The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance No. 22-04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 22-04 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THREE(3)PARCELS OF LAND TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2.90 ACRES AND ONE-HALF OF THE ADJOINING SW HALL BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVING THE CEDARBROOK ANNEXATION (ZCA2021-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT AND WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. THE ORDINANCE ALSO APPROVES A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR2021-00001) FOR THE CONTRUCTION OF A NEW ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY. WHEREAS,the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(b),ORS 222.125,and ORS 222.170(1) to annex contiguous territory upon receiving written consent from owners of land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundaries of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District upon completion of the annexation;and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission opened a public hearing on January 10, 2022, to consider the annexation of three (3)parcels of land consisting of Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 1S126DB,Tax Lot 00800,00900,01000,and adjoining right-of-way,withdrawal of said parcels and adjoining right-of-way from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District, and a site development review application to construct a new assisted living and memory care facility; this hearing was continued to February 28,2022 at the request of the applicant;and WHEREAS,the Tigard Planning Commission opened a public hearing on February 28,2022 that was continued to March 14,2022 due to technical difficulties;and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2022 where the Planning Commission received public testimony and voted to hold the record open for a period of 21 days, seven days for anyone to submit any further information, seven days for any person to submit rebuttal to material submitted in the first open record period, and seven days for the applicant to submit their final written argument; and WHEREAS,the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 4,2022 to deliberate and provide a recommendation on the applications;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on May 10,2022,to consider the annexation of three (3)parcels of land consisting of Washington County Tax Map(WCTM) 1S126DB,Tax Lot 00800,00900,01000, and adjoining right-of-way,withdrawal of said parcels and adjoining right-of-way from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District, and a site development review application to construct a new assisted living and memory care facility;and WHEREAS,on May 10,2022,Council requested additional time to review public testimony and requested staff prepare a memo related to impacts from similar facilities in Tigard;and ORDINANCE No. 22-04 Page 1 WHEREAS,on May 17,2022,Council voted to tentatively approve the ordinance and directed staff to prepare responsive findings;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Metro Code 3.09, ORS 222.120,and 222.524,the City provided notice and held public hearings on the issue of annexation into the City and site development review;and WHEREAS,pursuant to ORS 222.524,the City must declare the withdrawal of the annexed properties from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District;and WHEREAS, the Tigard Community Development Code states that upon annexation,the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning which most closely implements the City's comprehensive plan map designation,or to the City designations which are the most similar;and WHEREAS,Within the Washington Square Regional Center, the assignment of city comprehensive plan and zoning designations will be as provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29,2001,Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations; and WHEREAS, the annexation and site development review have been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro Code 3.09, and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro Code 3.09 regulating annexations;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the subject parcels and adjoining right-of-wap as described and shown in the attached Exhibits"A"and"B"and withdraws said parcels from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the attached findings for ZCA2021-00001/SDR2021-00001 as findings in support of this decision; a copy of the findings is attached hereto as Exhibit "C"and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing a certified copy of this ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law,and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity does not affect the other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced. ORDINANCE No.22-04 Page 2 SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5),the effective date of the withdrawal of the properties from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District will be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: This ordinance will be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. In accordance with ORS 222.180,the annexation will be effective upon the effective date of this ordinance and filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By