti MU s southward through a tre0 covered area L$ritil it meets the gravel southern n segriient of 109th Avehlie Little Bull Which is located on the south slur Mountain, 4, r ate 7nforrxmati.on and ?ropqsal: Oescrx iori The proposed apartment complex consists of throe tax lots , Tax lot 8802 is ,56 r+� is size,, s 240 of 109th s5 act xr_, kit.� 0 ��fer {� ir��oritgt! oh Avrnur , STArra ri PORT — PO 88-04, SDI 88-17 V 88- 27 „ - . . •,' • ■ ,... " 1, and is zoned Tax lots 400 and 500 comhineu total 13.1 acres and are zoned R-•12 (PD) . All parcels arty undeveloped. The entire site is • covered with tall fir trees. The site slopes westward from 1090. .• Avenue with the western one•-third of the site sloping steeply to Pacific Highway. The applicant proposes tc develo p� r 130 unit, 29 building d�n G a F a tY r t • • � � complex on the site, � All units will linclurac two bedrooms, All buildings would be two stories except for one single story building to ;' to . . . be located ncar the site's: entrance from SW 109th Avenue. � he - applicant requests Site Development ReuicW approval of the proposed site plan. Because the parcels are designated with the Planned Development�� overlay' zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning • Commission, i, The buildings would be arranged around a roughly square driveway with 6Lbui1dings and a swimming pool, located, In the center, Thirty-five • garages in 4 buildings, 95 carports, and 95 uncovered parking spaces would be located along the driveways, Because the development will retain the, existing slope of the parcel, the driveway and parking areas Wall be steeply sloped. The development; would bp served by one 30—foot wide access driveway from $W 109th Avenue, Community Development Code Section ,18.103,010 requires that ath, apartment complex with 130 units be , served by at least two access driveways, The applicant requests a Variance from this standard; • t The site plan shows all existing trees that will be retained, The • applicant has indicated that the plan attempts to retain as tany trees as possible, including the area at the center of the he cevelopYe nts the dense forest on the western approximately one-third of the site would ' remain undisturbed. The site'�, 'plan proposes that sac iitary sewer connections for three buildings, in the northwest corner of the site be made to an existing public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue, Sanitary sewers serving the • remainder of the buildings would connect to an existing sewer at the intersection; of Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane. A main line n • extension t a rsx o7 w ould be constructed by the developer f o Y the existin g sewer to the kite's Pacific Highway frontage, An eight—inch private sewer lino would connect: the proposed development's loppmertt`s collecti.ori system with the main line extension, • Storm drainage would 'be provided through catch .basins located in the driveway and parking areas, draining to a storm water detention pipe system located under the westernmost . portion of the driveway, with surface, discharge t h'UU h a single pipe to forested area on th e C western portion of the site.I I Water service tati the site will connect to an eXisting supply line e in ,W J 109th Avenue'0 An existing pump system' will he used to provide water circulation. Three fire hydrants will be provided within the development, sTArr REPORT — P'? 88-04, .,31 R 88-17, V g0-2", 5CHUE i Z .. PAGE. • • • • 5. Ag erac and ( ' r: Commerit.s The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the c 0 following comments: ' 1, The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex w e s t of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen end dc criuuus ' trees, The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Hichway. 2♦ The apartment complex is proposed to have ome access to 109th j • Avenue opposite Murdock Street. The Community Development Code requ ires rcs one access for ,each 100 parking spaces; therefore,�, 2 L. • • accesses, aro required by the Code. The applicant has requested a . variance to this requirement, One access' is requested in order to limit the impact to the trees on the site and due to the restricted • frontage width of the site oh 109th Avenue` 3 109th Avenue is a 34-foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on both sides of the street except alone the site's frontage Street !.` . • • ht a c exxa{: on th w st s♦d• cif tF � c., �. e ►e {, eet. 1.09th e . e � ►� Av nue . street i xaprovemer ts currently end south ut the site, Existing xxstxr g right—of—way allows for possible future extension of 109th Avenue' ' to Naeve Street. 4, A Transportatioh irpaa"tr Analysis for the apartment complex, was submitted with this hrs application. The analysis evaluated the xmpact f;, of the proposed development on 109th Avenue and also on the 109th : • AV0hUG int:er;aectiori with Canterbury Larne The analysis concluded ', that: the traffic generated from the site will not significantly , , impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the 109th Avenue and Canterbury' Lane intersectioh. • • The report recommends that curb returns he utilized for the site's� J. driveway to improve,accessibility into and out of the site, ! ' 5, Storm drainage is shown as being collected oo—site into a detention pipe and discharged through a flow contriol device into a 10 inch outlet pipe daylighted into the forested area, This method of cxt I �i� •.1. cl�ra ,fir g the storm iyi draxnaye is ;not approved s since detention of storm draihage water is not permitted and the single discharge point will create erosion on the steep forest.ed area, u An alternative would be to discharge the storm drainage at ,several I, locations and to install an energy dissipate r' at the end of !the pipe to prevent egos ion 6, Sanitary newer 8erviee is available at the Intersection o Canterbury Lane and pacific Highway.; A main line extension will 'be I required from this existing sewer southward to the proposed development, The extension is proposed to be installed along Pacific Highway to the ;site's frontage and then Olp through the y i forested area to the development, F. M M 1 1 f(r s • i — GDR S i I • 7, The pr•oposecC .parking' lot is shown with cross" slopes of 10 to 12' percent for approximately 100 stalls Normal design practices ' v limit the crass slopes on parking stalls to 5 to 6 percent. Cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent will make getting into .and out of a vehicle very difficult. The steeper than normal slopes have been proposed to reportedly limit the impact to the site and the e xisti rg trees. It is staff' s ecutmcndatici that the parking difficulty created by the cross slopes be reduced. r The (Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no comments,. Tigard School District 233 reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments At the current titre, this proposed development is in they Templeton Elementary and Twal.ity Junior High School attendance areas. Toth schools ar`o experiencing enrollment pressures and would have difficulty housing the children expected to come from this development, especially if thie project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September, 1989. Because the school district anticipates the need to make significant changes in its elementary and junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1989-90 school year, the developer of this project, if it is approved, should make no commitments regarding, where the children living in the proposed development will attend school until those decisions are tirade, Washington County ;i e District #1 provided the following comments regarding the proposal', ' 1 . The Fire District would prefer two well—spaced access drives, 0 2, Dri,veway grades shall not exceed 15 percent, 3, Fire hydrants shall be located no further than 250 feet from all portions of the proposed buildings, This distance may be • increased to 500 feet if automatic fire sprinklers are installed ' r in the proposed buildings " The "Tigard Water bistriert reviewed the proposal and commented that proposed development will need to be served by a pumped water system: A pumped system is already in place and ii, adequate to serve the �'' proposed water system, The District also commented that it appears that on additional fire hydrant will be necessary to adequately service the development, The Water District provided additional' technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect, �. The Oregon State Highway D iv i.s;ion reviewed the proposal arc commented that no adverse impacts Oh Pacific Highway were anticipated other than temporary construction impacts tho installation of the sanitarry sower extension. Intersection improvements including installation of a 1 traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury Lane art Pacific Highway are scheduled for completion next year. With the improvements in place, the additional traffic rener'ated by the proposal can bts TAFF fEPORT — PO 88-04, SDR 88-17 V 88-27 (SC;HUti2 ) PAGE 5 • • • �. e, ter.__. accommodated wit1Seut, impacting . traffic on Pacific Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a permit must be obtained prior to any work ,toithin the right-of-way for installation of the sewer intersection,' ; No other comments were reeeiued, ANALYSIS . The proposal for construction of the proposed 130 unit apartment complex conforms with Communit y Development Code R-12 zoning n district requirements for type of use and permitted density, setbacks from property boundaries, site coverage (8O%u) and site area landscaping , (20%) The proposal complies with Site Development Review standards r. Y 1 for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), shared) outdoor recreation areas, s h . �r cn a� ca�, and bite lighting, The staff finds the site plan conforms with the requirements that buildings and . . site improvements be located so as to preserve , a$ many existing 'trees as practical (CDC Section 18, I2O. 180(a)(2)) The site plan generally complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although modifications to the plan will be necessary,ssary, The site plan also must: be revised to comply with requirements f)r drainage and vtsiort clearance at the driveway-road iri:orsection; These deficiencies and the requested access variance are addressed below. Parking The required na � r �f 7- rtx J spaces {or �t a� development is 1�� . (1 ,5 shares per 2 bedroom unit) . 225 parking spaces would be provided, 130 of these spaces are required to be covered. The site plan provides for 35 garage parking spaces and 55 carporYt, parking K, P spaces for a total of 130 spaces, The plan satisfies these requirements, The site p l n does a not, however,wooer f designate appropriately hr ale � � xr ed, located, and signed handicapped icapptad parka rig spaces,, Community Development Code Section 18, 106,020(n) requires a minimuM of one har•d,icappeti , parking space for every 50 parking spaces providcsd, The site plan, must be revised to provide at least five appropriately sized and locates n designated handicapped parking spaces, Those spaces should be ..r. , constructed in a manner that minimizes the sloPo, Lead�,cap ng A land:>c pih plan is a required element of a Site Devi �lopmerit Review application, No landscaping plan was submitted with l this application, tion, Nevertheless, the a �, � � .� �r h� st�k�i7�ittcw�d �site plan Provides adequate .',nftirlttr.�tr.ort �ti, ;' determine that the minimum site area landscaping requir..,„ment,b (20%) • will be satisfied iecl tihroucj h the retention of existing trees. The rot ont .ors of these trees will also serve to satisfy i,-imeter+ buffering Y i. require louts, with t:he oxcc�ptiom of a 180 foot 10h21 stretch along' the site's southern boundary, Only one existing tree would he rretaine along this stretch, 8ix apartment units would be located in this r aged. A landscaping plait will need to be submitted for Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits that provides STAFI:' RlE,POzr Pb 88-04, 8bR -17, V 88-27 (SCIUrTz) - PAO C • • • e • I• adequate veget.a i;ve buffering in this area," In addition, the landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site i. landscaping materials' for the entire site including lawn or ground cover materials. 1 ^ Section 18.100.036 of the Community Development Code requires that t . street trues be 'provided . along 'a site' s street frontagye. The submitted • site plan clods not show any trees that will be located along the site's CAW 109th Avenue frontage. Street trees need to be included in the required landscaping plan , Vision Clear Community Development Code Section 18. 102.080 recux es that • a g ct clearance area be maintained either direction from , the intersection of an access drive and a non—arterial �•treet! Objects jests within.. this area must be lens than three feet tall. Trees are allowed �i within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight ; `feet are removed, The site plan proposes a sign that would intrud e 1 .the required vision clearance area. No details are provided . ' . regarding the�� sign's height, The sign will need to comply' with the „A, i; vision iclearance area height requirement or else be 'relocated, A sign 1,. . permit must be obtained prior to erection of the sign. , Dr ainagt.. i . , The 1981 Master" Drainage Plan for the City of Tigard discourages the developmeht of stormwater detention facilities. The Plan also (. discourag e the concentration of storm discharge onto 1 undeveloped surface drainage areas The site plan proposes collection of parking area drainage. into detention t �� system with a single, discharge ye' onto the .„p surface; of the western ono—third of the site, The proposed drainage 1. . system conflicts with the recommendations of the Master Drainage plan! 1 The applicant will be required to redesign the storm drainage system 'in i conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and submit the drainage ;. system ces igr for Engineering 7iuxsior review and nl approval. { The site plan proposes one 80 foot wide access on SW 109th Avenue. ° • • Suction 18, 108,070 of the Code requires 2 accesses fora multi—family development serving 100 to 200 r�esidenti i unite. i • i"�t`l.lest variance � �l�ht� applicant ��+ d s' a from this standard duo to 1) the limited access 1 opportunities rke Llt � �g from th � limited frontage on S W 100th Avenue I arhd 2) the :rteep slope or the western third of the site making access z, from Pacific Highway difficult to develop Code Section 18,108, 160!1501' provides for the Co�rmitissinri to allow a�� variance to �ac'cc ss rec uir ements 1 1 ,■ i, w if. it s found that; 1, Xt is not poseible to share access; 2! There are not Other alternative acµcess oints Oh the s treet: iri p question or from another street; The ! 1. � .� a .fit requirements �, cd � rrrll,t�b+� mot; „, , STAPP' I E poi' t — PO 88.04 $0 88-17, V 88. 27 SCI " ! PAGE, 1 w G 1' e • \ I • _, -_ f ... _.,i - ..,. .,. .... ...SFr. .,... ..._.....o.,..._... -..w. , 4. The request-is the minimum variance requirr d to provide, adequate access �. : 5, The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6 The visual clearance requirements of Chapter• 18. 102 will hie met . . The present situation satisfies these criteria thereby justifying the single' access proposed. There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent parcels. Other parcels which front on SW 109th Avenue at of the site are already developed Development of another • access� o• tax lot 2 would provide little���l'i.f� ��rr congestion r �relief c.f or I rY, X80 t, C d y ng r r" on Y , ' SW 109th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections. d: Another access in this area would also require relocation of at least one building thereby necessitating removal of additional ' trees E elsewhere on tho site. Development of an access froM Pacific Highway is impractical because of the .expense of. constructing a road up the i steep slope on the western one-third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic values that would result from removing trees in that area, and because of ,the potential adverse traffic impacts of an access entering Pacific Highway, The proposed 30 foot width of the 1 • driveway (24 feet is the required width) and the utilization of curb . returns and development of the driveway at, the same grade as the street should provide adequate gid safe access. Removal of the sign from the required vision clearance area will improve the safety of the t n intersection, C. FINDING AM:: CONCLUSIONS , €, A The relevant criteria in this case !are Tigard Coiruttunity. Development I� Code Chapters 18,54, 18.80, 18.96, 18, 100, 18,162, 18J.06, 18.108. , 18, 110, 18. 120, 18.150, and 18.164. The Planning Division has de termined that the proposal, with minor 1,� modifications that will be required to he triode prior to building permit 1 issuance, is consistent with relevant portions of the Community r' Development code based upon the followings findings, 1 aY Chapter 10,54 (R-12 zone) is satisfied because the proposal Y conforms with 11804 densit ' and applicable dimensional 1 t d requirements of the R-12 zone h. Chapter 1EY30 (platted Development) is satisfied kecatse the proposal is to be reviewed by th u Planning Commission as required by the provisions of, thte planned Uevhlol4erit overlay zone. c. Chapter ltY 96 is satisfied be cause the Site Plan provides for appropriate distances between multi—family residential buildings • t:o as sur o Privacy to residents idents and adequate light to all units t • i ft • • d. Chapter 1C ,00 (Landscaping and Screening) be satisfied upon submittal of a landscaping plan and approval of that plan by the • Planning Division., The plan must detail all proposed site ' landscaping including ground covers, street trees along SW 109th Avenue, and site perimeter buffering.. u 0, Chapter 18, 102 (Visual Clearance' ,Areas) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area, f. Chapter 18.106 (Off-Street Parking) will be sat:isfiad upon . Planning' Division approval of a revised site plan that provides . for a minimum of at least one appropriately sized,'; looted, and signed handicapped parking space.' The site plan satisiies , Code M1 requirements for number of total parking spaces provided and number.of covered parking spaces. • . g. Chapter 18. 108 (Access, Ogress, and Circulation)n) xs satisfied because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation !ion the site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one p access to serve the site, whereas the Code would normally require . two accesses for a development of this size, is justified as previously !described • h. Chapter ��Q Development Review)w a s satisfied xsfx ed be rg e the site plan provides for the proposed buildings and other site 44 improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to they site's topography and drainage systems, The site plan also,, sitwat;e s the buildings so as �to provide for privacy and light for the proposer::f i dwelling units and compatibility between n the proposed development and adjacent uses Chapter 18. 150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal pornrit prior' • to removing trees in preparation for development, Permits will 4 be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed' • site improvements, The site plane illustratez trews within the area of actual development that will be retai,;ed a An arborist's report outlining methods of, protection of the trees to be retained must be subrtritted prior to the issuance' of a site ' grading permit or a tree removal permit, The site pla,h also provides for all trees in the western ono-third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the Proposed sewer, 1 , Chapter 18,164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied . a { upon approval of public improvement rent plans for and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer alon g Pacific Highway, a conriectioii to the etc1sting sewer in Std 109th Avenue, and installation of the sidewalk arid driveway approach on SW 100th Avenue, Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development, STAFF PL''PORT PO 88-04J SOP 86-17, V ee SONUE ,- PAGE 9 • • • J/ , D. RECOMMENDA'TION The Planning Division recommends approval of planned ' Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88-27 subject to the following conditions: . 1 i 1 THE FOLLOWING; CONDITIONS SHALL E MET PRIOk TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: GARY ALF8ON, ENGINEERING RING DIVISION, C0NDC1IrONa 1 THROUGH 8; JERRY b"ECR, CANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 9 . THROUGH 11, • 1. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement coast' uctior7 • plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a • Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing ' all proposed public x m "ove eras shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval, Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be submitted for preliminary review prior r to submittal of final plans. 2. Construction of C ro osed public improvements shall, not commence p t� until after the Engineering Division' has approved public improvement plans. The section will require a 100% performance . assurance or letter of commitment, the payment of a permit fee and � �, a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer , agreement, Also, the eitecutien of a street opatting permit or lb construction compliance ag ee ent shall o c car prior to, or • concurrently ly wxtr th e issuance � f approved public improvement o m ent p applicant provide ^ 1 ns. , �� The � �a�1 � nr roof and parking lot rain ,drainage to the public sthrmw&ter drainage system or by an approved on-site system designed to prevent increased runoff onto the adjacent • property. The proposed storm drainage system is not approved , t?zr� because the City does t allow detention and the single discharge not could cause 'substantial erosion, • 4 Sanitary saver and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public Improvement plans, Calculations and a topographic , M map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer serVice area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plant. ,` calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area, 5, The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of—way of Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public cImprovement Permit, 6, The proposed privately—operated and maintained parking lot and roadway plan profile and cross l s+aetion' details shall be provided as part of the public irDrpr'ouerrent palams, The Engineering Division ' recommends that cross slopes i r parking areas be reduced to approximately 6 percent, 7., The applicant shall install a 5—foot wide concrete sidewalk along the site' s SW '1,09th Avenue frontage r I 8T rr REPORT w 88-04, 4M \ 88-17, V 00-17 j Sw1UWTW` + PAGE 10 I \ / I n ' Sh • • 8. The single1-,veway connection to SW 109th' Avenue shall be designed , in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic report 9, A landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, The plan shall, provide location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material The plan shall provide for street trees along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for additional` perimeter buffering along the southern border of the site 10. A revised site plan shall' be submitted which 1) provideP or a minimum of one appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; 2) • relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area; and 3) provides for a fire hydrant to be located within 250 foot of all first floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings aro to be provided with automatic sprinklers. • it, A detailed tre e protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be " retained, an a*rbor"ist!s recoMmendations for methods of protecting v the trees during construction of the proposed apartments and also for maintenance of the long—term health of the trees The trees to • be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or r . similar means 'approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clear"ing, or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition. • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF, AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR L),IY NEW BUILDINGS ON ' ISSUANCE siA THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION Or ,,;., THE PLANNING DIVISION (STAFF CONTACT; Jerry Offer) 12, All landscaping materials and other" proposed site improvements • shall be installed. as per the landscaping and site plans, 13. A slign permit; shall' be obtained prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign , location And size must be ire accordance with the provisions' of Section 18.114 of the Community Development } I THE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID x- �� ���� a�C WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE L FINA FINAL f APPROVAL DATE; r '46, Ark MI ����..{({(�� 1R � .wrw«.�M:.r+1.111.i. 111i W IJ �?I�F1�f��� or� / Offer ��� � � APPROVE') �l3Y,� llea:th Lxdon ,. ( As i`stant Planner Senior Planner (hti'5Y6SD) ) »< l 88-27 : P GE i1 �� STAFF ���F OFt`t° �pC, 3 O� '�DIF�t� 33--'l.�` ,. Ft ��I"�� 0�►4� ` , r 1 S i r • o ,. . . ' �i • I 1 .11111 x arlrhroilpy AU,4.10.1 :oil r Ce 1 • .r _._�--- ,'.1111`R , /4w � '4� > ,. • i •4'• ‘14 '4 Z....94.‘ . 1 • • 1 :/ \ ' +, .'S>'\\ . •...,11...%. I ..• ''' I,,,,,. 1 ...4, /,...]-- LIT* ,,, .• . - .--_,....--....ir -4,i. , cj1 rr / r.., ill i 4, 1 ..,,--;•,, a «.... _ - I P/, a. .` 1• .. - f c -,� ��i , • . ' , 4 • ..I 4 ./, # , . /. 1 .......... . li ' a a ,00 ,....„, ..,,,,,Y •i f, 1#.—„, i r. i � I . , ... , , , , . , , , . 10 . . . . , . /v.. 1 , , . ,, , , , . .., , ,, . e 1 I I :' . `� . it ir I 1 �", .. w,l,,i i � I r 1 III 1 , I P R ELIMIN ARY SITE I PLAN � t � � , .� i+ IE A�D A�ARYWN AT & U O Cf ' { 1 9711ooz .4f \ . • • ROBERT M.SCHLEINING 144 President 11 , \ \vv Ft_ ■ ) , July 25. 198 AND ASSOCIATESI INC.AU G 4 1988 ENGINEERS • CI I Y SURVEYORS CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 . RE : • SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT . • The proposed development consists of 27 two level four-plex apartment buildings and 2 two level twelve-plex apartment buildings. The current standard type of apartment building in the Portland Metropolitan area is the eight & ten plex. These ' • larger barrack type buildings are preferred by developers because f? of the economies achieved in construction. For thi project , the •developer - THE CH CO. - has chosen to build the more costly ' • four-plex units as opposed to the more economical buildings, for a variety of reasons, two of which are 1.The smaller buildings allow for more flexibility in the utilization of the site. This means that the developer is able to adjust building locations to save as many trees as possible. 2.The smaller buildings help create a feeling of a single family neighborhood, as opposed to the barrack style • apartment complexes. Thie3 adds to their livability and marketability. • The developer was attracted to the project site by its natural beauty. The site is virtually covered with trees, Slopes on the site approach and occasionally exceed 25% (approximately 1 acre . The developer's concept from the beginning has been to cOnstruct ' a development that will have as little impact on the site as possible and still be econbmically feasible. In an effort to achieve his goals, we have consolidated the constructiOn to the ug per two thirds of the site. The lower third of the site will re. lain relatively untouched except for the installation of a sahitary sewer line to the Pacific Highway. The developer has also sacrificed approximately 16 apartment units which are allowed under the current zoning. ( The site area is • approximately 12.8 acres; a field sUrvey has 0.1,,Jon that approximately 1 acre is in exceSt Of 25% Slope. ThereJimne, 11.8 Acres @ 12 uhits per acre = 141.6 units, together With 25% of the, units allowed on the 1 acre = 4 units. Total Units allowed is 146 Uhits — proposed 130 Units a rental center and recreation room. ) The space requirements for the additional Units and the parking requirements for the additional Units Would •have eliminated a great number of trees, So the developer decided to reduce the number of units. 4230 NI,E. PREMONT STREET PORTLANID, OREGON 97213 PHONE 284-5896 ,$ • ; • . vW. I I a,t U 1! IM yv, �M July as . Ail OF � ;;�iCITY G '')Q:) U Page 2 of 2 ;•PLJ-fivivtiv�; . In devel a r*i ng the concept for the grading of the site the effect , • on the surrounding trees was taken into account. It was decided . to design the parking areas with grades approaching 107., thus . •. limiting the area impacted by grading. The normal design ' • standards for parking areas are'57 grades. This would require , mass': grading the entire upper, two thirds of the site and cause • the loss of most of the trees in the area. Retaining walls are planned in several areas' of the site. These walls area placed so as to further l r�edLce the impact that site grading will have on the trees. r q The developer is planning to maintain all of the trees inside the building setback lines as a buffer between the proposed f devel opMentl and the surrounding properties. The developer of this project is very concerned about maintaining the natural beauty, of this site, and at considerable expense to ,• • ,b the development, has developed a plan in which many of the trees . • will be saved. • S hleinin PsL .. p.E.. vice President I I I 1 I ,, • 1 I a I I ■ f r r'� A n N. l I I nl • 1�r ' tl. • e ,i It fp, S , 1t 1r. .W• d r irri r ,- - , . t r I i L. All °Id ,, it M�Y CT. , -;„. •III cANTE IU Y. r. sv�wvlsrw WI . , ., mar CT, 110414.4.1.10 ,Ewiet. =I otA 1.11! 11111111:14 111111111to dillifm im , iiiiiirlikik, . - . '' . . / . T!R. n. i. : s OF okeltd.,......1111r sr NM ,AVM k oy iii willi‘a, Mr AM. Ili Ai. 1.'- Iwo .mir 1 . ft,an slim „,,,,,,,,,,, 044)", ------:3 _ t; '''' . dosti',F,'°ElLIITALE•i1;751 ill 'i, , , . f amila - rivarn. ,11. 5.9M. 1'EWIOOC� �.. .1 111 s. iiiiliep:::_47,7;o . 0 - '4 Eh • 1 ___T__ . 0,,, 1 , ,.., . „ .., , . , . . . ;4 0 . . w. „ , . , .1., , .....:::::7=.=3 • IPPro . - .- .4 ii, 1,. , ii,„,.....9.- , .. , ., # , 11.4' 51' ." (1-4'44%,.. tit° i: ", RAMA ,4111 al., .. .. ,,, �..",, ; HHins li . ,i, , 4. * ♦r 444 G, ' g!' " �, 4'# i f w},� 11gCRne ��r 1� II MII1 �;1rlw� 11* y 4$$ % ##, 4* m „ -1, a +s aN ik. �� flu Y ���� �7 �, ; f, W(i.l b W lio, �t ` IENLLIf."� Grit!y 1if�T!E�'C **�� �� FARM ,� Vf iota,- ` i"��"�� di V Kn-crtdooyax% OMNI( 1 it\t‘\%-cli" '4,4, •I. ‘cs% — 1 kisii' A' 4 ' Mil a 1 II . . INN Ill Ado 4P,,,4r it. 0` ir %:.;*4. 4 (\/1/4' i id �j, b,'! 5 a 1111:*:11D-4'''.°o e ) •`' / # NMI h ♦ ii N w 1N�' ra, . : %�, Ativw. w �m 4,14,y Will t�." • Er4�„ i . t a .: I .ad GE '� 4r,, f i a� ; '', ►a► .,dp A ' — .- r I, f _.i j ' ' ! '•toollillif ''' . 4 Mk n, , I I E. I 21 9 NA , '' „,'SPIE11:7-TIIIN i .., "="------= CM WY. * r g ,n.,-. - .., IM Mann �r 1 eE =p,„ a, in , mg .S wr � � Ej II "w,f KI f. 14., ► p ' �„ seRENA' p as is — 1 $v, 2.ez, . .,... 4Fic 1 ti,., �q► 0611111 AK MP" 1 I ..."� I I ffi.ydir' loll_, ,1,2„r y�/ "1 iitcri . ',l a ., a�l. ♦ g . �I I ♦ � aw w q I 511, C� !: I �, » V " _r VII » t/�' ✓ r 1J I '� , ..� a�� . ■ ,. p • • i , . •.M.a:w... - 0, I::v,,,„,_ Mir:MUt t•1NDUM 1 r� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGGON 1,' } TO Deborah Stuart, Assistant Planner ;1 Aua a it 22, 1988 F ,'. FROM Gary Aifsur , Transportation EnyirC r ,,� 1.� ,y' SUBJECT: PD 331.•.04/V 88-27 t1C„IGa'artt:er, 109th Avenue and Pacific H i,< hw ', 1 .Nxx.xxrxx•xx•x1x.xW.1.M :i,). The submitted site plan shows as proposed 130 unit apartment complex it ' • of 109th Avenue on a site with h many evergreen and deciduous A ees which slops to the. west. t o Pacific Highway. 2) The apartment comPl .ax is Proposed to have one access to 1109Th Avenuc» ' ' - opposite Mur dock Street. The COi Uf ty ev .o anert $ Od requires Ofl � Z .. r .1 u {, t• ti� r 1 4 .� '� la rye�.���� for each :LUO parking sl,)ac^a ��l:I1Cx1 �.f��1 �., 2 �rrG�ss�S � are required� C..1 y . l�k» Code, The lt» aalal.yl.i,k.la��t�' has { i'xti �'a't.l!C,I a variance to this requirement. (,a access r,S requested in order to limit j One �� �; 11 t,� �htc�. impact to the trees �C)I�� the site and due to the restricted ct ed 'ffrront.aG e width of the site on 109'th Avenue i 8) 109th Avenue is 34 foot wide w G C e curbed street w i t h sidewalks on e i t 7c 1 side , • oLh • site a1t F 1 the opposite side of the s ^ ,e3tI Street lights also I' c x l sty on the subject site' s side of the street, 109th Avenue street rrec t;. . improvements �t � rt �� end south o l o f the ��i,�i �a Existing i s i r� ri 1 7 o�-wa � allows for possible fut.ur'e extension of . 19th ill-pi"'otl•»1ti1`tts to Nac ve Street. '}171� A Impact,+r ��'11 \\1t�hh11 yy ���t ��� apartment f V` .t4 f�11 y�1 y ��� 11 4) A Transportation ,.WR1�r�rr1'+.,t.� Ilrla.I.y i7�,w' for the t+~t"1lllt�.1. ?x, was suli�Il�7�tx 11Cf�I f with' this application, The analysis evaluated the impact of t h1G?Pl. 6r1 . 109th Avenue &^d7o the 109th Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane, k i a . The analysis concluded that the traffic generated from the site will riot: i ' 1 1 significantly impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of q the 109th Avenue tii:l Canterbury Lane intersection.ction The report recommends that curb returns be utilized for t^hie, sae's I , driveway to prove accessibility iM O and out Cf th site. x t ,;.,� w) Storm drainage as shown as being collected on-site into a detention pipe and discharged ed th1rrok,Irgh a flow control device into a 10 inch outlet ry f,» 1 . a y7ig r .0 into the forested area. ',his method of discharging t 7e storm drainage t s not approved since detention of storm drainage wa te r I s not : I t. permitted and the single d isc na ge point will creat e erosion on the steep ', ,h , / , forested area, discharge 1 Ah alternative would be to the storm drainage at several P locations and o install an energy d i ssiN.aatorr at the Brad of the pipe to '' prevent, e rrC1 s n, , �' �'J io � , ' r, 6) Sanitary sewer service !„ available at Canterbury Lane rPacific •, , Highway'. A main limo extension will be required from this existing "line ' • up to the proposed development as shown on the suhahtltt d plans, The / extension is proposed to be installed along Paui Pic Highway to the site's � ;;i' • frontage and then up through the forested area to the devr 1opsl c t,�' ; 1 • • .! • , • • MOM() to Deborah Stuart ki '.. p `4.:.... 6 ;1'. Page 2 H August 22, 1988 '. u G /) wI,,I' proposed a ar ltxa� shown lot s with of to + f e "M rit , r� r r .•,w , f r r r, �, , , f� r al,>pr oxiMato1y 1.00 st61i:ts r fllurauta:t (1°31.r�,tt ilr ct:,i,c s ij tl.i: tlrtr�� cE�ea:rs slope on parking stalls to ` 5 to 6 percent. Cross slopes of 10 to :i,2 t. Percent will make getting into and out of a vehicle very difficult. The steeper than tvrima:l. slopes s havc been proposed to reportedly limit the 1 , impact to the site and the existing trees. It is staffs recommendation , . �, that the parking difficulty created by the cross slopes be reduced, C.c�rictxcros ) ! , www.1 w&9w•+..w. ++r 1) The applicant shall i.rtstal:1, 5 foot concrete sidewalk along 109th Avenue r,< r o r,� 4 w 1 � r , r Construction of proposer publia improvements sh l. not commence unto] after the lttlt2j,irtt e r,it,ac g g a has approved public ili .;Oarc merYt plans, The ate" .' . section will require a 100% r ryfo�rmance Assurance or Letter o.f''Commitment, " the payment cxf� 'a permit fejj'aartd a �t:i.cjr� 'installation/streetlight. fie , and a ° °. • developer engineer at rcm e rtt, Also, t he e xe t i on of a street op rirlj ' 0 r permit or construction clmpIaatce agreement shall occur prior to, or , , . , ° concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans . . 3) The proposed privately—operated nd maintained ,parking lot and roadway , p1art-whrof, le and cross section cc tai",� shal: >c� hr�ctii•aec tak part of the , public i.rrtlarcyaiarrro.rt r>l,ziarts, . . 4) The applicant shall l, obt& in a permit from the State of Oregon 1°lighwt,ay • Division, to perform work within the right—of—way f ,Pacific Highway r A City ��'tv���aVt , copy of the perrmi.t: shall h4, provided o, •the Ci wy Engineering C I t''1,oir` to issuance of a Public Improvement Pi rrati.t 5) The applicant shall provide tc fct roof and parking lot rain drainage to tr te public s orrmwf ter drainage , system or by ui approved, or site system designed to prevent increased tt�f ' crw c the adjacent 'property, w 6) Sanitary ,sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided d a$ part of the Public Improvement plans, Calculations rarrad a topographic map of the storm drainage age basi i and sanitary' sewer service area shall be provided s a supplement to the Public Improvement plans, Calculations shall be based oa Pull development of th e serviceable a ea , 7) seven n (7) sets t of` plan and �profile public improvement construction plans 2--.. and ono (1) Itemized construction cost estimate, es�tima't , stamped by a Registered , . ?��f�ss7onah Civil Eaga7�� ; taiail� g al l, Pe'o osod Public improvements all be submitted to the l rjineer ing for approval , Two (2) sets ' of plan and profile plans shall' b ! submitted for preliminary review prior . • to submittal of f��� � plans', I • r i • . ■ , ' t 1 ol • • • to Dc/.%hc1rr61th SturtrA Au( t.tst 22, 1,p88 8) -1"1.1e ,tiewaly to 109th Avcctitaa de$. igi.) !d in conformance with the recommendations.ons of the applicant's traffic report, • ■r ". yet *, e trip^ ••wNM•NMwwM•wN•wNwwM,wMw••MwAwi,p•rN.MwWMMI.,wNiNNw 4,•w••w.•w".Mww•MI•w.NwfN,.,AwN.N•N,wy1"•,r• AN,w••w•wywNN41•,•N4 Randall R, Wooitl, , City Engineer • • ht/6434'D • • • • • • It ;(/bn pill ��1�\ y �, ,. HALL, BLVD . F gll�f 13125 S.W. • ,.0. BOX 23397 . • ,.i• Ic,;� O ' TIGARD, OR 97223 ,. Cfr `(5 03) 539- 1 N111 R , • .. ( 1,4_,„ F 0,e_ 6/" dm 6e6d40,,, I ?0: `' -- ,, , FROM: . 1 ____:_Po ,,667.?e'l '5-6.5- .._. J.141 Afri __4(,. ....L........._ ' , z____ , • , 1 uwxxrA,np.,•alerAaA V d ^ ''d N' , �,J/,. ,..----. ;.:',,,, : ,, f, . '.' ' ', :.416,:;;I:,,Afri",/,1).--'1''''..'e'st.ii„,,,o,,,'.. +:1\11 M1���:JY"Ids't F ..,,--°h«�...�..I..wy�,...-, , .:4-:-,:'"'.''1 � 1;: rw�- f."+i`7!"""'w'""? ,�: , , r, .7z,(5 ,, p' ,,, , ,.., ,, r:.,. , ,0..„ 3 1. 1 ,• AO .�/ E'',.CI' 4/ ir-� i...�i. - .1 M* .,++di^.,�drw, � .. I f .i(uil.:iwll" At."."" . �. � 'q/. wrW I'V" ✓J ..+r....�.w.w++ Y:,--- Y YI "JJ�, ; 0 i j V n' � �, frfr fr / , ,, ,',,,,6 -,' , 1 : i 4/1 1 f p d r eie,(16 te„, / C � te& fir+� 'a,E ` ,, ' " 7 Y 4 , . i67 Lc) I . ✓ I Hi ' ,a,,K-ei- '1/0 dtt 1,16, ezite.„ (:. / r . ' f/ i "" n✓�a,+,.�.�+«H'w�.' 1 J0 (' ...� ti:' ,P `l, .1, 4.N'.WW.wa+rl.+.,l."r.".w'Y','1 H.w...+.... 'I f W.1..,,,{0,,,,4, w 1+K n+f..,t...4i. I,' t 4 '""1+4•"'"'W4w.,1''''-'`*", pM MA NMM4)/} 1 •, SiO; 'EP,u..,f.,...'.,..—J w—.,.,+r-.,�:.u.•T+.«„+ --.�-4i�www,.w.4+• 'M"+nwA Y+.�,.'i�,w„ Y•�M�t•4.�+ r��.-��'^N+ -�',Y�'k,9 �• �.W.w:wpu,y; ....,..:....+ 1' a ,t 4, Ft PLY t56'to 9.."1 -5 .. 1 10 teA , I . A , .._ . , ' ,....4.L,_■Li ".\'''e _1 0 peNe-i6, iip______, ,.. Y ie 47/ e '''' I ' :1*-)E' A'Dli HD 7'i\A $7E-C 1 1 ' ' ' k"" A Ate ;id 4C.$$i/ e?4/1„,*Ti' , /'.5";:y L/11?1,,,vi Z e i 1,g'9 , *1-c_L__'woilf_. ...e.______1 el '11.0,....2±14.. ' , C.►r i 1 -L. �' I'ki i4le i x/4 1 • o, ft.• _ _�__: PLEASE RETURN ORIGINAL COPY WITH REPLY,, KEEP'PINK COPY FOIR YOUR F ECOADS. SIGN-t ..i....:",...to,..,.. 8—, . — ' ,,,, ' DAT E_____/—____Z_ , ' OR INAL I 1 II I I ,a ' 4 R t OUEST FOR COMMENTS %441 .'"" i DATE: :..+_._..... FRT86 Bard Planning Department c k.E: 'fir 8-04/ V 88--27 DEKANTER (SCHU►ETZ) For a planned d evelopment approval of IN'G t unit apar ,ment complex on 12. 6 acres zon R-- PD Me ium esnity `- sidential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to Cad ,00 City regu ations t a require access poan s on *eve opmen o over s units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pace .ic-Eriiiiway TM S P,U o aced 2 ': i • Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's 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 w prepared aud a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on ���this application, we need your comments by August 19 , 19 8s You may use the space provided below or attach`a aepara letter�to return your comments. if you are unable ' „' to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as ,possible. If ' µ'+i,yyvlka Y �rwus..wrn .wr+r.x erA , you have any questions regarding this matter, contact .= ,er g .7, aka Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall. Blvd., Tigard, .,,P �, 1 wd 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart y CHECK THE FOLLOWING -ter 14' PLEASE C OI.Lt� ITEMS THAT APPLY: at 4 ' M��, a:`Y:A"M a.MWx1*•rv�:+way�wua.n ,i'+•Mavan.rtY�+�irrHa;' ! We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. ; Written Comments: , ,r . . 7 fpli ,=> A 4' 4 e, e 4 A/9 S9 ic+.......��Jr "M 'Ydr+ dT , k+" rekt, s'4rr 4,n i t're, s'.',.v L;t +. . to 1'44 b "�"�} L4 1 4w r;; ... .,, d de .fir ' "o Nape o 4 OraoA, :GVtmenl:, I� r ■ , 6 . you ST FOR COMMENTS liVEKIOM ' TO: � i Tht.:t''' fr''' DATE: If i fr 1988 , FROM: Tigard Planning Department CIry .�' RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a pla� el .4.' h approval. of o. '130 urii.t apartment camp ex !on 1.2.66,acres zon-• R-. '•' 4o.um •esnity residential, 12 units/acre Planned,Development). Also for a Variance to , • City regirriErag-E a require access poin s cn *eve opmen orover IOU _ units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and , .sum SW Pacific ig way WC M 5S l0AD ito 62 an—c £ �I . `T ` .�. ' . Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for ye r 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 by August 19 , 19 88 You may use the space provided below or attach a' separate letter to return your comments. If Ou are unable to' respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as :possible. If . . . you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW" Hall Blvd. , Tigard,' OR 97223. Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart `.. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: XX We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. XX Written Comments: This develo Wien will hae to be served on.._,_.. . um ed system that . j' is a:l.read in lace and ode at ue to serVe same. The .reliminar glans - _for water are uenerall satisfactc�ry except one more fire hydrant will . ductile iron :'i ,.fie required. An. 8-inC ,/moan must he installed half way around the ductile iron . Js otherwise a. 6-inch/main �is, satisfadQry. . .Metering of individual I 1.1.0 i, ;nr s must be modified 80 that fewer units are Served from each , s an 1 a� meter wil d serve 4 k.,,ildin+s . 'lhu l be re u�,re rv`' , each �.e t-e�` � � . to Se and one l2-unit building. (2" meter for 12-unit building plus swimming pool) B Total 8 l mete .d : 2 Meter) aie ofersen Ccimriaitin =� �� rs ari � �' ti. Ph Robert t. Santee ofle iii '� 9..�� ;) " . \ a • REOUEST FOR COMMENTS, TO TO: 0 1 A 4L. DATE: _ FR1M: Tigard Planning Department RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of a. 130 unit apartment complex on 2.66 acres zone R- 2 PD Me ium desnity . residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to City regu atlons t a require . access, p n oits on eve c-pner� o over Its" • units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway W 'M '.S •AD to ::• an. • 0, o .irk e . •• Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From • information . supplied by various departments and agencies and from other i 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 I , by , Asst 19 , 19 88, you may ` use the space provided to res and b th.e above date, please hone the comments. If you axes unable below or attach a separate letter to returxa p , p a p e staf f contact noted below with . your comments an confirm your comments in writing as soon as .possible. If you have any 'questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning 's ° Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97273, Phone. . , � �• 639 .417"1. • S TAiF CONTACT: Deborah rah Stuart PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: �-- We have reviewed the proposal. and have no objections to it. Please l contact ... of�,our Q t �ice. sed letter. Please refer to the e,r��,�lo� � � Written Comments: Name of Person ri ereon '(iomirie�iting: �. • Phone No. 6 „ 22,5 / r0/3521P • 1 h 1 Q „ REQUEST FOR COMMENTS i ,. „.. ...______ e 8 ii Bb TO: 0 # . DATE: FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DECANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of � • .; 1ao unat;apartment ccmple.x on 12.66 acres zoned R- 2 PD Mesium .esnity residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development). Also for a Variance to . City regu at2anS tat require 4; access points on d eve opment o ove? �' • units to allow one access. drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and . SW Pac i a:c a wa WCTM S AD to°Z and 5 Ate. tai &"`�DI3) J . g Y. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's 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 if by August 19 , 19 88 , You may use the , space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. if rou are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact... noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If , you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning D 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: Department, P.O.P.0♦ Boa. 23391, Blvd. , g � 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah St uart U 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. , t ” Written Comments: rl o'f� C4: Ga tii civU�' ';R. ..... .ife.S... ..LL 1 I tr no istly, 4,beet(4 iye/itrtt eAr -1--- ka,41-e.„, d2-4.eArtnAtiS ar feu„ puwv.-e4 Viva° a i IVIAljtS , ,gtiL loa - u -- i at kieArt„ boLd. cj Gc . L 'FS. Uf. i V t evt 44:(/i `�""` 14 r Weehd , -1-0 d,(0 & ,4 yo A ,e,ct .1.„ IN t JJdt Iit C tAtti .r.. , Naive of Person Comment. n ]EU.X; 1s i Phone No, / -61-7q0 Na ,ill. \\,. ,„ p,/1521p ...„,,„ .... 4 L. - . ,, - , , w .. d . r �. (. . g' . REOgEST FOR COMMENTS TO. 1/6/9., "'1 ,.. �i/ 4' DATE t i AO FROM: Tigard Planning Department 1 . k RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of . a. 130 ic apartment cone ear one 1 6 acres zone. R- L .PD Me.lum desnity, residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development) Also for a Variance to City regu ans 1a require `access points on opnnen o ra�rerc units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and ' SW Pack. .c ig way CT'i S /AD y 0 '2/ an. • 0 Brio' KY) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's 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. N •: If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments , . by August 19 , 19 88 _. You may use the Brace provided r . below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If lou a.re unable to respoo.d by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with . , your comments and confirm your comments in Writing as soon as possible. If . you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning • Departments P.O, Box 23397, 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 9722 . Phone: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Debc»cah Stuart ° PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWIN ITEMS THAT APPLY: 1 We have revie:;7ed the proposal and have no objections to 1 v it. 19 6 .. ip?igglEYh, s . . ,9,, tl♦ w r �� A Please contact of, our ofice. �IN�I�('�, DEPT Please refer to the enclosed letter. ' X;�.. Writte n Comments: At the current time, this proposed development is it the Templeton Elementary and Twenty Junior tang area High School at�.en r���Both schools are experiencing enrollment pressures and wou Id hare difficulty .1 : , housing the children expected to come from this development, especially if the project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September,,. u. e ,• I� y occupied 1989. 13eea �e . the school district anticipates the need to make significant changes in its � •. elementary and junior junior high attendanc e boundaries b eginning with the e I989-90 school year, the developer of this project,eC' t� �� it is ap p roVed, should make, n,o commitments , regarding where the children living there will attend school until those decisions ar e Name of Person Commenting: LarrY Hibbard made.Phone No 684-22o9 , . . Q ran/3 521 ' , • „ 4 'EOUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: 1 r- rc DATE: FROM: Tigard Planning Department I r . RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27 DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of a 13 it apartment complex on 12.66 acres one z ' R- PD Me ium esni:ty �. residential, 12 units/acre'Planned Development). Also for a Variance to Ci1377 e ataons �. a require-raccess Po F s on eve o en o f over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Paci is ig way WCTM S *A* to an o Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From i - . information supplied by various departments and agencies 61.kd from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation wil?, be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. i; a If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comment[ , bI y , 19 88 You may use the space provided rovided low or attach a separate letter to return your comments. I f ou e anable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon. as possible If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning . - Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone:. n 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: 4 We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. u. • Ci iVC0 �I Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Fire Marshal Office' Written Comments: jjt. ()Lb' -✓r� - ate � v '"s” t ..:. ie.N cot c. k. I4 iS Q,,,T r�.:. ,. jL ,�y � .,� 4- ``-- tgtt� of Person Commenting: -041/ ( �S t Y A. f q 11bna Noe r n/'15 21 P P v .. y�.,y4,o ,5 it o c; i.., I I I I • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C TO. p r racy _ 1DATE. A , . • FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: PD '88-04/ V 88-27 ' DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of 0 alt apartment coffi ex on 1 6 acres zon651i.:� PD Me .tun t esility residential, 12 units/acre Planned Development), Also for a Variance'to Ca.ty regu ati©ns a 'requirce Ecc;ess poiRE-s oeve opcnen o over �.UD units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Paoi .�.c H�.g way W�, 'M, EAU o a. an. • o AI" ,� 1) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other p y a enc information available to our staff, a report rid recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the i roposal in the near future. ' If you wish to comment on this application, we need ! your comments by Atugust 19 , 19 88 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are AElible tortspond by theabovc date, please phone the staff contact noted. below with your, comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: 639--4171. STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: W e have reviewed t h e proposal l and have n o objections s to it. Please contact of our office.' Please e refEC to the enclosed ed Y��t�r. Written Comments: • flame of Persbn Cornenting: .. . ' Phone Now n 1,3 5 2 ` P r,, \ . . • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION r,. . .. 4 1 , .. FILE NO pb . . o V/F-2�14 NPO N0, Co T FILE TITLE: ':K CHAIRPERSON '. PHONE: APPLICANT: 'qr.. . (j ° D.kk,.,,.. ,o-- OWNER: c. /4 , &h c./e.7 d .: 2-C) Ai 30(2— pti .G: 2- e r (5 -1 ( 4 . ...jay, 0 ez.. ' (.)t-S fe P.- 4(7c , e --f- 4± - . ..:. REQU E S1.: `1,- ,.,- Z CGS,„;,,, .e 6, de,06 •-j,y,'-..G,,,,„2_7. ,,:, -'�' '-7J .,,... i..: /30 - . GL e5� -L.: - - -'.-- �. "- al--- 104,6 e2 ..,t.. . e4' 7--/2 (1, '1)(" 'YW.-, 14-+'"'' C-C-v (Z / )✓c....� ;, f + . ,J JG„ , . C ., .. : ,tj 6,,r- ' . ,. ,ei,CGA�-( ,„*.,,, •lr�`' ,, / -' “,.- � 4.24 /= ', / m-^" 90¢4r : Pi /'1' r � w4 gee -‹ a ti zoNE: 72, _/0,(A/2 D) . ' LOCATION r �'� ,;-2,,‘ - TION. G (:sit, ,, �t.) /� ,, �� r ,;� , , ,�. C/ oucf-r-, ` 0 4 L-4 ( e + 5z a , r! , . CHECk ALL WHICH APPLY: iLejo �, de �. i � N STAFF DECISION 1` PL NNING COMMISSION/D TE: ,.,5" .€4 V-"" ' 1 TIME; : -y' P A--t EARINGS OFFICER ' /DATE: /TIME: ," CITY COUNCIL /DATE: /TIME: ', :- REQUEST FOR, COMMENTS (SEE ATTACHED S DUE ('+�/ NOTIF7,CATxON ., ©LIE BACK: 4 CONTACT PERSON: 7 r#u CONI" ., � 'ATTACHMENTS: i VICINITY MAP - --` LANDSCAPING,..PLAN,LAN, i ' . RRRA1 IlE 444 _ - .�, ' ARCH ITECTURAI PLAN, . �' SITE PLAN�, )////PREPARE FO R P LANNER APPR OV AL ._.,.....n�._ 1 0VEi r1"ISEM Et:NT FOR s T ORFc4O '/ N / TO 'P ROPERTYNER .. � , LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION ht/3656P , I 1 '‘1,41:7 i 0 17 .. p r . • i4 1 ..a.,.-, .-.•l, —w m..,.... a._........e,...a,.+.�.:.. 1 .—.,-...,...., ,1,.--.•,J•..- .., ».......r„r............,.,..:..A..1a:., ,,.»..a..+.. ...1u..,,,,-...4w...4......-w..._+r.,.,.,..•.....I,......,.;kr..,, - .if a:,, • • I • I .r • , . • 1 flic,c), ... . .-, , , -:. . ,1 e,.. . :. . , . , 1 . , . . TAMARA M 1M T , TO ' , * 04.4i,,,, eim,,I.A.,,yt..4,i'l , , , , • •I r I • 1 „ . 07....‘,..b,,, I . . I r • • • I I • • • r rf I II I \ I , i r tig , 1 iN\ ,, ,, 6 1 , , , 1 , . I I , , , , I ., . E� 1 , ,, , I r ., .. , , , , I, , , , , I , I , , , , , , , , , :. ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , a . . , , , , , , ,, , , I I, , , , , , . , ,„ ,, , . , , , , , , , , , ,. . ., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , ,, , I ,, , . , , , , , , i „, I I I , . . . : , . I I I ,, ,,, , I I I. , , , . .,,,. ,,,f.,,,, . ...___,-) . ... , , • , _ , , . ., , .,,,, . . . . . , : . 4 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS il 4 1 i TO: 0,.Sjfitit-__ L - -- DATE: r FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: PD 88-04/ V 88-27, DEKANTER (SCHUETZ) For a planned development approval of a. 130 unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres zone R 3 PD '(Medium de i ty residential, 12 units/a:re Planned Development). Also for a Variance to .,.,,- City regu at= a - tneclu ,-ems"access TE'-s on eve o i en' off' over T" ' units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and •, ,; SW f a a i r a i Way W n •AD to -:e an. 'b' •4 o A l t •• . Attached and , checl i s the Site Plan a:n�, applicant's an� PPl cants statement � for your review... From � � �i ^•, ' ' , 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 comment® by ____81492.t 19 _, 19 88 . you may ,use the space provided 1 below or attach F separate" letter to return your c o ments. IlLiclulla Tunable . to respond" by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with 'your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as ,.poasi b1e;. If x" you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Ti gird Planning y' � 8 E 9 8 g ` Department, P.O. Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , , Tigard, OR 97223. Phone: ' .� 639-4171. , STAFF CONTACT: Deborah Stuart ;' PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS 'THAT APPLY: , We have reviewed L'he proposal and have no ob;lections to it. ' Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. , �_-_____-� Comments: Written Co ,. .: , r Name of Person Commenting } ' . , G, .,,, Phone No car \ ph/:023P . ' f ; 1 �• 4, e' J ' . . • W. I3 WELLS AND ASSOC 6 S, INC L[Elru y Q[ irEQRS 1T7 L ., . ' 4230 N.E. Fremont St ' . PORTLAND, OREGON 97213 DATE • � J09 NO. , ',II i ATTENTION • (503)2844 896 - 1 Re: 4.47,:i , TO _C—ki Co r 1k; Q - A_r. x.1.4.., ..., a" _ '64...... C. 9 I , . • ..4ft ,'ri ,.. . I IA ,-...:..- iT ' 1...";: ', I t ti .s _ CITY OF MARI) J PLANNING DEPT. . WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached ❑ Under separate cover via___„ -- .__.the following items: : 0 Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications` ,. , ,tl . � op �of letter 0 Change order 0. d . COPIES DATE Na DESCRIPTloN" _. i'l � THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: a C] For approval 0 Approved as st inlitted 0 Restabmit�_.."..,:_..,._copies for approval . E1 For your use 0 Approved a noted ❑ Submit___copies for distribution i • • 4 �„,21"--As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return _corrected prints 0 For review and comment 0 �� -- Y FOR BRJS DUB 1� r 0 PRINTS R�" ...�_._._. �, � RETURNED AFTER LOAN 'Tt� IJ�0 REMARKS __•_ .. } a'+y 1 04/..4k i.•-- ______Le - .. ' '41' .1!'l -... 1.4,1,tti.0 li‘it2..'4.!_: .4(,A. —.414„,,______ ''''' d3f7),4— —4(12_ f 0--- , 5. _, ...'"ot,„„,_12,4- VV.112.—_,41,,,,k4_60 .) L , 1 COPY TO _ __. . SIGNED: .\/, r 7'' Nkutitaid / /InW'attoo,Ate OWL if:OritiosLtoO Ora not e^..noted, tan*mtuty 05 At of:!............„.„.„,„,..........''' • n 1 D 7 " • • . -k?.ae-0,44)'' ', . n L , . ,,, , ,. ., , . R , . . . . ,,,, , , . r: . . . . . � � 19 . . 88 , F�»C IAI�i r� z AND !A C� WHITE' SOCK) e*cm PLANNING DEPT. I • v � ti .. .ill a . , S ." H THE PERMIT PLY TO ' ' ' THE CITY' or 'tI+ AI O 'UH. A DEVELOPMENT ENT .' ER IT AS PROPOSED ' I 'OR' A .'t AR 'Eta or 'LAND RE IST RED IN ,OUR NAME ' I ' ANNA''�SCHUETZ t"i��1 SAN SCH lET Vii' ,...- . -M = �.,,, 7 '7 f r, • V" V�y� w Ir 3 • • , • ■ I i • r . M • • • (si .„ . , ,4"ki f e l • . \ 0 Y r i y. Ir i .. ,.i.N•I.+wleRJ.'n Jki _ _ 5 "O� "M ".' .'j».,i 1,t ,. r, I.! . a. 9 , .. . Dv ee'. .‘:i.,,,,,,,4.1.-1, 1. , ,,,,i el '', M AUG 4 1988 r CIl'Y OF _ Wilson Realty, Inc 12, PLANNING DEPT. Investment Real Estate Specialists • r r. I 4 , c Af:,,,,3 f,`'> ! + / 1 e ""'" c °7 +..`J `t°/1 T �-••° e I/1 7'c^�` "14 )--.4 ° 7 (-6- ne../1 c. .-c!.- `)4-1-L e /(9/ ,-iq' t c,-, i e::9 c4.1 , /'-2,7 /9---7-1,, c . . h te ,(W/1U! ? .eri, till t T /art .e c'"" � / , .- at. u -e 04, , C ' . e pi"t e-o/:),0 4,:.. e e T ,5 eg 9r1-b '"g-- / yoz-t. ,-(..) / / 7 ie . , / c- / , e 4 / 1 -pc/ 1.......," e ii2le-,/,v ‘or // . . • r I tl . I I I I • i r I I n ! r • if . i. I r I . I It S.W Macadatn,Suite 3 00 4 Portland,Oregon 97201 4 Phone(5 03)225.1212i tzrAl.IO(e ,,,, . 4 4,. ... ....._.tl • ...c,�s. n<, .hx+uwx m�a.�.w.t.l kwv Y' r,r.WS., l.,V. ,.�i.... ., ..w M , w�. ,•.�,...r �.. ...r,. y M ^ a a • 11 . E ��• , • ., „ „ : , , ,, : , . , : ,., rr �,r 1 . „ ., , ., „, „„ , , „ , .4i1 ,, tA, . , . •-, . . .. . . CIWOFTIFA ItE) „ . , , LEC ' • ' 11 ' ,t July 19, 1988 I OREGON d iI e r i.j; AUG 1988 CITY OF TIGAR �r--�1 Mr. Tod Dc.Y.anter PLANNING DEPT. I , • 720 NE 34th Place �, Canby, OR 97013 I ', . r. RE: PD 88-04 Schuetz Dear M . De.�anter. I 'I This shall serve as a reminder that your application for a planned development (Schuetz) has been determined incomplete. Please be advised 'that the following items are needed prior' to staff analysis 11 of your application 2 , , la ra.ffic,' analysis see ' G ary Alfeon, Eng.e ' �opy of a title transfer „ 3 Variance fee of �210 OQ n end edfor ac cesa . Applicant's statement I � ” ti 1 c Should you.' have further questions, please contact' the Planning Division at , • 639-4171. , , I ' Sincerely' I a . k ' r Deborah A. Stuart Assistant Planner I C cn/6020D I ' cc. Cari ige.ss, C1 D, HAttid. Co., x a II I � I 13125 SW H II vd„P,,O,8Ox 2 3 7, 1' car j Oregon 97223 (503)639 41 'I `' y o , •'yea M..-1�4..,, .�.r.��+1L«•..'.+III....'... a.....+.«.-n.,.4v...L«, „ .,,�„ i .- ,i .i,.i i. .. ...,e. _, ... kl.'.....,w..-r,..+...+., ..... .l=.J..1 ... ,� .a...r-�,h.._.-.ew:r.-. _«.....a ...,1.+',AM-.:tY.i..iU,.G:..u..-..i..v.- i.. :. - ...a.._. C IR.CULAT BR , ,, it ja t, - RW r - 'P.. ... Staff Review r.....� J �_. 'h. • ti ....__62a............. ? • -- _. 1 CITY OF TIGARD �► r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1� PRE=-APPLICATION CHECKLIST 1 . Date � 4441,A1 ' � 1, APPLICANT � , ,Al'i'f"1 ______L -.� Ie t G gya c a ": .,,,,_ I ..;,,,,,,p6,,ev- ,v7,-;# op.,,,,,1,5- QI,-.,Z. AEW-5'674 2. PROPERTY LOCATION b h Address Fc4i h4 L,�,;44L t � • 046:2‘61185)iih'$ � � � � I..PMk "� �H 5� 'llllirvFA �� �T7'J�i� N���, �"YYFY•� �� �,0- w M ►aX L.ot a 1 to `` : 68��, ,I«i a b€:`''d ,T p 8 .. 4 Ta.x ap/ w- --- I ` ' -, , - , PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY APPLICATION(S). be „„) 4i` "' a I. J r/ / M J ,, J \IQ1 y 6''4 t J" a( a r Jy 'M �'2. % � t t.t y'"" ! E.Xisting . a �. "f 0 y M '',if l'wj °. N, "Y �' ,, / • Lw wrY++rw . xw 1 , . Adjacent Propert z w' 0� y,. 1 t" e , 1. south 91 CiLJL_ �, "r� � Y t,t:)''' M��t� I , t „„(,*„,,.., ( , 5', �C0� PRCNE�1.,bIVE� PLAN CeE8ICNATION � •,�.� . w , r, w ' ZONING DCSICNA`1"ION le".....:L.,...„2_20.1.,10 %4 4(1. ,�� G '7 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZAT:TON NO, �CHAXRpEr SON tl t _"' , ` ,,',� PHONE - Q'�. . 1. Mi nxim. Utn lot si F W i d 4 C MMM i 1 it Fw.r.rrr,wwr+. Setback t Front :::)(7.:5: corner side re it e),„. 8pecia1 setbaoks F stre4ts W -„ro established areas .. . tower in'te is ity zo ies ... . wet1an 1 I 1 flag lot accessory s tru ctures . .....�...., 20so lot line � __ /laX imam lot coVOrage ,:�._,/,.2'� 21 Maximum h Is-44 i ,, A • I Special height Limits , flag lot --7,' _ other (,.. , • ..,....,........ [ Density ca9c clat on �5" '" 'f' 1414;"hr: Density transition _: x. ' ii s r Landscaping:g min,im um % oi'Y f, lot area ,)C) w a . r • S t r e e t T re e s tt o d 1: r ,.. w a w I i . ",,4 Ord � , :4-,_.._.,.w.„wn.. Buffer Area s --.J.i. v. r `, a `'° ,,,,c '”. r�.;!", ,, ;� ,,,,,,,y$04) , ' , "' 'a Parking Areas' s., , � Y « .__ „, •+g 1��, ''''''''57* „ ,t.. V i sual clearance _,n Ii,,,�+k9rr"Ct. 5 P�' 0MYry:, fh *yr,,,, .�w.t 7t it(,,,4e. %3 �r ?,$ le,�eij `" 'f'}1,$xs K ,,.0 I nne,,' '' i, —"'7"-ww. — ...•1...�«.. uw w :..M.•...I.+W ti „y Parking' 'a�7d loading L�~;� , t. w"k» t'a i/ta,:e;, tI ,''� /. r" �.. L �w;� ),9 ' ' „ , �~ :0f c ac har r lie a, "4w 5i ��P' rl fi . " r;'4. ' a Access and circulation '' ,LjthJjk'f 1' ' , ( f..:_. ..r ; a h I, ' •I j Y k yCid 4 .,...w.wrt .ww........w14«.+.... 1 �r I rnr•w•Mrr•:ii2_iLrjL; L�{,rww �www.xwrr. uwwY aa�FrY 4 J @ ktG, y,ww-. � .4 •.• .«..w.+....www..4.w...:w•wwl•..w...i...l� � 1, 0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (Se,Q application checklist' for specific items) c 'Sensit'ive lands':' f',00dplain drainageway J, >25% slope Wetlands -� .v r;: . Open space _ ww, , Hi storic 'overlay ., Y v 4 f. p'4 'W Y4a,,,l'i' 0 7.'s ,: ovo,V,id1. �d,€ 'W"'V'i /CA ±„ Sheet x,mprovem��nts/cohr��r�`LzoM1s/bi�teways � �.�w ,.. .wl„ww_ I, w I1) �{ { d44:04. 8 1 ”'�r S d., 0,1 I �,,,4'/"�v 42(d &/ �.w 4'.e t >� ' x J eVV G drat i , w.ww..w IR 1 h t o ' � �g f-way' dedication , .��`�,,,,. . , , �� �� � � ��'- Sarti :arwy Sewer Improvement ii �'"" . } ir,m, , L A le )ll �l �' � 4, .,t, eett%1 44 , Storm Sewer improvenehts , t5/41 eigq;11,4 A t. .j/ * ,Fa /1777 54 " ` w,zx"*� t r ` v:01 ' ,t r ., "' Improvement, Agreement Permi�t, 8ohds; Fees . " 0";" kp � " V d p r. q J71 v,• i�G��y0 ,.ri ,',two 'niryry(:) ;a i0.p ,r A ,, 4_ �,�I It ir t . fr f A . rw LfL . .1 w ' A r + '1 10, PRJOCEDUR Adninistwatiue staff review wow r'ub1ic Hearing/Hearings Officer , N r ,; . Public Hearing/Planning Cor nis'sion t "rho Administrative' detition or ; Public Isar^ing shall occur ` approximAtoly 30 days of te r A' complete a' .1 xcaticr , is i=i leti, A , 4b-day appeal period follows All doei,sions �; 9,, .o' , • . Staff J Date CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, APPLICATION CHECKLIST successful completion of checklist below are �re required for the ucce sful +cc�m The items on the c.h q P your application submission requirements This checklist identifies -what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought and submitted with all other ` materials at the time you submit your application. See your application for further explanation. of these items or : • call Planning at 639-4171.' ITEMS TO BE BASIC MaTERIALS INCLUDED: A) Application form (1 copy) I Et4 ' B) Owner's signature/written authorization E•-r, C) Title transfer instrument E 4 D) Assessor's map Ewe" I . E) Plot or site plan Ea •. F) Applicant's statement `' (C) List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet E " (H) Filing fee ($ ) tt`.qy SPECIFIC MATERIALS 1 'fG Q f�Q a of copies�i'�e �hfQrma 1oh sh win A) CA 1) Vicinity Map E)' 2) Site size & dimehsionP .. 3) ContOUr" lines (2 ft at O-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4) Drainage p atterns cQ arses, and ponds Gam], 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: a) Floodplain areas E a b) Slopes in excess of 25% , .--•' • c) Unstable ground E ' d) Areas wi th high sea gona� water table I 3 e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential C' ] f) Areas having seeterea� weak Comprehensive eE -., 6) Location of resource areas p v Map inventory ihcluding a) Wildlife habitatsI Op • b) Wetlands I. 7) Other site features: i4 a) Rook outcroppings b) Trees with 6" 4 caliper measured 4 feet j: from ground level ' Location of existing structures res and their Uses E o Location and type of on and off-site noise sources E J 10) Location of existing Utilities and easements 11) Location of existing dedicated right of ways dele Ea B) Nita pm D�Velo nt Plan' shoWj (No. of ) E.3 i) The proposed site and surrounding p o erties t • 2) Contour line intervals 31) The location, dimensions and names s of all: , , • a) Existing & platted streets & other public wa s , and easements on the site and on adjoining, E properties I' r1. • I r APPLICATION CHECKLIST Page l I I , w r II 11 ,, R M *, __ b) (, roposed streets or other public ays & easements ' on the site, [ c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed . M1 streets that require future extension [ ] . 4) The location and dimension of: -' a) entrances and exits on the site (t,1-*- 1 b) Parking and circulation areas LA.. - c) Loading and services areas G. 1-" d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation [„ e) Outdoor common areas, f) Above ground utilities [ 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: . a) Existing permanent structures,s, improvements, . utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site (4--"" • b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site [ 6) Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ( 7) Sanitary sewer facilities [L, - . 8) The location of areas' to be landscaped [a, - 9) The location and type of outdoor lighting . 1 r.. considering crime prevention techniques (1,4 10) The location of mailboxes ( 1 ' Li), The location of all structures and their orientation Q.t,}. . 12) Existing or proposed .,sewer reimbursement agreements [ ) ,; C) gnadin P]an' (No. of copies ) [ __ /a The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the Same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall 4' contain the following information . " 1) ' They location rand extent to Which grading will take place indicating general contour, lines, slope ratios . and soi], stabilization proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done [,a,- 0 2) A statement fr om a regi stered ehg i neer su pported by ,• data factual substantiating: a) SUbsurface exploration and g eotechn ta l engineering report [ 3 . b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm 4 drainage service proposals t. j- .., c) That all problems will be Mitigated and how they Will 'be mitigated [ r ��-.&t No f co p ies .. ): D) Arm �ci;urax D�t�awin.�s� �� o p � � �,�� [�,]"° The site development plan proposal shall include ' ) t loor plans indicating the s are footage of all proposed for use sit structures propo oh-site; and [ drawings' u � "� 2) ryp i pal ��lerataa n � o each structure, ,� N E) Landsca e Plan (No, of copies w ): D4'4 G T The landscape plan shall rareIravJn at t he same stale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: -{ . 1) Description of th�: where applicable [ J .. the irrigation system whe 2) Location and height of ences, buffers and screenings [L.4-!'" APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page • ,.., w"'r i,,. . ,r n" v a".. ..r . , ♦r, . v,.. ♦ .m, , .. .,A w' e'. -yl; .1.i.k^1'x1 ./i,{,M„`Yt 1 ( "".•1..w/Yl;i+r e1 :nr r t t r h ,. a Iw1 3) Lo eeeion of terraces, decks, shelterel play areas and common open spaces . 4) Location, type, size and species of 'existing and proposed plant materials. ( " The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1) Soil conditions. [ ] 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. [ 1 ,I F) Sign Urawi Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter .4 . 16.114 of the Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign, [ ' G) .Traffic q ene ration estimate �� f H) Prelb ilWl„ partition or 1c�t line , ad ustment moo aw shin (No,'of Copies ): 1) The owner of the subject parcel [ 1 2) The owner's authorized agent [ ] 3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=1), inch north arrow and date [ ] b 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [ 1 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 7) Location and width of all water courses I ) 8) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level [ 3 9) All slopes greater than 25% [ a 10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements [ ] :L1) For major land partition which creates a public street: a) The proposed right—of-*Jay location and width [ b) A scaled, cress—section of the proposed street ' I plus any reserve strip,f [ 3 12) Ariy applicable deed restrictions C 13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude ` I. efficient future land division Where applicable [ X) SUb$j i,on Pre 1 a� rta lr Fat Spa... and da to sng(N©, of . copies. ° ) 1) Scale equaling 3 0a 5C ,1Q0 or 20,.0. feet to the inch • r and l i A ted to one phase per sheet [ ] 2) The proposed a subdiliisio n E 3 • posed na�se of the o i Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets [ 1 4) dames, addresses and telephone numbers of' the O eer deVeloper, engineer, sur;ey er, de s igner, as apelac able[ 3 Date Boundary application ' be �ubd" . � I " 5) eofap;: [ � subdivision z 7) Bou ry limes of tract to, ivided [ ) �es, of adjacent �u on or names of recorded owners s of adjoin ing na tg p tone is of uh ubd i�ide� land C 6) contour lines related to a City—established bench— . -- mark mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater i than 1O [ ]' I 1 i I + APPLICATION CHECKLIST — Page 3 • . r. q n • 9) The ` pose, location type and site c all of the following (within and adjacent to the'proposed subdivision): [ ] D a) Public and private right—of—ways and easements ants C ] b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines [ ] c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants [ d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) [ ] e) Watercourses C ] t f) Deed reservations for parks, open spa c e, pathways y s and other land encumbrances [ • 10) Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades ar'id pipe sizes indicated [' ] ' , 11) Plan of the proposed water distribution system, • showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and • fire hydrants. [ ] 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of ,all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed ' subdivision. [ ] , 13 S caled cross sections of propc,sed street right—of—way; [ ] 14) The location of all areas subject to inundation or I I storm water overflow C L] i I all water- Location, width and direction of flow of 15) I�ocataa cty f courses and drainage ways [ 3 . . I 1,15) The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Wher ► losts are to be ° s �n is 1 it shall be re �.�! used for" purposes other than indicated upon such lots C 17) The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and ' the location of proposed tree plantings, if any [ ] I I 18) The existing uses of the property, including the location of. all structures and the present uses of A ' the str;uct'ures, and a statement of wh ich structures are to, remain after platting [ ] 19) Supplemental information including: • I . b) Proof of deed ownership C ] a) Proposed d restrictions (if any) ] property rship I , c) A proposednplan fo prov'ision of subdivision , x r p v 'mp 20) Existing natural features including rock out y , . croppings, wetlands and marsh areas. C 3 race 21) If of the : ,�information I , -� � ) any o • he fo�^egoing in r tlo cannot p.. ticably �. be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be • +ve and submitted incorporated into a rrarratx xtterl with the , p application. ] v f ) Information Other r , � ] � I (2362P/0028P) APPLICATION Cr 8T — Page 4 4 I s a r il a • \i .:` L. - 1 �, �J , „{ +y f !( 1 ‘ ' h”''T"H'" .' -r !,91-- I,�. . # j«^ ' {�� ,,—•k 4 n -. rte/.. Ir,' F. 1 Y �' JI i ' . i a. 41 rN f R.,,, r 'r�e k' -0 / ' (M + ' 7 r. r 1 ,, . ! I' + 1 r w at • ,.t ,a . ,. ._. , , , r t ,644 61 1 0,:e.),/,' , ' . i ,,s.,/,,,;()--i ioi.' ' .). , 1?-2'5 1? 2,- . . ' t,,,.,,,,,, , . , , .),,,...„:„...- ,.., L, i. . ,.. „. ,, ,;...„ ,i, r ,r�`l yam „ •'�9 •y� .. t}$411;4$1 lo r ✓ r I ��'/r O Y fir. _,�. .,�..,,,. , , 'if'...i:),? ' *. !A , 4,0,.'' ■ ' ' , ' R-25 .''''. , . YF r" . , • 1, .rI" �.v �'"� /??? /'' w� � t>. �h af, „$,,,.."„4 � `4 r4 `('�,,'f,,i�*� 4.# I ,I' i f . a u,, u.11,,, I.r • Y��'�4 Pi•"� 1 a.a 1 + "'t •'�'� r ,,,K rf^.Y.Y, I a•;1 w'.,,..Y.t'',.�.,'y'S.'r,riter.r°,-i�,,.''/ 4',( 1•'i h r' t ' 4 tf i"�' _Y �4� "�' -,...„A 1, s, 1 • Ca h 1 '„'�^” L , Wal ',y{I ,�, .4 3—^i t,.�^,.. ,te Fr .A -4-•-,tt i..t tt,. .4.,, 4 �y{ r'i / •<.-i- lN%?M .y , .'` ' ." T - t,i', N. ^ Z ! A I t �N .'"fi .K,r�S� TN, Y't 140A' i • µ () u , ~ "; � aW E iAh t.+++ w4 ��r N1 ..%,>. w.r , " . v •r✓ to FNIN",1"w14, ta' d"" .mss",0-'`Y t ..- 1x.. 0.y , �. �� :. -�� �,,.1d?�•4,.M./.Y�w i d.� � - tf+Y� fr I,,,jt, , `3 la,' i I . , iM D �",y , 3:7{ �C ,'" , , .� ,,, ,AFF t rw,z ' ' f.1 • N i r I Eo : 4 � X'.,M Y y p;l. ,4,< '! r41 bl �, + , � 4 Y,. • ,'� #4 Gkb! :, It', ! jp�R y',1'. ,. µf,,l, ` z L * � .. fiu kryy� ;f r, .r� 4 �� y i ."' r 4 3"Y 4 .'r i•0 . '', ', afi t•41, ?. 1I■ ''•w k�T. ," • „ ---,•-• ,. `+ SN r, ..0- „ �°w A• "+ A. I21;41-t rvJ ' m.. , » «. r M a.. 7 AY^ ! rk t J � ,,--,— t I R25 ,r,� J 1 ' S s �% 4L Y A _�' "1 v 8W "M`�. /�W :.r t + . . Y ' ,',,`Y'., :1 111:� : y �rr4 1��1 4,�i r ..........L;1 »..� i �j p I_w*_k _ I ,.L ,- 1 /;R-4 \ .. i .,w.l'r1. , 1 1r+P t•r,t.S ^,,_i;:..S Av.,)4 .. 1 .SJ.. ' 4 i .. t ;:•I. "',''fr�, .,, f ?,✓ J ,r r. ..""1 ^— er' :f 1 Y` t y I - d tA� ` ,!1: ! :i; :' ^ W1 ,,r.�Y`1 r`Yy,'r�w' W.,1 n ,"""t e ,. , e - ^ . Y 4:,1 ` "" yk .'i7G+�., 'j^'�''i�'�y1111,. »� '� r F,,t. =-y,,,t°baT�`4 'w+t.. c, "� a �J r.,t,,v r r/'a ±i 1 rl";it ,.e',11!. r ..+Ni) .4'4,...,:,—',..,,rl,,T,` t r iRi ;YS ' t*',5,� •✓ ,j �1`� ? lq %t,r ,t,f ,'1,4,,w,' „ ��°i r , , :.�.. �, ' (Y � .; 1 FBI � ,,`,• �.:...e,,. - i; ..ri\T .1., w k) 4# w_, -,L.� �Ii�...N ,�,t 1� t �� IrA Ii; - '-'-f w..- t .., • — •• -{, t+C ,11' T ! L a �7. r 1 k,,,, . {' .'f Y I , 1.' "i,T { ([ t� t..; A Y Y1 T A , /1/. r t k i e; _ e�a � t c Z ,,�,w ,'11, ! t 1 ',. 41 T , 8X'1, }, ..i '� t -R x.1 L r.,1� ,... t v qt i. �t a+ , r � y{ I � .� �i ,..... .' �..'..,.....�,u" _. .. ' .. ..,,,.... .,,,..,, .. ,,.�.' u,....,....,H.. .,..., ,. .,.u...l.... �...�.d.. ,. �..... ....... .. .. .....i.. ._.r.. � _.,n ...r rr, 1..�,...... ..,.,i ... .n... r..,. v ..rv"r. ., ....a ,.° .. ,,.�,rr,.,. ......w,..•...... .v. r$14, • , • r„ .�.... »,,,...._...sx�Y..,...V,.ul.:....,..,.«,.,_.�.,,,,,�.:+.....»»-u.., �..._...... .I.,� ..-. _ »,..u..,w,r,l..,.,w�. .a,Mr+.,....,w:._.,...-..:.:r..M.,..k.,..sa:.=:.:,'...,.�.:♦,�.,...�.,,.»,-,...,.-.;.�;,..,.,...y.._.....wog . ■ To _ J Date 0 Time I ''..I.:,_.6.._____ . WHILE YOU WERE OUT { 1_,.(„--,,,e,L, p t , (° ofi y ._,,.._...w -r_✓r ' ° Phone .Z. . t: F I 3 TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL kk i ' . RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN YOU I� WANTS TO SEE OU •US, H w .,♦..y..µ 0,.),tp ek�w`x -1.r.1„ �)„,Y. ii C te Y ib ,, 4i,e h,i) „,,,ui .ge 9age . # ,,,,,H , , * , '' /2,,(„,,,:,s° ., ;141;1,, 1.4 6/44L1 .1),,,Ii. .$',„,ife.,''C'07'-',44-1 /L4(4'4, ,... i .■ill'killi.' {3 el 4,sz, ertA.k,....t..4., ,,,, ,i let:(-- At 1,.:t i,„ ,,.„ , . �/!ry h4y Y,/�y. R'�' f .'' y,/ L�;r".;1 of 4' VAT f �' �yl,W'�,�,, 1I Hw.�,v, t kY �'tu'�' A'IF.'�'�H i9�Lw.^....ya°'"`�,jf„ A v J ,,G :F I�d, � - /.. }" ( ::',CA.Ai S 1✓"..)C r,,I fir .r.L el. �,1,,,, ,S,K ,. ( 4) J py� /q 7Depeltdillia''' VFVFVFV A '�-666 . i .I r 7 ,' 4/eV p • w 1Pirt9,6,'''C/gCC5I t , , 2/e) .0`a ty Ile,' J 1 . , ii -0/e,, /0 e . '''''':,,ee,i. , ' , . , ,, ,' :, I iwa- , Y ,rte, , F ,.....i,i..,t r"M,,,.,. w.4..„.....ww.l,, .u...,,w n,..„,,,,,, 4da.,wq,4,...... ..,. f...;,:.., • a l�if�Ja .., J.NLUIIa la.�.1«l.Ji.1,,�1u4.a�.1zV 1�.YrYw., •..,i.J:1.4'^ «a•.hal..rwYJ:1J r.,W.1rW15.,.ts1i11{r.h.Yr:w4.l:s.l.,.s«f.'.asl..;,.H,.s..,«r.vr..a..4u•:slt. :..N:.«wuu:Y:v:..a,..-,,.r.a«d.a,..yC.wr`r. ..C1r"�n rat i+.:.ii:�"/flsr:A:1.���,.�rJ.lv�i�dVwA,s r ,>,.' a.ta;� 1..t::A,.�a'•; Na, a «tw+« u_ J •Y j CIRCULATE t -::,13;; _.. BR f • RC J0 Itk F•rt. Staff Review K 51... u •I . r CIS ' I = " --CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST I 0. , , I Date I I n C 1. APPLICANT � ...".....�:_....aL4 2. PROPERTY LOCATION „ __ ._ ,____ I I A Address v),(• . �! tAwA 1 +L1 6 ` % L 16 .)teri.t - P1. ds A .Mie 1341i Alt, Tax heap/Tax Lot (7).51 I 0 7` .0 7 l ,5 [ 10A Q "r Yoe?' 60 . t0P /p.. 8, , , , 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY APPLICATION(S) I f 1.A14.E E��vr �1 jeve,L t e " s, a _ DrI W _ F.v�" �r•.'«.W pw:sr+rnw,w..w.rwr.r�wr�rr,...,•rrwr�rrw�..w.wo.wrn„r.,wrrwr+.rrrrer �� v S Existing 1, o Mgt~ r g Ada erttl Property • f` `), s trt i't/�I ! ti't t;6-.1- -1- (Qa t;vE, ic,'„'dA . , I east "° ,,. . 1, West :. ..(W. i w _ _____________ , ,f„,, ,,i f 5,, COMPRENENSIV.E PLAN DESIGNATION ,.� �I , t 1 4'' 'w" 1 `ai„w t 6, ZONING Dt.SIONATION 12,,. ( ,h 't 7, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NO, CHAIRPERSON . PI-IONE (rn.:,,,I ' '4 1 I I 8. CODE REQUIREMENTS (lj�y;{�gp� ►{� _ {� y/e/y�y�'dF� V 1Yr 4ta� � Pew ,} M 3 1 1 i I l lu l l f lot $i 14 f wJ/�+ -.)' L frnw...,.�..r+i (''' Setbacks: ,1.Y'�t f front �'' ,'r�' co er� side +`”" ri t�eAr 1 ., r.;w' special setbacks. Stheet ' a,. .� $� s establasq��e�l areas I � I lo±wtr� interrsitt zones " et1ands , flab lot — accessory structures _ ., zero lot lihe --., a Makimum lot cover ge 5 + h NI M .IttiUhl building he]g t � , Qr i .1 I I' .A¢dJ , * 4 s r ro 1 • I P Special height limits flag lot - other `. "' q.• ' .� . „ ` " - ,� �j' . � Densxty c ulat o� Ive " ��,, r' nee r� r, . e tes',2 4 )( .. v."s �F !1 p Kn�u � f � ,f '.' , 4� loin( rt„ t '� E n.t Lty, x 4 46r a.( DeylsR i I t _ — , w .a , .4' ::. _. Density transition . .. w_.. r, t ,.0 Landscaping: minimum % of lot area _ t -• Street Trees �. .� . •, Buffer Arias .». �' –I rt i/ ,'"n P ie WI •, t, u a Parking Areas _1 4"ve,. 7 s9,,� 34,,,s5 S a ' , ., Visual clearance . L Park ing and loading psi-tke b 101 1y�� , vorr '� -Iy�F+ 2re t a" ,..oar, id , I . n.N.w�rw«r.r..+r .G ',A4.!;. n �p u � a cettA__,A,di (it, .rto,r v et", , _____________ . . . Access and circulation d..t1 6 stekic,f.la 101411 _if: riatjt letwafe vavic t , 3-Li 4o 4.p�p�{�, 6(V;Vr LEI 4'h 1i0 ( , r ,wMwrwwrwurr„ ^ fwrw.w.ywrrwur.rWr..rwww. ".,rwrrw"x, •�1 11 Signs 611. st,ro r h �M'' r p x .Iw , ; ;9 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (See application checklist for 'specific items) • Sensitive lands: floodplai:n _ drai.nageway .�. 25% 8lopo'.w: Wetlands Open space ., : r Historic overlay — c , A Street improvements/connections/bikeways, �~� �" ' RAG°Wu" ��r : r: ,E,� e" f4f Right-of–way dedication , '' , 4 ; •,. '• M i" "Sanitary Sewer improvement-r d hau F !,^A 10 x xui 'N� � 641110, ro r 1tp"r , ---r----t . � .,. 1' I U to it Pith. a tti r r �'t OM / la.,..td:�.r(4 +,.6 i pt,�M ��a! M 0n� r F J P��t{41p ,9Wp'YL i;yiIC r � 1, 9' rbtm, v,� ii �, ,,: 1 b t1 I( w f4 " di717n,7 .9,",i+a Gl. sr "`-- Storm Sewer improvements 1; ;improvement Agreement – Permit; Bonds; Fees other agency permits 1(l, PRC� t1RF Administraeive staff review Public Hearing/Hearingo Officer )/% ...j,4/42 it: ' .• The Administrative decision or Public Hearing shall occur approximately o days after a complete application is filed, A, .fi 10–day appeal period follows all decisions,s". onsx (05780/0022P) • " i .,,. .- , .. .... — ., ,. .. , • . , :. ,• , .'. '.(•::31;'.:,:.:•`:•,•5;•I. I ■41• • • • ";ji.',...,'''■'., 1 '• ' • 's`.,,,;'•:,,'''..■,;,,,`1'; ' t L,i..'*'if ,N,,S,,•,14 4e,,,,VA •* • ,' 1 . . ., • ..7,t1.',,':, ':;"-;•'", A. ,•.,:, , rityluf,..,. ini',"4 k'c,i' " ir i .1'8'4"4 .16,,,.igik, t1141-*0 . • ' ' .%•-,,,,...,:',.:,'0'':'t ,,i,. . t,4,, . ,.....e 4,-,-, „„r :.■•r , .,,,t. • AI%,,,,k3 0,,.■ . 'il :4e'r ::"4';i0,:11 l''4h..° '' O''''44 .' '14''' ' •*'44. ,,i.I.7,`44'h ''..—"*. - ' t' .. 1 t.V".i.„„.'1■.,''',,, I .-,- . ' ' , , 4,1 ,I.A , .•IL , iiii54,t kt ..., t,A, - „,,,,..._,.,,, 11,, 'be "Pt..' ' '.•ji. 4''. ill'A F, '' 4 , .,,, , , •. ., ,, '.•./.,,,vit...'4'),,;,,;,1,1,1; ...„0.4:0,17--y. -,&sA :,?)t, okh.....,... , ::1,Pi::;21,1,11.?,1 rk,-t e.rid•'. ',;:,`.44 k•L' A "e' P 4 '. •NiO't'rtr'' `1' '' '"',pt., ' l'it',,I° 'f '•,-.''c'''' 'I/ . i '7 '''' " 4,'i'''''' '''. t '''s i tk)S,„1,1, .n ,•,! ' ,,`'.1' • .. ' .0.r., \:eif"..- t,.. : .*„ * ' , ..4i., .;'- , ilt .lit'.',.!', . ' f,';44.74,7 ',. ,„ . .`4.4t.iTit, " --„,r,11",.*.. , 1,,' '_„,,,,..,,,i AlaSiwr: e--,.,,, =,. =,,',ft..,",,4.v., ' . i ,,,i '',, -/,:, 4'. - ,,,,,--,-i•=1?=,'-.,ii „likki,-.,. . . , , .,' 4•-.=: .,, ., ,v,-14,. ,r,,c ,, ,,.,, ,,-1.)'7,1,1 1.vpt 0-' #4'.4''' "4 '.4; '''' , ' -J , ..,.v, -,''l=I' . ,. „ri., kt... , , .,% ...„., ., .. . , ''' ' ',',''1, ; • ,',--• 0(4.&,"44,,,t; '‘,' ,.• '.,..,,', '''' ":14rP,'''.''4,'1:VP,' ,(7... fr'"" ''';''.,1,0;,:„A.. ,,,.'...i," 'i,;',,,l,„, ,,. , -I',., .,,,f4)41 '- „',. .,, ' . /0 ,o,'it.#. to 4, ••=' ..t.Tp 'r . '41•* 'L Poo-,4 "1,-' ' • • '1'4;i Ki.',4",',111,P, ,,,,:.-,,.4.,.....3..por,'''— •,.'e), wo...,„', :..,i:ii.. ,,- :0,,,g,cv,,, . ., 1, .1- , I, , j,,)to„, -7, 0 ,' ,*,ke,,,47,„ ,.!1/4 '1,,':,,,„67„7:44:ii,th,r,:g,01( V ., ,.,,:.,,,•i' , q":(•,,I.KIN,I c'''''',44,. Off'or ' L 1 kt,,3t,,,,..k"4'i4,,T4 leef,4'Xc.",;ifq '! ri l' ' ,,_, ' 1;i1,441-4;, ?4. ,,,,,,t1-,,:.".P:,., ,„,,. fIt;',4Ai:Vtkii ‘" .414;.. •;7' 111.4- '''7,1444-*',‘1 ti!'41 v.( ti...-d,.$'. F. .44''.;,.,„' l''#'. .• . . i.N . - , *• 1;',','f. ' •!;6'.1k!'**7 t14440',4,1k.gic „f;-:'. , i ,,,,,.:,,, ,, ,,,, _ tut.4 . 'y 11141: 44,,,,.t, 4,,,•;',''.,,,,itii4:',.....,,,,),.„'' 0, . 4,4,/,,t404,,*glli•pckiP,4.-,1,!'r,i ,^01114.24,11',f,:,$44411„4,■??,€l;1,.tHia, 14.'1'`,,S-',1,v10,ri,, ,' ‘• (,'.4 41 3,,'','. '4,46” i.1,'- ),.,,. e ...'''0#1.) .,•'%. ,, ., •••, i'ii',1''.7,''''11*.11,, .,. .4.,,,ft., ••••••^ '- 4. 3A.r,j• 'IP .,4,'. A^ : .,• 1 , 11•'.1.;f4,'''.' t ,,. 1:41;4111."'".,„ 42r/.. '41:11,t,,*te4.,1,i''' , ,, ;,,, ,1,i` ,41k, i,,,10,,,,f.=, 4.,,,,.A. ....1 s. ,' —, , ..,, ,, ,,,,,;,4.,.,„,),.,,, t.,,..0i.,.(,, ) ., , ,,,,,,t, ie,'1,`$:,'"r'r:‘'''''', ' ',.."^"'''' I',••«::P"'4V'' ,,:st, -4, 'Atk - .(A., .'.,,we' IP k'f' wet:4; .,. ., . ,;,,,,,,,.. ..,, 4,,,,,.. k ,,,,e,:,,.,.'''',4 ''..,i .& it,:,'„,,,,, 41,•14* "'• f .' '''' '1.!itb i '.4!..' " .'• , ..,444 '0, S '.4'ili' ' '''''',•tfr..}' ' .. :' 144' '.4+. 4, 4,,,A..1 WI',,..,,,:, •... ,A.,1, ... T''''' •u:r••.'',4., 4,,,1? „ *, .' . ' ' kr11,17,7'41!11A.''; ',";. Sy, TeiAl ip.„,, . i 7 7.„, ,, 0,,,,z,....41.,,v-y=i- ',.,,,,fix.= ..411itt411 : ,le'411,, I fa)tp„;' , •' 't i'''''l'''W'1,: r ,: . -,,;;",,,,, .',A,r,, ' 4,e ,t, ,,,, ,I,Iiit;V"„1!,°. s",:":-T/;',:,...4),._ ..-;;.'4',,°":,, 0'''';,..' ‘'kAt,0,1:,' ,,,,, .5coil. '',',,...',‘' ,r"4:_4.1,4 4,'*•,', ''47 r, ,,y,;1: 4,41r".'lt'S'''' ,`''':.k2 41,,,,,-,*".\‘''''3;:..- ;.' '0,.. '41: , •::•,:lic,..'.,•;J: -.71 .1,"`,. el;,,, ,:.,;,1=,:li, '..,....=4,4yr1.4.„,, . , ,,,,,,;44,`. ''.= 'or- "i'd, ;', '" ''', .'1.-'Ai ■ t ' P° 4 '14'1; ,e ',.. ,k9*,r'.' • '.'' „yoti,5, i ,i u, 1.401 .,,e.„,,,,,t 4.4. ..,*.,,,,,,,,o ,,..,.., , . .. ••• " . •••••••• •CIK4Vr‘r,10, N ,,I•A A.10 1 4,1 .,•4 y,'h.r,t„..4., ;4., -',.,..f,,,,-, — „; 4, ,,t,,,,xii. .„„ ,= . .... ti ... - • f*"1.-,-- fr' ' itoNP,1 '1'4K,t''#4,,i • .■ .::.'„e;`,:;•;41:.,,i;„'.,,, '., ,c1p;',,,,,,, #,,, •j4 0,i,„. ivsUF}g,.4,,,.k:' .4.. if* ,... ', ' s'''!,):;','''•''':':• . •`114cld'i'P r'''' Vrfili,',,'''t •, ,,,.0:" ;,,,, 1 . „.. ,/, ..,- ,•01447. ,7..„..,.,1,,, ,.. .1.., 3 0i4.tv, ,,, '*„;,., ,.•,14..e.'''..','"14:sr'''';'' 1,i'.:141.,‘, ,.. „ tt,' :111- • *I , '''''' •■ i*• 0,,,•,, ' lir, ':' r , , .,, 1.,,- -4,,,, re'ct! Jr 14,1,6.1",-, e't,•'!`i,,.' ,,,,-, ,)&j,, ' (4., ' 114-4,1 f, ,,-. .-,',., ■,,,, :I.•■•1•+k,.4. 4 r*..v •I'. .... 1., •i..Z...Z....,:,•,',. ,.•.,110 ' I ' •1/4,11,4•■•••■ r it- . ,tylinit. 1.#,,,,... - ,- ifor„„0,,,,.. .. ,,,... ,. ,,.. ..,,,i,.., „ ;i.,,, „,,i,:,,.,,..,.. ip,,,,,-,1'0,,,,'W,'•liii .71 4 6 ,4,ri,,r,w, ‘,,.,40 # ,,..... 0,,67krc, ,ait....... -' ,ta, 41 4....,14',' ' tie” ': °, 4„ ''''''. f '4-..,,..,;' p, r: 4 i _A:n.1; ,':,,,''cl':, 4 1 5:-•z,4,P.-_,4-,- t„,:-4,,,,r....i........,,,i= . :::,,,, „ . „.,..,?,,A.,,,,.. t,,,,,4., . '...,' I.# P-s' ,' ' 4r., '''' „-'''* .. ,$# - ' .y...• .,i'l ' ":, , ",,,, A'''il41,11er,tr#, 'Ul§-9, ,,,,,,. ,,,i4irpli4;,,xl'i.o .,. 4r..1L. ,. j= ,t.-: . ,, _. ,r., ". it ., „„,,,,,v,,,,t2- •j •,'',44: +74' ' ,,r,;,‘ '''' ''' ',.,,; ',• .1,•-s,, ''''' - ,4,; Vt ,'•• te",,,, Al Ii ,4,47,4, 4.• l'+'IP4)',, Vtio.,, 4,14:- ' 4 As. '..',. '''''ic:71- ,, r. . ' ".rr 7 ri _ k Elk, 4••••• .•.• . ".' . ' ,• . ' , . -1."'"' , ,,,IF ,,ikfr; '.ri,,,,,,„ip,,,,..),e. -.,:p.,„.,.;1/4 4'4 4;1,,- ,',,.-1$ i 144.4., -- „ ,,.. ' 1 :',/-41.,' ,,',.,4,),4,,,,,,k,..1,5; ,,.., .'q..,,;,..,t,f21,4,,6'.1;,,1 , k 1 CA v, 1''''' .V.41'''i):':, '• ki.. , ' . ,i. .v. .„.. ,,,,,,,=.!'t-Pi; ...',:. ..-1: •••.4‘....?r?' 1st... .,: vi#4.444A „,g,.,:„. , =,,,„, ,...1,„, -,. (o,,:.,;...,,.:)! .-4,;i,ic:,. -,.. .,,,,,,,., ' ' 4 ' / • "•‘ -rt. ,■* ( •..': ', 1, .; ,:k 41.,.'• ',6-'; 1,..,...5,:if,;,,:,:4•;, ,,1 ,rt,, i'64 ,1---,,,Jz,./.1.,,,,x,p -,:,:A4,“*1 -0,010 4.4*-;#4;T:4k fii;i,',:".,,,i'''' '''''',''',..110,../r1)., ,:------44„,t-ntg',ii".`-,,. 7,e. ''"'• -,,r#,(.... .11'4titt 14.-Y-4,1 %,.. ,,ti,,,:,.„,t,,,P.v ,„'', ,i1 • .'• 4.4- '*,„.. .,',' 1,4(,.....„'-'1,, .1°.:V.' '' ..;.ti,„%...i ./', !!',. :'*,,,i,1',#1;134,,,=. T--.'.1=i .,., ,' 1,o'''' ,-,* .44..,A,.., -;'. , . ..-, ,..4-4,Ae: if , :. - -:,1401.... i„., .. ilt ."'‘..*44'4,,.'"*.-=';' ''''•-,qt:-4; ' '','..'."4..v.;..7,.:4=. '''.'.,12C4f.;,,C,.#,t,''N.'f,',%..,, ".p, ,,,,,,,,',1i'- , 1,-- 11',,t *i.,f0 . '.'14r7,'/T '1/4',',- i"' ''''''' A,iiii Aro ''I...,''''• ,.• ' * 14 • . s,*. ...';'..,'4-: -"''t ?It-Ftg.T4'114t. "' ';r'P'‘ ''. '''''',Cj17•;ti'!;(41."'P' f..',I4'.''',1;"'IiV,'-',.',.*''r.'''' .4'41i914'gr'k.,',',,,P'.. '''.' :0,1 ' ' •:.?,,,.. ",.,',.,..1.k...,..,-...= ..itft,.....,,,,'.,,,. ,,,.,. .t.,..„`g ,,, ,...,„, :tPr* 1,4 k•,,.; t,1',;"`' *411:,! ' . •,, ' , ,le'1.40 ,,, ., ,.t, 1 It h • 'ti., .4 ,,,,, ' ' °,,,,:'*..''',..• .... f; ,r,,,v,71.44,,,,,,;,,:t,,-;,1'•,■: ,,,,:4,4',„'i,it31,:r."„."1 t, ;4-0', ., re, .4 i,•'4' 4 'i',f,i,,,,,y ,,,:,,,,l,,,,`,. ",i'.4 ''' ' .'''.(,'A :, 4t,,,*;.•* f; ."'P.,..! ''.."' %.,.,) t.r,•,,, •ri•„,.'itt)41.,,,;nrks.,,troe'ptv,;,•, t''1;A, .' ' .. '. N•': "..' r e'1:1;%\ trierPtit41111:11 r1i) :if'4.(741er":•''•'''.!:•' ''.''4 ',t'''..,IM i•''') .it tg'''' - 1; t , '......• - ''.. ,....' 4:i!..4'4,,,; , ,,., ,,J,.'*:., . ‘,.'---:‘,,,• . 47!:ii.,' i; :-..'i: . ..'. ''' i4fj V."— 1."1"''4:;1. ''`''' ''''I'''''' #,',''' ''' ' '''"' ,,/ -,j; .''';'4::';''''' '41‘.: ,,,,-,,,,,,,,,;4',....,'4.14v$,A;;;0•-,1 '01, .•' - ,. ....,..:'' .'.',, .-:, .litl,'''It'7.. 5p=.,1,,':1;c,,,,;;,:s'• .,', 1,,.;.!"..•74. ,,.,...•',F.7,;;Iki,,.,,./il'i,,6,r*, ',i{,.!.,,i,,,,,t,::,,•,,, '.''L...:'.1 „,`•.,,,,.,i •,.."-.44.4,;',' „ ,,,,4,. ••,=,,;01,4,..•,:;,,iiit't,-,41,S,',,,f4,,,;',f„ s,',14'=,-,•,:-.,:. ,- V '•_,,,s; , ' , ,.' . -..Y.:''. . ..• : , , , ..•.'"=4.-•;•tki!=.. ,,,,....06.,...'•,„•,, ' '4,,,,;...t.T.Iff,,A10,104,,',.. ,e,.&,-,.,,b ,..•., ..,,,t • ,i1...v. • .,--,•,-,1,,,i,., , -• -, Q•J$4,,,,,lioti,!zi'-,•7,-4 ,,,I,,.. / / . . ,.....'..,...,: ..,...,.., •(p: ' 0f.4, ,,,■,., od,i7.:3ii,ct,!..0% ,r. ,,..:e:;;;,,,,,:. ,rro..,11. -...., 441111, .:..#.. 4. .. i` ,.rtr''' Ar. ;4;!7, . ,S, : t. ;;`,'T 'il,.4 ,, ,t ,,,,, ii114,,..,, ,,I,,4,i.i.,4,!.i.:ii,,i1,LL'''r.'`,Iii ti., , ,,,„.,,, . , :41.4,, o.. ,,..,,....: -,,,,....".,,„„,,,,. ..I.,,,#,4,...,...i.$0,1", ,I.,6'4.00, ....„,,,.....,,,,,, t.....„, ,I..46'. " rie, ‘: 1,',,..(cv ..k.:f.Tet',44.-,-,..,', #,•#-',.'' , *,., 1;,'4,,'44', , ;.■ I ,.. •-0',lir ..' -:';'.'.'''.*.i''•t ..';'? , ti iii.1}1,11.1J ijf,,i111,:tet4.i 01'I ., ''''•ki .',, 'XIg.•;,,,,,,;44:,h' ' ° ' P,','-' ,., ,,.. .-t , '%:„.,t, f.'',,,,, '"' ./Itr 4 ",4 -,•;,.„. '•,%,.:..., ( I,' 4 4•14'P,;1'411+:','4:Prk?,k' ,- .,„,A, . .,•"1;,i4...t„:1,,1.,,1,,,;',,,,,A4L,ci44,,.:.A.,;,.*.,,,,,, ,,,,,,;' ,..,,,,, o..,.. ,‘,....t,,,A!.5.7c,J.,,,,,Ai.4,,,,,,:=,3,,,,,t,,,,,. ,,,, ,,,.: *-, 1 n . ,14 , :-,■,1„;,,,,,.- ,., ,,,,, ( .' •'.••'•-••• ... ..., 7i.',=•,;i i t, 4P:04,.''.',.?k,P4.,, -,'" t,t"1.•I`...' ''r"' '0,':4"%i!=1:',;I:a.v,4rA,147,S) `e''"ooritiP,-.teK..., */#''.'t.t-1,,,:%;'.''k'-'''4*2,4).',;.:.1, , .;,*7,.,.)'■,,4,&.-4 44kili i*.e41 'tf,r1 - 1 ik• i ' , 1 , : . ' -i,'04**.,41.;',4';',4.,,..:4-",." ,#. "V1;',:i42.1.,',.....:',,I.,,..14,4,i:Or ". ' i:4',4'4i....."''',...FP,-*.'4,,e.'''.''' . '1 ' '''',''. -.,ovg * ,1 k. 'I. 6:•'..'y •.1j At•t' ,_ -., , ••;,-* 1,4',11i:141/,',/,'•:(1,1;,1:1'•*■.%.,,,•;;,..,,r,11:•.`f,:': ,.c„,e, ■,„'',t-.,l'I'll'i4if,t•i',11gfil,..t0tt'•:',...",,,O'il,'',:144,, ". ' , „.,..'•f 0,•,, 44. L...-... ' 4,,, ...'.. ,, ,,, • , ■, , ::',.,-.,',..-. , ,. .4..=•••),.4,,,•,: ..,•.:., •. ....?,. .::..,.., .- • ,,,..,.0.,,,1..,,,,,er.„.......=•,,,,,,..,',...A1, • ...., „ ...,,,, di ,v.,•••:,1„..i,wrrY•,,,v.,,,,,o.f,k,•,0•,,,,•-I, ,il, •,,,,14,,,,,p2,-,,,..k ,,..• .„,,41,?„-...4.4,,,,,, ;„. ,•_..... ,i., ' :•,,3 •.„•*. •, t,A',,, •• ,‘ , . , 1,1.01,0 2,"is,.•' 7 '''''', ' '"'Ci'''''' '0' ''NI L'4, r'''? . •`'..' r•'•1'• • • M • ' 'Ir • ''• '." • '•' ''.'''• f■•••• ■•••,',',1'••11•1•0.V4•°••,•''ll' '!../. Joh%. kt'' AI ..,.,,,1,15." ,,,,-0.,,t4' .' Ai ,,,:i4, ,-,,,,,e. ,,,•1 t,4 i',If '1%,' ,164t••,,, . 'AOC. " •,• ' +. f""I,041-i'• ,'t .,r,,..,':.•'•....,, ,-i• .■''''4311,3, ;.‘","";.1••''';••.':.•,,I),',...,• i' , I 1 •' 4), ,'" 1'.II,s.),44., Tir,i,.. ,=,"'"== -,-;,,y- ,,-..•:=••%%•- -'''''-,), '...,7-7-.77i',.',,,,r,,;/1.=, ,,,,f1.,,i, ,. . ,..\ , •,,1•4.,,,,' ,•.,,, ••4 ,,S,•,„ •,:i'''f''''„"P';:*';'41 ''''.WIi... :Lik..''fii.,„'N'09,,r•4:V4'.'";,%, i 41r ' , ,,: ,„,...,..,..,,,.,D1r,Ats'..,,,..y, ' i,;t'-', ,''' '11 , :, „,.. ),„),Al, y‘, ,l!it'U ''e,',:,''', ,, „,,•,,„1.,„‘stitv:t..,,,,,; ..,,„,,,,,,,,„ft•ea.,,,,I,,,,,,,,,1.•,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,„t, ,„. . ,, ,i.:, ,,,,,,,,, : ,,, ,,i.;fr,..;-1,,,,,,,,,,,,r,...„ , , 1 .I, ;4” .r;fse,1*,•:,,t,;,`,.);',"/„..e.,;i.'44;...tite.' ' ,,, ..,,N ,,,.,„,,,4i,r,-,k ,..... , ,,..:1,,,„,..,„.. .., Iii.,,,,,. .. .. ,...,,., .-",,f,,,,,, , t.',.,,, , , 1•■••••,,,,,,r A,,,.,.',074r 1 .5't..**.''' "2;'"'.... ';''''...''''.. ''''''z''* '.*,,I,P-.1•;„-t, e1.*'',‘'f'All"?",,,l'■',,,444.,ii,e-f.,0,,c,*, 0.l't ' ti0A,2, IC'..i.t,'er*P.'., *9 ,-,•'',.' `r'1. „,,,1 ,Iktil.",,;,..:ilil,. ,, ...,,r*,:•'-, • 4 ,, -.4,.„,,j,,,,,,„,•., ,,, „ t. • •i .;,,.?, ...s„,.,,', ,•.,' .,, ,,, „fr.,,,..At , .„,,, ,,,,,,,,.,...„ t'v• *,;;'...„.•,:-,',.0114 t'",.,4i .. 'a'. , - lg.,' ,,t,,,,,,,;' ../101.v .1..sc i't!,,,r'2:, .,:4:,,"*.:4•"*.41.;t4 •, '0•41. 4 ,..4a,"tr."',,,": ,14 • •••,y A • ' .'1,..f•'e'''';',,,'1::: ',::ii,i'?if „,,,,i j; „ :,;, ,4`, ',':','„',1,"'f,..;;.,.i:i.; h,,,,,,.,.:,,.,..4i*. ,....d. ,;=.',., .,....i.4.i.,„: .4: :1": '' '''„,9,14,+4, : "1.0 ' ..,,', *1,1''',.. *1°",e1 ' Mr".": :,1' 1,.f.I.Yeil';‘;;;',?.P:"•;04•*..,":„ . f;',:'',.•-•..:t.'„' ``'? V„,'•40i?; '•,144 4•''''..1;,!'Ilk, '..:1J4,''''i;''''W.:11 s'1..1.0.7,!*;?,..(1'','.',,:' jit.:6.'7 rmll' /',,;,'3,''.'ifr/414.;f1.110fii,41'4 4 lald'itt'At 1:i,*4 ' •' 1,4 qviii.,,,,,,,,,k,\„ „,.,.,,,,,.. .v,,,,,./,.. ,. ,.,,,,„' i111,„?.:.r ,,t. .,),,r : *".. ,,,t-i. ,,,.,t.i,...' .51,;.,v,,r,;i1)..",iict .'plik., ...'lidi..Ai..,,r' '. .," agviiii,,,f4.,„ „.,},....-:,.. ..„,,,),,,,7=;,,.,t..,r,,,„,:, .....,,.=',. .,=',4,-,.. 0„,,, ,,.,• icq,,-.,..,=4".'' ,p'",.., ' ,,q.a+A..: k •'' ,.441...,*.: „,,,, ',, •4 i /0/ 4,,•,,„,';,,,.'••,i,,,,,'ILs ,;,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,;$"1-...",f,,,• ,•••• . ,,,,, ..-,,,,,„,„.,..;•...ek,: ,,,.,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,',,,',,,,i.,,.i'i,•.,,..,,,,,,;.4., ',,„,.,,,,, i, 4 6 Nal '''.',„',1 ,,'•' a ,N,,,,,,,,;,i ,,;.,,t,. ,,,,,,, t;„;.'. ,,,4,/Ic,',4•4!'if,!,;7,`:1,'•':,:l'Y'1,11.',;,,;.4„ •tr,:;‘,,',,i,•:,',.,,e,"■-•1•74:0i ,c•;1'1 '1,,' )," 1 .,;,,Y,'",:$,-i0,e. ,,-,,,:'..":.,,...,..,'i‘,.. ' I , 4iroiift,6,14. ,. .4 '. ,,!'..`"'r,4,,,t Ir'..'cll. , •,,,4 „L,',.., 4.1 ,..',.,t,'11 t.i; q,r4•;f IT.y,•.:',,,,41,,,,,.:,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,,.,1..,;44;•,•,„• ,,„•40-1:,,,i•,,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,4 ,44 .,...,.,.,•4• • • ,, ., •.• soirl, ,:V.7, -•,,,I,r.,,,,i ,, 1,mtift, i„,„.. . .. . ' -''■'`.":,''V.'''''i I" r* .1$i 4,4, `' ''. '* -:,,r:ii.:.;;:ili.! ,,,p,f,..-,:l.%.41,:e.i,V,‘,;,y;.' :,:.,1.,,•,w‘-,v-. '4,.!, 1/4 , ,. e.••• ,,,,•id.,,,,6 t tI,•',,1,it:In,44,:t.41,4,',.fl'O.V; 4',...",•:7 i 1 :4., ,,,,,,,,',IA,li." " 'akti,• I ,, .li,•.',',1,,,,,,`":,.,•,:71•:1 ..C ' ' „.",•-,4),■,', ,•s "i A..', •,,,,':',",r,,t :,;!..,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,t,;1,•:,....,.,,,o,, . ,,;,..,...,,,,,,,,,l,f,,,,,,7i,,,,,:f..i.,..,,Li,i4,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,' s'' .4r.,, „.„,44.1, ii,,,„. ,11., ,,, '' . mr.-%-c,„:., . '.4'is f i 1 ' . ,, ,.,.,,,,,, ..,•:4,.,;,,,',„:',i,twt,',4,•,;','. ..g'..:',''''`7,'-',;r.;4:4',';`,-,Ii,',..''"f.',';.:";,-4014, , , , '' ,...,:,,'4,.,'( i`,,11., 61,..it'• ‘” ' , . . . , ,,' ' ,N.N.,14;,,Vi-, )11 or ''',';•**-'.A. ''''‘17."..,:••'*.1...1,"t'tk"'•:*,'•\*Ni';*'1;';*.,■!,'•',**. ,•1';,40.tpce,01540/*5.41,-, ' I-J'...ft4,1"."4:',',,,, "4.14:; , #.,' k.),1,'V ,1 4 v,.",..,H4-0i; ci..‘,.'it ' li,..:,..,..V.A;1;',.'.1,(,&,,, 11'1".4 X•',,I !,'„ ;',.,.■L..7':,..,,,f,,,,.'„,,,,,,,fy,,riqvi.„...,;.,',c,rt' ,... ,I,',,„I IF',,,f.y,iipiv),, , ,,,',1:,,,,,i,,,,it,„ i)rROiryfrit CIO Oil);::,,,i,,,,t.,, , „: Al.111,.",t,',,, * •,.:.i,•)•Jr.,..tt''*71400,4,14.• ,.'t■',•,', '", ''''•:',;"."''':'.:':::'0,'"','"' 'he. ' .. '11: 4 1 '''ir'r''''1' '''''''''-'''-'-'''-''''' '-'' -''-' ' ..),'.4-.1.41Avi„„ . , .'b„1,",.,,,l'...,' ., , .4v40,61,,., „.,A, r.,- ,, „ ,,,..4.,,.,,,,,,,„,..= 1.,.....z.-4,,. 4 ' .''''','NO■ II;1:,!g:".,to/V4 Fs r, ,„,t14,-.,..4,...,,, ,,,,v,i4.,,,,‘,,.,i.'',.,-.-,(0,.:,,..,.,,,,i,;,...,i',,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,m,,t, . ,: '',Jx !, 41 ,..,„„i7)4,,,,,,c.',/,!.,, ,q#J?4,' ,0 0", ,.....1:,,q,',.'-;'.14,l'i,",',11`;..‘,7",t,.;'..:4,',#',',„:";.,-),Ii,"04,,0,1.', P,' ;.-'')1; Itt, .Ayt '.. -.11:1,',,,,,.=;,',,,,,,.,,..?;;',..-,,,,t;,,`;.,:.-.:ii,,,,.. :, 7.,,tii..4',',v,:,;•1,';',.,'.:;''1";=At.,,A-,,`''''' , •tei,,,,,,,,.',.,11,4?4:1- .A.:,:'f,,,,i,$•,,'-:im.,,,t.Y•vo,,,,4,;,4.,„•••:,,,,..;.,,,,,,,,,,„-..f,':!•''• c•:,,,,;..y..,:-.,,4i,,,,,k,.=, 4 ,,,,,,,y.., i,t,,, i,, ,,,),,,,,=,,,..,•,,,,,,,,,,i,,I,,,,,,.„,,„1-11,...0. ..,', ,', , ,,:.•,.,,,,,:,,,,, •• : ,.,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,Att,,lk,i,,,,,,,,,..tmi ,,,,,,,t,,mi.,-,1,,,,,:t., ,i-,,,. .•i.,.,,,i,,,--,4,;,,••••';',,,i.,';',,:,,,,,,=•:.,:•1.,".N,,,• 1,„,,,,,,•:-Nr...4, .„ . ,. 'iltf,,L=', Ir.ottli 1,t4,0 ..i,,,I;.1,,, ,.k,..,1,..,,.,.: : ,, ... .. ,., .,...,..4.,..„,.,,,.. .,,,.,,,, ,t3i....,,..:,,„il:.t.tv„,,...,,,,A,„,....4,4,s., , i.,40T4t?.,,,„;:i.,,,.,, ,,...iy14.i' ''''''`''',,,'fel,',..'il,,,•'144,'',‘''',C,I'' •F•'•.''',t,I,li,'=,' .,''1 ;;',. •kl`i,1 'I.'4,,,,,,,',,,,,:1,' ' . 1::1 ,•,,e'••.; ii,,i.:"",,,.,,iV■,',,,!,),4:4,1.,,i,,AiriX,,,.1,,f,•.,1,3ti••.:' ..,,,,, t:',,,',.1.joli, ',' ;4,4,, •1‘ -, 4,,,,544+.,,,,i.tivi,•At;',!:=4=-,ttf,,A ,,,:.-,!,,4:',;, 1.,',,,=;;,,si•-,:,:' . * ,4.1-,,i':•,1.1-:•'''''...r•••,''',.",,'''.',1:1:•,.",:',',', •,,..:::t.,i'.='!..."'-'4Ai.,,,,,,...i.V="1+.,=,`-' 1,1110 4 , ...,,I, - .ittiti,, ,,,.„ 1h1;., ;eict;,,,,,f,„t,..:, ,t,',,,,;;c' '41'' ' ,0,,i,lill'4.44:41.'!:1.:17S'ilf"t&-::ArM4,..ititlq.f 4,1 ':', t I'''. ,:lt.,4")"‘Vi'''',.":..`V;:'!.';‘;'Y'l: 4,i0t, , ,.;.2)...fi f';ii:/".01' '0'4,',J,:lt.''ftit,Afik,4 fztp...fi:trA"'?■:;,..i,40,1:4!`i,c4v.,1 ::',.'''..A'h,.J::: 1,5,,)!•Pii,....1 '. * -.4. ,,,■. ,:,,,,,...1 ' '''''”'t' • ' ■ ,S'' .7":,:".41,;;;:*:- 1.41 P14.:1:4it4'-'1/' '''',.7:4:''*: '-*-40,, liA"'''''^-4'"it.iW., 4-,,k,:r4,,kit O''',.10.r.,',.,'*;ei 4,,,:l.,,,,.1. 7 t:''. •C T•'"'''''•I'l';'.1''''.21g'*'*7'41*.C.'""I'L ,,4,,,,,.. h./,,,4,10'• • .t, , ' A4',''',..•,: 4,10 1 444 ,1:41' te4o,iri 144c.t. 4, ,.: -.,.,,, . ..,. — ,., . i ,:0.4*; 1,P4i".,,,,,,,,,r...' ,,,,'-.' ,,,,friTyrkl.4,14,,,, r...40...zt.,,.4 0!4'9,11:4,.e.44.t,-P ,,*.''' '.4 , . -, , - ••• ,,)" IA Ai.-= ,,,,,,,T,., 'lc. ,,,,,, ,... ,,,1,,,„ . ,=.. ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,f.,,,t,,,,4(poet,41,:orii.,,I,t,..i.t. t;.,..i.,i,t,,,,,,..ii, ., , ,,- „ t1;r..', ,','kqtY• 41,1 ' ' tvt*' ..**4,^••••• ,' *” , * itPV‘'l; • • ,e ,,,t,.,.44, ;010'.i. , :''', ''.,' 4 4••,•cs • ' ...4fiit.t0i4, 11!!4:ii4*' ZiArel)f;SAi t t.•114 . •'S 41'4•''' ••';';4,*lilr,..:','Pr',` 41''',•4 ''.r..•'.1,i'lt'S'4.:'1i, .0.. •,,,'".'"•1 ,4, ■ .• ,,,,,,,--. " -*** ' ■' 44.. '")"7.,K'6i ' "*'s'''' ' , 4*14L"'.+,-1.,','";f1 ,i.,6,11,,'...,1 , '..,K''','..s.);i,,t,,.'„,,,,Y,''t ,., "it, ,,, ,,„,or,;!',",,,,‘,,,,,,q1,::,':„;e4., ,:ltr,'.',,',W*', . ,•i , .i,re. ,.. 1 ':4't'. ,''',C...,"',i'i'fil;•■ 0 0 if4t0,11ditto.‘,.., . . , ,..,. ...AA t,,,,--. . t4 , 4,tmir.,'''kh"e'll" 't" .1, gi Thi,,,,,t,+,...,,,I ,t0P, ,11,.'..s 1. .,,...•:',..4,)'.44,,,,,,o,1,.e., .,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,-1.,: ,* 'S'4. ' ' ' ; , ' 4'''•••' ';'4'1;`,1'•'•'`,!..' ' f,,,, ..4,S%'', •',,),Oir ' oi• •r, •,t,..VI.''1;4.1":itt• ,,, ,it Ot...t. n'',140,40,M40:', 4)•,,,,,4'i,,IY!••,'„4,.,■11.'14),,,q..,, 1,,..',::,,,i,, ', ji.,;,,i'.:.q:,,,,',isti.1,IVII....,«'?,',','1I410,r:rL''''' , ,.. ,,,,., 14,4 04.4 • V Yid 0 , '•II' , ' #.,.‘,'.•••• ,,,,i— •,,It."i• ,.i.ID.tr• P'',..., e , Ili „,,t .041,„1-• (, 4,v - .. #4"•,',11:,,,4 it ,,,4 • 1,";•,...11 'fi■,■.',,r;"'''.■;4 7''' ''..'' ' . . • .'';,'''; ' '\,'"4' .* *1 ' '' '' '1, 1,,' 1(0 i' ' - ' 1'',.,:,4 , ''''!'';'?''' 'Ni.l'''',:i,t,r*4f,V41).:•16 ,4,7I.,,7.I's.'4,1,'•• ;l'i'';,)%zt•;.,.ti...4,4* ,„ t',,,it,,, „,,,,,A•ty 44 441,440,4 0 1,. # li, ,■ 4.I. '., '' 4, NI ,.V.4,4 *7, • '•,, ,, •,„,, ,,,,,,.. 4 ){, ,.,V, ;.„h t 1, o,;„,,,, 1 ,, ),,,, , _4,7: ,•„.,,,, . ,;,,, .' 0:-,, ',,l',.*‘, 'h,",,,,,,,,, ,,,,,ifti,e, , ' ,,fiii•4.141,311, 4,9.Q1,‘•i,',44„ ,f.5,14.,;7,:o4,e..!,',fie, ... %,,,, •,,.,1$,,'tf,4,,,L.,,,4:,, Y'i,' ',''''' 1, 4,...1:„.0 , I'. ;,6. . h, ' ..'''''.''4;0,1'4'li, '''''''''?"-7,'''''^C,it'''.'*7-'1=7 . .rn,.„.,':'',4.q.,'':=.',,,'.:',,.'''''.4.,1„,,,..,:, ,,,.,- ,,',; .r,.'.',a:-,,,..;.:',0,,,,,,,:,,,......,-...,,c,,,,t.,,,.:,,,v,,A4,414,04,.,,; ,.,,,.i:c,q.,„,,,,,,,,,4,1.),th.,,,,,,,t,T,,„,.,,s,,,,,:,..,. . i .4 .J ,j: .'1 4, .,,*. ,,,p4,7,,,li,Iii.,t I'I '• 4 . ,i.t.IA,1/4„13,. 444'Isikikr ti.!",i41' •'' r' '''7,I,T:',II.,1,4`'' , ;,,., ,o• si,...... 'i• .41 11.,, .4 ' 00, ir ,,,,,, 41,.,4..,4,' ',4,4,17 pr rt4..,, •, -P , , .1' , ,,,,,r,.1.4444 rk,,,,, -km,r feeAt" A- "r''ne•,' `A', ''',v ' *t '4"4T4t4 * ; • A 'r..•* '. .4 '"s',' ''''.."..." '''•..44;tie4 r , ji* „., , , , .7. , '..6„, ','.,,,,,i'ld';`14''''' ' ..T,,,.,- .,,q,,,,,,,,14,44,41 4., ',., .41r, ,, , . ,p...v ,,,.# . , ,,, .,„. A'.,1,4,, ,.',, • . ,■ .41 ,•, ,h • ,.44 z.'•i,,,,,;,,, .1444,I, :4.4,',,,.1 41, ;I,I . s ., • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,' 4.■,'• i‘ . ,,,ittlillti,A ,,, , art.1,4, . •' ,.,, w■,:''',1',•,''', ' 11 it„ r.,,, ,,,,yi, , ,,,., VIA••• ,,,,4,M,IA,,.,,44,10i ItitS,11 II ■ t,,', '' 0, $.**Ontwidill ■4-,i''''' . ' ' ti. ..f,,::::::',•''?4'. A- 710'' ' .'''*',-'-. r-,,,,,,. , r ,'1, ,T•.''0Y:4,;.. i'lt`WIIReS, '' *,/, ,g.)::'74,;hi,*'ikAq,".",A),•,,,P,i,4 X...1.4,',041,,,Ii',), 4 , , , , :..„,,,,,--4,i,,,, , ,:",,i.t, 0.,$ei„.„1.,;,...,1§.4,, • . ,t, r _.•:teci,A, .,,,:, ,;1: ,;,,„, , ,*,,* ,i'':.,,-',!'4,41',":, .i.g1 ''''.;‘, l.'. *, . ,41,:t],i1,74,,:i'llqtrkiril;',7.?.■$*11".11C..,l'tt"ri'4.1.',14;14;.i 4,1, * "'",...- .,..te' '' ;E.,.,,,,,,,,,,,i,41,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,...;.„.k..,,...„), :,„..„, i ..,., ,4(,,,,.„....T,„.„?,401.,,,.. ..,i, ..,.. . .- ' . '•.40.4'..:',..,.:',..,.,...t.„':..,t'..=.i-:',„-:,...'.44.=,.,',,,,,,,:il... ';''', ,.'1-'.' a'''' .."'''.'."/......,,,,' tok,',=-, ' 1`,i',.'-,, ,..,,oi.,,'. ,.'",,,:',40,,,,H.,h...„'v.' -. f,,,' ,,,,,f,,,,,,,9",„,,,,,4r4151.0.;',*.414-m.,;*-0;/ vk,,,,:,4,,..,1,„., ,,,,, . r„10 4., , , , , ,, ,. 4,-).,,'t • ....•1* ,,' .." , ,`,',,.' 1,,,. ,,,, ,,. .1., •,,,i,1„,0 ,P..,j, , t„,,.e,,,e,,,,,,,,.,,,kitt„i;,,,,144,41,44,,a;,,,41 ,i,,f,y,*4,AAx ',...., $1 4. *''•'4, ;'.,,q4,04:.0.- =•"; ',10114 ,'V' ...0' , '''. * ;elk'' t''',,,j,,4 ,„'4,"k,l'.4 k X./it!#'''' ,4,4.1't''''',/ ')' +4S.'0'P?:11.4r•litel,.14a?r,1 ''''.4n...17,:1‘1144'4";,4,4r4,',001!",',..,,,,,. ••,f,'' 4..0*Ar ‘',11±,,h.'4'.',.'!''''Akill,' •''' '40.''''' , 4•;,.',■'4'4,17, ...4'''It' '. .,,k:'.'1,'114'';',::'•' ;P • ,1'''',,r'''.!."'''*,41#1;,4,,,?:,,,' 4t,i...' 0.1frl'Ii,.,1,.' ;ti'''. /+1.6',■`:,':;'' ,,,* y,'(4,*,;:,,",,liiii:i'i»illil::';'),1:7,o,,:j■:0,,,141,0'* `.]:.i'l'''.1;:':'-/ y„':,1",f,'1,i;',;' '.. I,. „„';',;...",4,;4',"1,',,;*/,i',.!ro,,Otti,''''''' .,,,,:4 ii■O`f,,,,•,,L,f,',,';'.1' `'''4,'•-:',1,r' '''' • , f ',. ,,4,,.■..,:?."1,lath,i''4,14-04':'''oi '4'0 1;31'1,,O.i .:"Tio ' ,:s:....:i 4 , ','''*.,"!;`'/,,t','",',1''''.4.*'''''`'.'-',:'Y.441414";:;:::?1)?-1,A1,`11.":4- ''''.* "1` , • ',it'••'k 7. -,,,,,,‘::' 1:iji,....`rd.3,,'-','"0,.,' ,,,,,,-,,,,, , or'*:',.. , ;,..c,',.;,114,',:',,, .1=,,',1',„),is. ,,.'t ,i.'il,',.,,, ,,:,„,. ,,,,".1,,..,,,,..,*%=0,1ilt,\Ii=141:,,..,i,‘;,..'t,,,,,, *, P,,-',, .0,''.')c. o'4.'-.,,,,.w..'4''' " s', ''. '''''- i4p1. ..:.., .,,,,!,,,c,,,„..„Iiii.,. ,,.- ,.,„,,,..... .:.,,,,,,,.1., I....,4.,.„,..ii, , ,....,,,,r.,.. h..„„.,,, 1.., ....,..t .., . al,., .„,,,,,r,,,,,,,„,,r,.,.4 ,.;•,,,. , ,,,,..., . ,.,ok, , . 44- ,,,,d.„1,4.-f:e..4'- , 4,:f ,,„,.. , „,, 1„,.,,,„11,,,b,,, ,,, ,..,6,,,„,, „„... . , .,,'4,'• ,Ill ' '''.''*F:7 , ; '.''''.11 ..o.,s,c:.,',.,.$4., , lotti'`` '' (,•,,,,,;',',1,",f,:!'''.4:r. 'tri'ek.', ''''',;4 1;., '.',7.,4?,!,',.".: ','),"',Y, .!"40,'T., ..,,,,,;',:i.'r'''. •.*'''.41' „,..,••• 00,44?,41'.-4.*,,, ,St „.'*- ,, 1,, ,.,:,„,,E,,,,,.- AL,„,,,i,. .,0-„kt i, ,•,. 6, 1.r'2, '10'.';.`t.. o, ,.A ''1 ',,00'' ' .' A '' .4.4,'.., ,,'•, ',tt,'',,,, .•'' • . k.{ :,':I,*.''''•'..'il'.'•'' 77:''t- "47" ':;''*0($'4'4Vir"',,t, *„.,,,gt 1 •;, ••■'', ' i• ..,'' ".4' ''' "' '''''','''''',:■*`':,',''''1,:s' i"„',. ,''''' ' Art",... t414 ',,‘:,- ,,, ,,,,, , .• • • , . , , , 1::,,-,.-,,,,,.. ,,','',1 =‘•' -- -- • , fr...,,...,":::',,,-=?,114 /4,;,.',.'t.i.,.:',1, */• I :"'''''',1,.' ''SI „,'",',,, '''''''''''"*"*4 1 , " ., , ' .'',• : .. n • • •,'' . ' '' ' . . , :'',.:,1V('''',•,.•;''''',1,'.i, • ' 'l';•'''':Ii,;,-";,:''t,','Ait,':'''''.'„ ,. , ,4, ,‘; ,;;".' •`,;4.1:,.;t'I'',1:;...,•4',•*,.`f2,4'•'I,;,•',". :•.I. :',',', '' ''• ;'') ' ''''-'.' ''.' '' . ' . . ' ' . t•,,"i','.!g•I'glir'''''':1,.:,`*„'4''g'''''.1^—!I".1I''',:,:,'•4.:'''•,i,;11.''',1;';'''.•''',•''';.:rt4)''' , •• ,.tt?'•'';' '''''';:i'E '' :.' !,1'iII?"'','I'''''''''• ''''''''''''''' •''..;:l.'''"".:s .4;•,,'„,,, ..,••",:r.,,J1 wr,t`, ",r,'L. ' . 1,r.'pg.',• t,"..,'"1"0:4 i" I' '''''-''''''' • d. .nod v _ •'''. ..t ..):...'* ' ...‘:5. ' .")°", ��pp pia f "- • • il� ,,..- 'a* ., . , 5 „al`„;t,1 .c.}:','' h. ; • Ni 05 'T M.•ice ... ., `.;: ' r y .1 ��yy Tl Ja;_t•61.4,41F AI WIN Ti. f *,. .' • ! N6 • V1 IT! • r', `,. r Si�S't.'`tr„ ^� a V '' /• . •'r •Fit., � N”r!t 5if:7�..r ,r��w R ;` ,I.,:,'''. .•, ;,,'"i''';'.'10 1 i I w i•., .'t.4«`1 �•in"".'dIe >iY'(• -.... �,:� jYL' It , . �,,, + ;.K' '}4:+� &;;4 y L ,Y*• ,/.'ykt,r� IBS l,,r ' �... a: ' 7. t f•?°t 1 t FtS�r�a�=�7�:f�.,:qi,`. 4,, ,,.i'r, ''1 •", t. , • •. 1.` , . •'► .r M."� •°.F, ',I .{:' � :� +� a,�?': �S^i 5• -:tir v�•i "*' I.,r' .i' ;!� ��"a I'ir MN �y 4 4'4 I . .0.t',•Ti25''pi,,i Nf t :i' 151 ''',-;t' r ,!I••+?S«:1.1, ''T.,,a ...•.:.�,..:..•«..1�!• r„ ''1 '•(. .'.1 :ll'� .1',S `' '1.t �l i' I-q "�! 'Q rl' •t3;,+$ r '.G' .r�t�' ,n • �' r .: `t!J7l :,...e...,! r - . 5� .t e w i� �x. ai.� ✓ l. :_. CviiH ,,, � X .,t�,' .�py •,".`. � 1 'en , � ., � 1, i r 1�, .%'i 1,'{Si I•, (. T,t ,i aar .+'•k it+., . '"°I' '`�: ' .4 it • i! 4'P p•3 � i9'). � • "'• ��;i : •' . , , / -_.. .."I:r.' ....ter...«• .« •_ t P. �F I 10 ,p, �,, i ,/' r t��X '`1•/ . a . —I •,'�.t.LAV�1'� �a ,�'aria 1ii.' I� ',' :Ji__ ' 4 _ , , tS 7 ,, • , : ', ,......,,,g,..24.` .,..,,,:.t.;t,,„.rt11,,,,..1-,$'1„--.,,,,,,:,;,,ible,,-. ..,. .. , ,...,...t . ,,,,,,..,,,...,:.• .. , .,; , . . , .. , ..,,,,,..„ la 7+. iof n t• ; > • q L�,, x ♦ wa, N 1 I t Y � a f ` i ' i, ,• '{ . . . • 1� , > M � Y ., • i I !,••, • L � 5 Y. VIEW 5. r:t: 1 j ' "5Y"f,; ry ���� t L �, " . S.W. VIFW TII FIB 9 I �Cl `, .1],x: , ii, .. . . . . ,. .t,,,ii.:al_......_.....r...... illi 1 .:........... . .. . ..,, ,.. ,'.',' LANE all I , tIL �MIMMI11M 1, 7.... 4 ' !.,.' ... .:,, Alt-itt'',"-..,f..,-.,-,. ,i',1 ib.,,,..., :„.,,...,,,,v,.1 , MS Jy t_ P ..i nit C . ` i.1 4V t• ti M �/, '• m .. MuPDOt" . ). y��� 6' Tpri I S d r F/. vi 111 : gill• > ,J. I MONTE LIB i, y r �.Y y f 4 t '- * ";;:it : ' �: S.W. H O D V IA'W Did: i '' La, i 4 ' .. , • A. ;. :.,5\5. , 1 L_____,,,..7..„,____,„ ., , / /,,,o/ ,, ,,,„. ,,,,,,,, .„ i„, ,L44 . .....„:::____ . . , ' 4 j / / ✓ , ...ana + , . ,,. � ,rte/ / ' , ��, 1 � /� ,�.�. ."C4 i'� /':3- 7 .., / "'may' ,�I : viv 0/ r " r7 'ci-1 t. 3710 2/ ;) A1KEE ING PARK �O i ' .. ,sue ...., 00 / no 7 ' '„ 'jam": ,.----;;;, <,�� ..0.'/ • _ .'� . ,/ . ') 0 / ,/ ',..' „...-',,,,-',„..-------:—___,,,,,,:::,..../.77--- L.__ s 0 , , 4, , , ,. . : . — . . . / 06. . ,' 4)t191 /,;:// /./. KIN h� `f ',�'"� ' . a ,'0//// -':,....- ----.:---':„--':0, , "..'' 311.7 X 7:,,,/,,,--> r A" X 314,2 �p r,, /�,.ter '__ ,� ' '�!�"« .,//x3'0' 4,2 1111 fl o�'7 : /� �/~ � ��� ' ,,ter 311,0 / / "" X 315,7 ,171 � r 313,5,' X //V/ ✓ p . k-...,,..... 4 ' X .' / /)/ / ''''' 1 C I ..... IR ' i / / / 7 I/ ibc0'7*--- , . - S. . ,...... . / „,/, „. / A , : : ' X . . ,,. r// , . . i / Z 3.04.7. /, �r 0;/'e I' ////i// /•• ;: // / r VY ,d'• ,fir'� / /,'•/�.r.. , .. ,., : ,. .,, i // / r•//, ,,, , , ; 1 9 .�' ',,, ,, , „...,;., .,„. . ,,, ,, 1 , . ., • , ,. n' +c } 9�1 ',"t;,,,' ks�rl .� �.� 1 Illy yi ,: Y a°y ^,.' ' 4 a : 1, i , , , , i i , ' , (t, 1 , , ( ,/ ,,,, , , ,, ,,,, ; ' t , , ri + • • =ti! :I '" n'6 �:/ C r� M��• "`E. .y?, t 4 � .-� .J�,//k/ ., ,�.,,'s�.,l 1 t�r j(]/ry � � � r4. q rll 7,.>7 v 11`,∎ w. " .1 ., ,,. r i •�t'� Jj �r� m 1 f. M., 4;1 . - A NI .,. ..a _____..:______,„..... ...„, , , .77 . ii i i / i , ,, , i / ,. ,. , , . , ....- .m.,. _,----/ , illes ,,... s, .......01, - ... , ,- , i i / / , , i , / , , dr ( • , ". ,;%--1-4---- ‘ - - '--- „ ' ,:. ''.. -"I''' \ .,,, .. ,....„:„..,__________,, 4/104w.- ,,, ,,,i,...„-'1- ' 40‘, ,,,,,,,,/ • i ,^1-, ii 0 �_ � ,H) o . ./ , +0359.: p PARKING .�1 ''c t i . ' i 'IYA -....:.r_..---,--- , �, ' v' 4 di" ./ - 6 1 ‘ C-.)— dmi#11110 _ , yr* Ilk lii 11614:*4 0 ,... ,_ r • 1 A . I f r..... ► R PARKIN°. .� .� � -- -_ ' 4 . se k„,,,,,...... ... ..„............0''''''....1 i i . 1,11..m.P. al11110! I 4.7 I k 0 . . pr * I -- 1 . . 411 , .- ,......11 In" ' 1 . ,. , , . _ , . . ...._.... .. / , /, 0, // 1' r M U R D y LTTE . . ..,. // ... -4111.... I .,'"?' ' > I ''N411** I] I. ' ' /. ,,,"/4 illik,....., /0 ...,..;;;,,..................*W.....".......................................,........*''.. . 'I. ' ' / ." / A-r,o- ,. , ., _ 0 .„,,,„ . , / ,,,, ..„ gbi A, .0 c---c---- x ,,,,,,\ 1 ,, , ,,,, A x ef,--?\i . . ' ,./ • ? / / / / /1 /,,,," r-11 ikt* /z-::"›''N\\\\\. ff ie I M � '1,p (r I. , „ / ,,,,, 4.. , ,,. /. . .,„ „ / I r . /4... ,/ ` / i to ~``,� P P A R K I N G 1 1 42E1,5 k —. --- ..r-TE.,..-- 1 q c. / 1 . f / ' --- ,,,---- J.... .....____ ____ . . . , ...,.. ,1 ( 1 ...._____,423.6 • h1�LI It b 0 " o i .., . / X 0 f'114.------- ------- .,...... __.... -,,,..,.. 1117r),, , ----) , 4 \ I 4r6 5 1 x-ei.j-3-4-2.,--r--;----/7 v - PARKING CI • 1+ �'`, I 1 .✓ •. _.�'. °`� •, , 1 / ,. \ .,;') ______L, .....,C) 428 5...) H ) i A , --) r / (,1 rK 1 1F �Ca -,. ', }t , ',::., C I WM!U A•4 A 51!80:, )1Nytt\'''' . ILI . RC' .�...,., C7 �, S1.0 ' ��l�el�' W �� s� 4 X98$ a - ' • CITY OF T; GARD , \ G DEP1 OMMUN1TY DEVEtDPME.NT DEPARTMENT —CTI'l TIGiktiO PRE—APPLICATION CHECKLIST Date P14, 0LA(°) 115630 , I, APPLICANT t... . _.. ) : e I/A.t, C :. .___ ___ ' , 2, PROPERTY LOCATION Address L;41 8(All h. e Of 109.411 . `` lax Map/Tax Lot 5 I 1oA Y) 'FL B , M —rt. / 4 9 'i'- - : 6a . 0,8 ; ' a, PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION/NECESSARY APPLXCATXON(SYD �+ :._4..,, ,-4-00- i .32_ , 'xi1,A. ; ► A A e 4 t !� e r i Ai t l y ry 4, USE ,:i, , , ,. ' Cxisting ,..kk. "....±.._—.—__I-...,-Sfli...—c?!—C.±..—ilt 41/(eeLS 5-tecifLiig...e.gis. . . ,,, , Adjacent Property ,' (01- ,'N k.. (e .n16 e .. 2 r) south '"„`t ,, ... ; . , ergs . ,�.�,; ,.... k—101 west _A-_,.4.,Iy__ C A,'Wit-,::15 R.,1'01 . • .. .. 5. COMPREHENSIVE P AN DESIGNATION i\kedt hA ,.. -Ir1,N ( '�� 1 x .,,,„ , 6. ZONING DESIGNATION - , V1' 6 te,) ...._.,,.�._ y.._.,..„,,, . . .... 7, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION tON NO, e CHAIRPERSON Pki( ' C.A.,___ I C 1 PHONE GS."-9 L : , . . 0, CODE REQUIREMENTS i MIttlMIA lct siz /w Hth ,, 0 6 v, _., i .;.. . ,Sethacks; front _� corner w �� e�� roar' .�..; �,» �. 8pccia1, s ethack o; gtrtlet _ o tah11 ghcd areas _l, "" w,wwV:nr15•• ,•• . ;.; lower intensity zones , ,7--,. wot1and _,.,_.,......_,.w flag lot -- accessory structures .» „+. .>< zero lot line _., `la} inouni lot coverage 6S.21..._r�11 �"''d MAx1rfrUm building hd ,9ht _:. ; ` t ..�W.., I' , . , .,. , ., ash, x ,,', , . t 'A p d . , adA,0' Special height limits . flag lot other , Density calculation 050 01M ' , rR Density transition ---- Landscaping; minimum'% of lot area Street Trees RespiVd. CAN 109 -1- t ko-t" fie'eiek . 1 Buffer Areas -,'_. ._ ri•r Fe e ii / ,Okryk., f(°; .• 110 Park ing Areas 1- , �'"��., , .� ....._ 4. . ,, "` , Visual clearance ,.a ' Y(nb5 eV 5; ;1 V 34 liee A/Ak+cile$ itp -fitav\,814 • :: { 8- Parking and loading L� �dy_t 1��;4, , IiS ,ems to,11 Lo"L Yipcli (10 ,eY j . I NAN.41cappa_pay_j___(6/1_112g,,,g_.__XL5,1-4Qie,,,I,,,__sp_s.e,5, . , �'r a f Access and circulation LJjáv\Vt)Cj' if VVa.1 ,; ;7gn 3 e1( , ' vevaliesL As �r. 9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (See application checklist for specific items) ,, Sensitive lands: floodplain � drainageu�ay `�• �257� slope . Wetlands —7.—" AA eo ' 7F(d(t/d, ' ° Open space «".�.... .�, Historic overlay --- Street improuinents/connections/bikewys oVet " ii /O9% 0.10Ch 0 fie ed d CAA ei Right-of-way dedication 2,k,_ l / rl"" � ' sanitary Sower 'improvement ��e0� '� �a��'�r' S�'�f�" /�� �. Storm Sc Ne improvements rc r .... , ' Improvement Agreement - Permit; Bonds, fees ''04q/r5 T-1(2,001 0457 ,,, _, I . _____ae. ebtiN!2,EJ,__ ____.____,..ky___ __CT/ 7b 61IN/714 " t 764Q4,1 42_1 tc,E2.* " . J.. Other agency permits 0 . Administratiie staff review b . .'ubl iclearxng/ larng s Officer • , Public Hearing/Planning Commission �,_�__,.*: • The Administrative decision or public Hearing shall occur a ;rokiratel. 3A days a complete is filed, A • .40-day appeal period follows all decisions (0573P/0022P j F M •'•1 I: r '• • III. '' • ., , P� 1 ,n' s s "• D .12.. r ''Y.•1 + . ,:i.t ' ' H ( ,_ A,. Staff J. , 0� �' - , Date C h OF TIGARD , 1 ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J ' APPLICATION CHECKLIST • , 1 The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of h: I. your application submission requirements. This checklist° identifies -what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST] be brought . �; and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your . application. Seas your application for further explanation, of the items or ..- T. call Planning at 639-4171. , .,. ITEMS TO BE ' BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: A) Application form (1 copy S) Owner's eignature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument 1 '" 01„.4 ., 0) Assessor's map 1,1” , E) Plot or site plan N 3 ax F) Applicant's statement [ ' , (G) List of property owners & addresses within 250 feet ' . (H) Filing fee ($ �.�, j ' 5 le,, . ..re e scieM tA k: ' +,. SPECIFIC MATERIALS A) Site Infer tion shy ( o. of copies to ): I',axa!'- 1) Vicinity Map Et-P + ' 2) Site Size & dimensions ittle .�'. 3) Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or, S ft for grades > 107) ;k I 4)' Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5) Locations of natural hatar*d areas including: . a) Floodplain areas 13 b) Slopes in esWAss of 25 :. c) Unstable ground 13 .., . d) Areas with high seasonal water table ( 3 : r e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ( ] , f) Areas having serr®re1� as shown on the Gem s �� weak foundation scale 6) Location of resource areas Comprehensive Map inventory including: , ,_ a) Wildlife habitats 13 ,, b) Wetlands - C ] 3) Other site features:: r a) Rock outcropping's cl . b) Trees with 60 4- caliper measured 4 feet J from ground ;level ,J .' �) Locati o p of f ex i sti structures end h air uses _, Location and t ype of on and off—site noise sources t ] 10) Location of existing utilities and easements ' il) Location of existing dedicated right—of—ways O Plain showin,, (Go' of pies --La): E , �'� ' �� � � U y ��it� Ueye lo�mant . f c® � � �� 0 or ed sate and rr^a�a�t'adin i properties. 1 ;, - 1) The'pr p ` es 2) Contour line intervals t--,',' . 3) The location, d a � end names of aal'l ,. i�ens } streets & other public ways aon a) and easenrer'platted � � I r Existing �► its on the site and Oh adjoining .. :, properties ] • APPLICATION CHECKLIST — Pogo, 1 \ :.+ 1. ♦ f n 1r.. +w e \.'I i • L..., Proposed streets or other pukes ways & easements :• N' . on the site. C ], . c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension ( 3 4) The location and dimension of: a) Entrances and exits on the site B ' "a) Parking and circulation areas ' g c) Loading and services areas Wee d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation C+. 3 t) Outdoor common areas, tµ�.^ f) Above ground utilities , C ] , 5) The location, dimensions & setback distances of all .,;,. • a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, • utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site IY.11. AMAIf' ': , r °- b) Proposed structures, improvements, . utilities and easements on the site ',a i 4' 6) Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions :, : . 7) Sanitary sewer facilities . 8) The location of areas to be landscaped 1. ' . 9) The 1oc•tion and type of outdoor lighting ' considering crime prevention techniques j, ' 10) The location of mailboxes E 3 i,'1) The Vocation of all structures and their orientation "' ' r 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements t C) Qradingr P1 n (No. of cOpies ) �w The site development plan shams include a grading plan at the same scale as the eite ana1yeis drawings and shall contain the following information: : 1) ' The location and extent to which grading will take , +e` place indicating general contour lines, slope ratios F •_ and soil stabilization proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done. , ,, .3;e6.f 2) A statement from a', registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: a) Sub surface exploration and geotechnical engineering report C 3 i r' ',," ; b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm 4' drainage service proposals c) That all problems will be mitigated and ' . how they will be mitigated f,°o:.; 01I . ° 0) s____hecto r"aai s (No. of copies ies ` +) ,, , The site development plan proposal shall include , I) .rloor plans indicating the sq uare footage of all ,,,. strictures proposed for case on-site; and i c' 2) Typical elevation drawings of each strUctiare, x`a^ I ) (No. copies C � �e of ies �' plan shall he drawn at the same_ scale. of the �, . ., The landscape plan ', site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall .,,, ' T indicate ,, 1) De n system._ o C 3 scription of the irrigation where �applicabl ,� ; • �, 2) Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings t .' ' APPLICATION C CKLXST Page 2 • • i• ao .fu + i r wrr r +,r». r+ •••.u. i 1 ,,.r Y rrr r r.. • . t • r++ru +H ir t w+..r +”"t' r, ,. ..1 1 Hiwr 1S t'vw lKRNT'kMs�1_ , ..-' . , 10111.11111111MMINAMMUMMINIEML - 4 al, ''s ' - 4' • ' • ef. ' . 3) Lock eon of terraces, decks, shelterta,play areas and common open spaces ne 4) Location, type, size and species of existing and , , • proposed plant materials. ( 3 . The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: , 1) Soil conditions. [ 3 0 . 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. ( 3 .•sv F) ALTIJDraws -. Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordancemith Chapter , 18.114 of the Code as part of Site DevelOpment Review or , ' . • prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct the sign. rig / G) ' Ott . H) Preliminampartiltionor_t_lotli_awrdigstyleatiensowirja ' ' (no. of Copies ): E 3 1) The owner of the subject parcel . 2) The owner's authorized agent E 3 3) The map scale, (20,50,100 or 200 feet=1), inch north - „ arrow and date C 3 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries I 1 , S) Location, width and names of streets, easements and , other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ( ] , 6) Location of all pelemanent buildings on and within ' • 25 feet of all property lines ( 3 7) Location and width of all water courses ( 3 , . e p) Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at , 4 feet above.ground level E ) /. . 9) All slopes greater than 25% 13 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 ( 3 x ; , , b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street 4 ,;, . plus any reserve strip, ( ) I ' , 12) Any applicable deed'restrictions , - ( 3 1 . la) Evidence that land partition will not preclude ■ ..° efficient future land division where applicable . t ] 1) Subdivision Prolisiima_DIALAPpeghstAltplhgeling(No. of 1 Copies ): 1) Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the ineh and limited to one phase per sheet ( 3 2) The proposed name of the subdivision E 3 , 3) Vicinity map showing property's rolationship to arterial and collector streets E 3 , 4) Names, rddrasses and telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer, stirveyer, designee, as applicable( I ) 5) Date of application ( I 6) Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided ( 3 7) Namet of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded 1 owners of adjoinihg parcels of unsubdivided land E 3 1 8) Contour lines related to a City-established benth i mark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater 4 4, than JO% C 3 , . I ■ 4, APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3 L , k , W . • ' 4 - .,.. , • , t • .• • �. .. .�.,_,...wra... nwr,..r,.r........r.....r..,...f...a-,.Y.-.. _.....-_r....A�. �,..,...,..�f,.._.._...ti..:�d:...,w ,.,_.......«r..,...r..r....,H_..♦......_�.._.....r.i..u..x...., •_•..�� ..�_� i, ..,. r � r.1 a.. .� � .. -,, n, t• 1 • -..fiG 1/1 1 ee7 ,J. +/ e^�' Gam'` . , /e, /6' r /<' ive::',1/4 /47' ) , .. i ,,.. .,6 c.f , / , ))., ..s. . to7'.i.t 'W . . , 1; A. .�,� 4 • I 'n 110 i • 1 w ., Pete 'Wilson Realty, Inc. t, OtAE ESIAtt 1 Pill Investment deal .state Specialists c, � S.W. Macadam, Suite 300 INVISIMINtS' 5100���r,+ 1' LU 503-225-1212 '` °' Portlantit OR 97201 h F — John V. Piestrak �� 1 1 Associate Broker REALTOR' l a' 233.7872 i, Res, li��ir l'iulr�•imusl larumirn uEl*Mnu•.rum1,i Itru►I:�tdU'tiuurrt n" I� � 1 dN' , ; N N r� I I I I I ,} r,a�:•�; '7 - :1... ,ti`i ` ., - .'4` * ,t - ,-d'r'•', T'r' .• 0 .e is 1 •'y'.,y, .•',•,:;..,::, '...,r•' `it r G',` - , ' , -e•, )t. .. Q, e / d fa!' VII .?' 4 !, / •x ilk jt pP , , I t,it, '' BARGAIN AND SALE DEED , ,i•� (•I n Lieu of Foreclosure) rG ' , i y 16 � 4 I rW e s t 6 � 7t 7 n Inc., an Oregon �� � �Y., '■, ;, ;t �nl I ' corporation, Equity Management, Znc. dbaa T,reeiand Investors n.,, •r ! . � ' . cb dica Treelard Investment, an Oregon corporation, uan„ , ,„,., G', Robert,Brian, Will i,tun Wagner„ and ktth1man Construct iron °, ,'' i,,' 'Pension and Retirement Plano Grantors, do hereby .4raint. bar.. ' .-4. ,,,'.' 4 4Gtmf 1 gain, sell and convey,' unto Florian Schuetz' and Anna Schuestz# 4 , J Grantees their successors � •. E. ,:�•� 'aka A►r�n� �chus��.�, h�z�b'and and +wif.., ,. � and assigns, all of the real property. together with the . „r tenements, her`ed 1tamentre, appurteneances thereunto belonging or ,• :•.,-::•.'4„'•, in any way appertaining, situated in Washington Cot ntye Oregon• ,q1;', : ; : ....,. 1 H I t : described in attached Exhibit A. s sold the real property to Silveri i.nd rp ', ' , ..'.....''''r,'''�� Grantees p p y �� ' ;r, , ' ,., ' Investment Company, Inc. on a read estate contract dated sj3 ` ,. 7, , ,, ,. December 29, 1980 and recorded Decesmber 3l, 1.980 as !ee l ow ',i`• B0047605 in the Washington County Recordst ("tht Contract"). '1Ai i '�,'. '+ i t'•' Thete t1ter, Silverline Investment Company* inc., aitiigned al,l 4, • of it'', i,`"r.E.;.test in the Contract to Equity Management, Inca N`" Frr: db.a' 'Xresland Investors aka 1'ree1,,a,nd Xnvestment, a gene.rai •./.i';, ;,�� �r <fti' far rterat�ip con .i �.in Dar* 0unh ri, d» obext isrw� I :�),J.:: 7 rr � . �' �, William Wagner, i nd K hlMan Cc nBt�tuct ion Peaa ic:41 and Retire- ,, Munk Plan. "The Grahtot ere now in default on the C�rsntrac ►' 1 trk, Contract is tub mct to iced iatu forec :tlf • ,' and the C � loatxre i � .,rafi 1• Grantors are unable to a t he, i ndebtadneas ti 1d iosito to : t ~ avoid foreeloaure proceedings► Carr ntors give to Grantee*, , y,• i rit, i ,,i',1 6 ,, , ,, ' .;.,, ...„4,6; i r , ". w,.r. wuawwi.wwep ,. ,r. _, i'.,"•:" t k, V ' rN /. ' r ft 1, .,r,1 `' • '•r " • ' 0' i 'r'lji, P I t f W • 1 r • • • '•'.Ar ,'O ' . r 1, j.'. , t • �;' '/ N �,, t w. .',. '• .•, � .•�,. YI' �, ,, '�!•' ;'l , gyp, •f • I • ,. ;.r i htl3a deed of conveyance, rd Grant:en cc th conveyance ' � Capon the tera'a and conditions stated herein. , , . I. SY, a ceptanc,: o f thi f: deed, xr�t��ffi covenant Ai,. r1 . and agree that they shill. forever forbear taking any action / H!,.:..... 1 , or. . ' whatsoever to proceed agaain',t Grantors on the Contract. ' bf other than by, foreclOsure Without a deficiency Jude 4ty 2. This dead doe, not a rz f.ct as a , rger of th. fee ownership and the lien of the C*nt�ra�ct, and the fee and � , ' ? lien shall hereafter remain separate and U..•tinc'tr t 3• Grantors do hereby waive, surrender, convey and .., relinquish any equity of redemption and statutory right of redemption concerning thee real property and the Contract:. ti 4. Grantors surrender possession of the real pry �, J y •o• arty to arrantl,ee: >'o� :n , . Grantors a nd Grantees agree that Gr 4t,e4 S Ill et., retain all payments made on the contract: . : r k R' fi: 6. In executing this deed, Grantors are not acting • { under any misapprehension as to the effect thereof', nos ,• ` - :,.� '' :, under any duress, undo. influence, cat;''rrri:t�irepree�itantations by Grantees, their agenta, or.attorneys �'�. �r ,.era I r. The true and ctual consideration for thip c.©t- t ' `fc vayance it Grantees' forbearance to foreclose the Contract. . >r��w I'uSG UA, t UN'p U�1'I�IJ11 a� I NhsG P RbU ' NFL b O V E S TO O T V WORw U H fl ANT� C IROVTkEReD I3�y E�MIT ' .1.: _ ,i ' '. r N T Eft A SHOULD CHECK IT "D APPRXA Cillit1 ,, ., A' '� B' . ,'0, . .,n, A \b. ',. ✓ u.• a• n y' 1 I• 1StT L d _ r w..r nt 9 • ...;`,.'•1' ,1..?�"4A.t,r, ,.h F,.ti..'. ..„- -f.Ivr. , ..,. ...,,..... „ A fi- {� I' 'IA 7 r R '' •, f. o .• � � �'� ',may w r d � •'.e r }�±/k„ .. .••'' `�` I I,� ATM,, • . a . .,. T WITNESS VV SE p r ����R� have esecs t m deed, . ,. • this ..._2,..S," day of ± S , 1985„ •% r_ .° CJRAF •s d � � � "', ' ' '" STLVERLTHE Tt T fP�, T .� • r • ' • qtr., �' •, 4, Len R. Osborne President STMME OF OREGON {? '. . • . ri0N6 i��aI F'q�� a ��M � � i R,i'1 . County a On €L f" , 1985. personally ape,qaced Len, M. • Osborne who being duly sworn did say t ha is the President of S ilve r1 iinu Investment Ca panye Inc., a corporation, and that -.) said 'instrument was Signed in behalf 1 of id corporation authority a its board of dit ctoru$ and acct cwled a ' s ii , instrument to be its voluntary act a deed. Before mes . ' .f"r y}y y , ' •T 1•+ .x'1:7. ,. .; '!R 7..A lrbnrws�rrkHiwnM ., ' r 4 en ll Notary PZb1 id for Oregon �, 4,,. .1 ' ' " c iuuiOza aspires: a, 4i i , 4 w � 1 . a ! r • w iw e • S "a , 3 .Ctrir 4"` w .4, " 4 "a� � , „, 0 3 , • n 1 1 i 1 :, . • ..■ y },tun '� ' , I ' 1.'r.{• : r. �,y v /' v� ;,f ', SFJ•. j's is } i y �" :' �, * r, . iD )/ n 1/4^ )'' .v t f•. 4 1 ,a 1 •. w G . N .' p,9 �. f i„ f A :lt,• it 1 I }k_ .bREELAND fl BSdORS', a psR.t%etNbip ,, • cnaaating of Mn�geMnt !no.e' • tl 1at�1d1 agB1 :'�'', Don b`i 1�1 r' Q Wagner'Q • 'Kuhlman Conatruotitm Pension n+ Retirement Plan �A,. • C Don t unler ► s • • ) 1 as. - County of M F ° „ .oar j duly,.....♦ ,F.,.. did 0 1,150 personally lye appeared' , ' • , • . :. Z isap o #' of GA�lWa fl M1.Qna�t lM nitAM F�a�l{1l. �s+fA,'OR� i• R. . ' 9t plan pnrt�� � r �. daitra + ppaa�rtiar ►ipm I � e t p: load instrument yeas signed On b*b 1f of said B e • w44, B 'i :tin Pa faaion and letirenent Plan iandp ?r t ot*, • • ,,, • t b9int-abka gild ge dl naid in*troliant to b* a aari - c igaaion etpir�r* '0• w1 l n' • • SATE OP ©R ON •. rr , 1 COUnty °M„ r Of '� N t 1' 1 • 6 . i, . . „ ' 1 K, . .4.( ' ' P 1•� 5 raaunal yp app o � William Wegner- no,duly a c oa;n d d say tl;t be to) 4 part- . � •� � R41 her x n stlAnd x19'. � �'1?atd9Sg1, d1 paMrtl9rt, guy +ent w t nine do behalf f p V deeds tad iratan9 t b9ra ea+ latr a� tal' � ee ri '.4,.: A l C r Y i. ...�.:.....�. .f � � ,...0 ,,4,1 My CQ n 5p * , F! W ♦ ,W1 y1 F Y rF 4 Ir p1r ,• 33t +Yyy M V i � 1 ' , . , . , 4/ • ...,0, , , , • M n � '' ) .' ' ' • . , e • , . in 4. n a x R EQfMir MAGE t T, IN,. E' ,,,,..,, �i . G'"r+''' D. ! ha'', P resident , ;, SATE OF OREGON ) .fib 8S. County of)? .-''r • On .. . , ALBS, personally dared ' a rig 1�usaaa... who faire duly sworn dial may he the as i , President of Equity Magna es� -nt, Int., a corporation, wrhich core , • . . porn tion it a partner in Treeland Investors, ae partnership, and '' .43 that said ,instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation r and therefore said partnership by authority of its Ord of /4,�r+�. irector8 and acknowledged said in4:7u. teat tab be its vo1 tsxy . Cot �,c 4 deed. Before met ./ow 1, , Jr,,. I wt '' y y v7*.e 'ion e*pireat ee r / -ale , 4 ((t A it . ,' MANAGE NE °, INC. _ _�,, , I, A �,��;. �..o /� n 9 i.nJ.niR.w�.Y.rq . + yA �. O. Robert Br..an, retary •,, x STATE OF OREGON ) '' ail . '� . C unty of 0410-I"do mA4 ) On ete.404 a `'' a 1985, personally appeared • g , O. Robert Brian, Who being duly orn did say that he is the ,, Secretary of Equity g corpotation, w it)) oration is a partner in Vreeland $nvestors, a partnership, , that said inet men a signed oh behalf of a Corporation ',r,1 ■ , • and therefore said partnership by authority of its boars of ' .f�,', directors and aokra 1edged� said inatruiment to be its �re�lunrlary ���� act and deed. Before ties /iv ." (' t, e C` '' l 'Lt.,e� -' �. ,, �� � ota nbl.. for Oregon er if .�'.� My c�wieeion eatpireta�a 1 �` �`' � � • �''�` �'�i\s, �.�, ~▪� �+I,After recordinq', return tot ;s t �� 4 we x, w �Mr, and Mrs. "lorian SchUeta � , ✓ e 32 Neilsen Close ,, .4` Red Deer, Alberti, Canada T4P 2/U fi0 ".,'F t Send future tax ata�tementa tot ,, Mrs and Mrs, Florian Schttet _ . "' 32 Neilsen Close n: Ted ;Deer', Alberto Canada ¶t 4? 2A1 �;; yA4 •• :•. k { _ • .x.,. .. ,,,..., , qty , ,• • .' ' '., , , ,•W ... .,.. .Y Fxa , .,t .', .t..r. , , , l • A „ , , '4; • t wry n . % n , n `' • • • •l • '� • � .rr .. , Ohl •✓r. . M r �S " 1 *i pA qqq 4,14P4tfrittAte,r4.1-zseh,i*egefitrottii.ez4,tni,.4,4",;.„,I • r 1, ; •i.'m «N y.iv' r Tn 4 •� •r, q 1 a• r wcr ,pAnuM!► . 6w .. �ir y� d . r n ■ r ---, • • �',` try r'm .'. • ler ' ' , . • 1 04►� . ' ..w.r....u..�wv. A portion off the Le the aat quarter of Section 10, `9 e iship 2 Roesrin, ) t. range 1 Wet, Mtflal) ettee If+ridian, Mabahin+ltr�n ce�ar�►.typ. Otee,6o , tors A .� '4; particularly described as to&louse •• �. Mildimmi 0 at the *tartar corner on the Seat Ilene tr' said'8tectieen •.. let theater Otttia slop the Saes' taut of 641st lie tle w odr' 101.2 , • ' test; to an leen pipet theme tee th 6'9'94' Mec t li90 gett to ea gram ,, ' pipet thence South end, parallel to the Cast line of meld Otetl { • 10. 405 feet, more t leeti to the toUttbeeet corner of that ertain 50 foot strip of lend as deathbed in deed to 10a m S. Ranged, et el. ih Soot 290 pelo 4$4r neetintten Coo my tilt Secorge, said , • Point t+etft, the tree pellet of hatinninti thene a costineittg nth ,t one parafltfat to tha gest line of sofa Sections 10, 2,11.34 feet to they sw'osrthssat termer of that tree' described its deed to dames ' , Obnete. Andr'aoh, et ustt. 9n 476, Pate a3i. eeeeeteAottoon �ntp d Deed Me riles theenit r l t alts, the k9rth $9vne e t 8416 14aaSero vee treetm 1666 &tete sore Ot less. tee a pl nt on the' destetA01 1100 of tt.tlrl. i1'+pe fle 191 Let tt+tt 'e a e'khtetaest*ttyr along maid hitalitay feet ,, ljett. eep teett owe e#r teas. to m point on the l th 110e of '8416 . h,Te8oww1rod tsxsctR lehetneae Seat estate said South line 250 lfreept. eti sro Of tees, to than true point of beeytinning a r A rt on of the Itorthaset taatter of Sett ion 10, lo+nahi;p t. po . • . � Mouth maot& 1 Meat, oillesetts Hrod ion, Weahi ten cep Oregon, des;ri ed Ae �at Yome l • ��� Pei se$0010 et the Intersection Of thde e>ecenoal+nn r to " a0 the �etfn line at �` . 1. lr�hle'� Qiet� �Q�� lBoot������e�l line S.M. thelhl�'d r' ..7f tt t;ehtrly+p diepd7 e� a1.�/�y�rF.�yM e�► oar t�t�,NQn � 'el.y, .+: et .J i,t�i �>tl pfi,�M b�lv remit �Pi*�t.�"' wSmt i.F," i ' 4 t feet pto the theater1V o South tithe Vie legs Oi (perfect 10 Northeast �p 9, recorded r"' th Ott i01n 60ee M11, these*e* aosatherlgr Oaon0 iota auttt'tio tto.t) ,r` bets 0, 0atOtit0f a� th rOoft 240 feat! theete test *millet tth ,� ..1, ,;x tha Oem line of gets +�'rthaaat f tfare 100 feat tO tht point of �` ? 'W040016/10 " ,,1,', •' r' 47 n qtr COOOty t W t h gtcn S� r' �, f �'' N��I,��i fd W.Mn a* IDk� ce tt 9�Aliiy it rrnieent `r,� , •• "•Y y iihi 1 and 1 ftliti Fn iind tx-Offrclo 5 didd Ot Can-, 6,4' . : y1 ,f VaNtt�'d a k, std�,dte say qb{ ' r th within inerttrOt i't e � *at**amid *4 a, And r In tb 04 rar a dt Oild y . et " rion+Rld W. e4 otn, Duwctai of ' • '; #�h�ts Cot*ckh� ..,%i..,. i f J I}. n r i'4 • ;. 4,1, • .. . ,, - r, I•• 1 r', .„q t. Y ..y .'� G t eAk '•. r , i r rl I A , keenk .2.S.kel Q` om" ' . rik p, /�liginil�iP 1100 I� . , March 13, 1990 cV/ .la y A � ,. sue,: CITYOF TI64RD ,..c6--V-1-t p . OREGON Charles B. Harris III 44' - 8315 S.B. Stark Street Rg.g. sVia., Ve"`1`7 ' i Portland, OR 97216 ti ' RE: Little Bull Mt. Park Apartments, S.W. 109th Ave. Public Improvements, Dear Mr. Harris: This is sent to notify you that the construction of street and sanitary sewer • improvement work in the area of 109th Avenue, Pacific Highway and Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, is not satisfactorily complete yet. The following described items need attention: 1. The T.U. inspection report indicated that there are rocks and debris in the newly constructed lines; said material must be removed. • Further, an unauthorized grade-break is noted between (exiting) Manhole 10A-2 and 1OA-45; said grade-break must be removed or otherwise addressed. ott 2. Visual inspection of the manholes revealed infiltration around the , 4r inlet to Manhole '',OA-46; said infiltration must be stop,7ed. 3. One as-built mylar drawing, showing the new public improvements, must be submitted to the City for review and acceptance approval along with an engineers certification of installation conformance (form) document. A Copy of the form is enclosed. ' I urge you to aces- quickly to met the March 27th, 1990 deadline for completion . of this project work. Please contact Mr. Mike Mills, City Inspector, at 639- p the id construction deficiencies as soon as you • 41.71 for reinspection of the aforesaid ' complete repair. The as-built drawing and engineers certification should be directed to me. Sincerely, ., ,1/1„. c.4°. )/ - John S. Hagman .' Engineering Technician j r/LBMP A109.JSki ' cc/ First interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A. commercial Real Estate Division, T-7 1300 S.W. Fifth Ave. Portland, OI. 97201 RE: Set Aside Letter No. 1, Charles B. & Debora J. Harris , . 125 SW Half Blvd,RO 7;T ard,Oregon 97223 (503)6394171 �� r Box 2339 Ig --------- , k'.. 1 c ". , + V i. Chapter 18„150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior ' to removing trees in preparation for development. The site plan and landscaping plan designate an adequate number of trees to be \ . retained in the area of development as directed by the City i' Council. The plans also provide for appropriate measures to be i employed during construction in order to protect the trees to be retained and the neighbors trees. Perimeter fencing and fencing S around trees to be retained will be required to be installed prior to the issuance of site work permits for the development. ' The site plan also provides for all, trees in the western y„:,,' one-third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the proposed sewer. l . j. Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection to the existing sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and ''' installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on SW 109th Avenue. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development. 1. E. DECISION The, Planning Commission approves the detailed plan for Planned . Development PD 88--04, Site Development Review 88-17, and Variance V - 87-27 subject to the following conditions: r UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR. TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE WORK AND BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: KEtTH i. LIDEN, PLANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 4; _ GARY ALFSON, ENGINEERING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 5 THROUGH 11. 1. A revised landscaping plan or addendum to the presenE plan ;shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval. The plan ' shall provide specific information on proposed perimeter. buffering along the northern and eastern border of the site. Said perimeter , buffering shall consist of a 6 fool tall chain link fence and vegetative' screening or 'a 6. foot` tall site obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners. The fencing shall • be installed prior to commencement of' any site work, construction, or , '` tree cutting., The 'revised ,landscaping• plan shall , also provide de-tails n a, minimum 4-foot . tall., fe enclosing w. nce pool . ' aYls � a� ing .the swimming poo � area. '' ' tai 2. Fencing with a' min mum height ef, eight 0$) feet shall be installed ' ' ”. ;`" Y '1 around the dripline}o9 all trees',:'proposnd, for retention' prior. tc► i v' ,', .'e ° `any construction: on 'the site. ' The' ,fencing shall;',be, inspected and` t, ° , ,. : a rovede.b the consulting ;.irborist'and Planning Division prior to rl ' 0 permit issuance Any later land clearing work within the dr iplires 1, e t r w '.i', - n'ttf S 'i,,^• , j,. r,- rm'i .' 'r t', i , r �,,, a+yy,T , % • ' i4"','',...',',.0'z N ( aa' ,I 1'{4 , - " ''. '''' ' ' ' ' :, • ' *":1""',';',' '' . ' '- ?: ': : ' ' .‘,' ':. *'::"'.' 2 , ,„,- . . : . t , , , .FINAL ORDER. NO. 88- 15 IBC PAGE 11 1 ,`. a •J . V 1 4 i:t cvac °W.11 4 ha111 be perform hand. A qualified arborist G'•iail inspect the . � j b site at a minimum of two times per week durink onstruction to . ,,.i, dp L ensure that the tree preservation program outlined by David F. ` . , , 1b�` To nDVI' McConnell, dated October 31, 1988 (Exhibit "A") is followed. " ' . , y ���.,.--''"� ,�� A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to any tree removal -�, r�r t- o on the site. Removal permits will not be issued for trees , ' 3.0-c'l designated as type I trees by the landscaping plan. f, ttis1'�'4r'c�q, D QV�aY r r �� ���y0t/a/ e're l f FoW ea/el/1'70/4a 7`�E'PS ! -� �5 to re& 1A, Gam i�1f q(/r- ie-{tick k1/// iss �J�iifr�. ....--_.-- --_��_-_.__�_ o ode �Ce C'i l��t��'o�.s" , •-'-�" 4. A revised sate-plan shad.-1 be•-submit.ted_- hick provides for a minimum OK of one hundred and thirty (130) covered parking spices:°°" I 5. The single driveway connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed OK in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic, , ' . report. 6. Seven (7) sets of plan and profile public improvement construction ,{(f plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a ' ' Lf, Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed ff g : g P P public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section . , for approval. Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final plans. Said plans shall include installation of a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. t . i ,4 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence . , until after the Engineering Division has gapproved public 40, improvement plans. The section will require a 100% Performance !A' Assurance or Letter of Commitment, the payment of a permit fee and . a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer agreement. Also,` the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. , , . ` 8. The applicant shall provide for roof and parking lot rain drainage ` to the public stormwater drainage system or by an approved on-site system designed to prevent increased runoff onto Pacific Highway. . 9. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic ... map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area �f • :' shall be provided as a supplement to the Public Improvement plans. . Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable x ' . ,. .. area. 10. The applicant. shall obtain a permit from the State of . Oregon • Highway Division, to perform work within the , rright-of-ways . of 1 • Paci£xc Highway. A cop y of the permit 'sh ahl be provided ,to the ' ' City En Engineering Offiee prior to issuance of 'a Public improvement r.1.;,.,.; °,%,,,; -; Permit. t . - , p ?' 11. The ..ro osed privately-operated, and �ma�intai ned� arkin �llot `.and , f .! re -e : rr)adway'p1.an-profile,and cross section„details 'shall:be -provided as , ' ,'�, 0� ' part.of:'the public improvement'plans M ! ;, ." i r .r s � � �� f.n � .% '�1 fr , 9 M .. ., ,�,`� ,,,,6.:',„,4`";'''., 1 ., ;r» .T�,, , � .,'''',.,,,:%4,, ' n,.i� " " f iY .5 + .» y}'4 ''t � 1. ;t t,}i',. r z } ,-,,-0-.P',,,,„.', rt<< ."•; z /, , " 1 �+air j1�a"� �{F k }� 4'.., �'' r �,V y '� : n�" r,r „ FINAL ORDER NO. 88- 15 �'`' PC PACE, 12 '‘.„',.,,,,,:',1 ; r r �, � �- ,, � ( ;.� +r •. 4 it t4 �A� !',� u''� 7�„�. - i a y,' r ' � e J F � ! ��, i^{ lot` . r,.�, r J ro 'w.."M rR f in w. • n a . ^ 1 t , p R • • \:,;.;:::11,.''''.'. t , ;. :,, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. (STAFF CONTACT: KEITH LIDEN) - 12. All landscaping materials, permanent fencing, and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the landscaping and site plans. 13. A sign permit, shall be obtained prior to the erection of an t • identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. OK a41w }eAllL' L5P" 86:1—,50 i'3 --Ecr THE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL � APPROVAL DATE. mv, It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this i r' final order. PASSED: This day of /07i,, -7..r,,C , by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. 6"/ 0,-z-tX4',/ /9//?fet--,- , A. Donald Moen, President , ' Tigard Planning Commission :. r br/6765D . , ■ ■ ' w N , i , 'rte' - _ K 6ff$ t til, r • ,: , I 1 C� %�r ��° * p t ;1-'";',,ICI « � i i Ra ", '' ,t 1.! :.� `i t.. ' I , ', � Ye � �gJ xr 1::.:,i :,,::e � V, ?• !,:',!:....'/:',.:. '(5 , ' , 7'1 Y . f. ' : 1 r I 1.• �a,I!'oE Vsry 1d,'i r fk !, L k t !� r x dM1 + a I + •, ' I t 1 t I !. A r i ,' ,!' t ., .i t✓ �• , 1 a, ± , l"9« ,, , }, ( , r' 3 FINAL ORDER NO. 88— r5� PC � PAGE 13 � � � � ,4 I ,: I ` II e$01' I , . r.. /' , . . . „ • . • .. ,, • . . ,„. „ ,.. , - ' ' • ' . • , • • I • a •, „ r I • • . . , ,• . . I I I • .., I 0 • •• ' • . Pp eg-(0,1(. (/' ,E38- - 7 E i le if: JOR i. 1) Vaz-4:•te4, 0_,(3 -`,"'W " . App •. ,. . , , A: . f. OA- A IA it OCK , . .. . 1...oci.it;i(.10. ,0 . , _. . . , '1 ., , . . . . Decision Date: ,. . ti • , , h , . • . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL T „ • _ _____ .0_11E_I,U1_,..T11,_____.,...LFD . . . , ... . „ — . Sinn--Off Date • . ' . 01 3a-c. DAYvii,e... ... _ —...„..._ • Prior to WA-40-'4-44 PI _,L..-. ______---. H ,,, • ,, ----v- . r Contact K(-- jo , /26e . .- .'• ____ I „.. 1. , , 3. .„..5., .,.,,,,, i, ,..... 0... .,.., ,...,.,L„.11.,- Ljo2.... .eiWi Le,,,, ..,1/4 6, -,..'-- '. , , • _____,_ . , • . ., K L Jo • . ri\j,..t...„. (., ,.-t,,,,,O-v-&-C- . 3, , ' -7.-) , ' oe.Lic.,,_., ,(... 1,<L, . ./-0,kva /4,, , ,‘../ .1....(,,,)et.4...,c,..i cp.,. ,...., ,„.. (..„, ,-- 4, (,e;rV'-e,/,-1.;.:4i, P ''" . . .. ( 5. I 4/1.4,114.4.--t1Z-1 ..,' ' „ A '. ' - - i / !I • ,, , 6 _ __-A _, / d)( 'II _ .. 7 it', PAricratt-ed--0,44., 0A-42411 .44-0. T ' 111 /AV. . . 8 1 / , •: „ • , ,,kle.., ■ w . • Pr; 1 . /A- , • . .. to Os,poci , il.!L,vii,A .,71- , 4 . , . ,.. . . 6rotilLttiti , . ,.. ...:., 04.4 li pet,Jetit 1A:- it GA- . ia3527P , , ,. , ., . P. St5 ' ''' , ' . j11 '4) 1 ,H .,....................._ , i ., 1.-).,: - i2 Lo 6CrA444.4,:‘ . rii. sa tdmp,4ertetettcr1/40-1,-" T . 11' 1.,,. '...• — •ft -' • ,:0,.,. , . 1 ti'' ,•' ' ,,..0' ,'•,,'', ', :''. '..,,, , ''',.'01' '•,0, ' 1 '.,''',.:,'7' t''': 0;.:'L0,i,'''' ,',,,, '„,'' ,,',-,',' : :,,0.i',,'..,.,'1, :'., 0, , '...''',1 ': ' 0 ':-•, ,'''''1',' ': -,;,'''''''''''''''1:'''''''.'.' •'' , 13\.', ,... 1/4; , .0,,,.'" , ; , ,, '..„ '.„. • :,•4 °.;,0 ,; •0,,''',,,,,,,c,;„•' •,::'•,•,',0,,,,:',. 0,,, '..•:.:0,0', - -''., ,'0,,' : ';T '''. '. .,,,, l',, ; ' ' 1,',, ',' ' ' ' ' : , . i ' ' :' ■ I '' ';:f., at t.P ft '''. ' ' ' ' ' " '''',','..'' '4 ':' tc',' ' , .'i, ,r i,Y614: r.2,....:%41.e'ff,, ''''' '": ' ' !,^ ■ '• ' ' ' ' ' .,,,, , ',' : : i fr L4 , , ,4pt,,i, ,f, , .yvt.:e4k,I ,,,,-..-a- -, - ' IA i It *.■it"C ZO 1 9, ' ,',Cr,,"0- I '''' " • ' ',.,, . : , .,1.,.•„,,,,,' ,5t),6;(3 '1.,,,Nb ,‘ ' ItA'V,Z5,%-- '' ,.,,,;:':, . , :.,,, .,e.,., 1., i ,: ' .„, ,.i.,;, e,.i- e 4,, ' ' i t , ,-, ... , . . . " , ' . ..4. , n\q„‘ • , , , [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]