unanimous vote of all council members present after being read by number and tide only,this 24th day of_ May ,2022. Jesse B. RaymuntKo,Deputy City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 24th day of May ,2022. Jason B.Snider,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ma\ 25, 2022 Date ORDINANCE No. 22-04 Page 3 Noridwest Exhibit A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL 1815 NW 169'"Place,suite 2090 [,LAND SURVEYOR Beaverton,OR 97006 Telephone:503-848-2127 OREGON' JANUARY 12 CUNTON H. A. Exhibit A—Annexation Descri tion MUMS April 27,2021 KNEWS: 06/30/22 NWS Project Number 2022 A tract of land being Lot 2,Lot 3,Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 1 of"Cedarbrook Farm",located in the southeast one-quarter of Section 26,Township 1 South,Range 1 West,Willamette Meridian, Washington County,Oregon,and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lot 4,said point also being on the westerly line of said Lot 3,and being the northeast corner of Tract'P'of"Montage";Thence along the westerly line of said Lot 3, South 02°06'15"West 182.80 feet to the southwest comer thm=t Thence along the southerly line of said Lot 3 and the easterly extension thereof, South 89°0138"East 339.05 feet to the southwest comer of that property conveyed to Filer Garcia Aguilar by a deed recorded on January 20,2015 as document number 2015-003862,Washington County Deed Records; Thence along the westerly line of said Aguilar property and the northerly extension thereof,North 00°19'1 V East 204.53 feet to its intersection with the centerline of SW Hall Boulevard;Thence along the centerline of said SW Hall Boulevard, 80.49 feet along an arc of a non-tangent circular curve to the right,having a radius of 2864.79 feet,a delta angle of 01°36'36"and a chord bearing of North 63°44'29"West 80.49 feet to a point of tangency;Thence continuing along the centerline of said SW Hall Boulevard,North 62'56'11"West 444.52 fed to a point located on the centerline of said SW Hall Boulevard at the intersection with the northerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 4;Thence along the northerly extension of said Lot 4 and the westerly line of said Lot 4,South 02006'51"West 251.49 feet to the southwest corner thereof;Thence along the southerly line of said Lot 4,South 88057'04"East 143.90 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 2.90 acres,more or less. The basis of bearings for this description is Survey Number 33518,Washington County Survey Records. Exhibit B EXHIBIT ftlAP REGISTERED LOTS 2, 3 AND 4 AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 PROFESSIONAL OF "CEDARBROOK FARM", [LAND SURVEYOR LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, f,6�7VA�� TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON OREGON ,/' JANUARY 115, M2 DATE APRIL 27, 2021 CLINTON H. STUBBS JR. 55469LS RENEWS: 06/30/22 SCALE 1" = 100 FEET •rU RpNo , �ILd w 1.: Ns2� ,\J z 0 � -'�TQ ' LENGTH=80.49' ¢SZ• RADIUS=2864.79' Q �+ LOT 4 DELTA ANGLE=01'36'36" G + CHORD=N63'44'29'W 80.49' cc M S88 57'O4'E 143.90' ' LOT 3 � LOT 28 LOT 29 LOT 3D POINT OF LOT Q` BEGINNING I .r LOT 32 3 LOT 2 LOT 33 �� I N LOT 1 CEDARBROOK FARM °* �� N TRACT"1' is I r z SW MONTAGE R N s LANE � � a s T1�,cT 'c' -- S89'01'38'E 339.05' N DOC. NO. 2012-088949 LOT 1 LOT 2 ;OT 3 DOC. NO. OAKEN GATES 2006-135603 PREPARED FOR: JOB NAME: HALL BLVD TIM TAYLOR JOB NUMBER: 2022 -NORTHWEST 1815 NW 169th PLACE, 6312 SW CAPITOL HWY, #133 SUITE 2090 PORTLAND, OR 97239 DRAWING NUMBER: 2022 ANNEX BEAVERTON, OR 97006 PHONE:503-848-2127 DRAWN BY: BJA l L VRY C 1 V' '*� InC. nwsurveyingOnws 2179 FAx:50 �. g®nwsrvycom CHECKED BY. CHS Hearing Date: May 24, 2022 Time: 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL DECISION 120 DAYS =N/A SECTION I.APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CEDARBROOK CASE NO.: ANNEXATION ZCA2021-00001 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR2021-00001 PROPOSAL: The applicants request approval to annex approximately 2.53 acres of land (2.90 acres including half of SW Hall Boulevard right-of-way)into the City of Tigard. The proposal includes a site development review to construct a 194-bed assisted living and memory care facility. Improvements include parking, landscaping, common open space, and other associated site improvements. APPLICANTS: Doug Sproul;Hall Blvd Land, LLC 1900 Hines Street SE#150 Salem, OR 97320 OWNER: Same as applicant Hall Blvd Land LLC CO-APPLICANT: Tim Taylor;Adamson Holdings LLC 6312 SW Capital Highway#133 Portland, OR 97239 LOCATION: 9355 / 9415 SW Hall Blvd; WCTM IS 126DB Tax Lots 00800, 00900, 01000 COUNTY ZONE: TO: R18-24 CITY ZONE: MUR-1 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC)Chapters 18.120, 18.210, 18.230, 18.410, 18.420, 18.670, 18.710, 18.720, 18.780, 18.910, 18.920, and 18.930; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 11, 12, and 14; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS)Chapter 222. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 1 OF 88 SECTION II. CITY COUNCIL DECISION The City Council finds that the proposed Annexation and Site Development Review will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and meets all applicable approval criteria subject to conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. Prior to permit submittal,the applicants must submit an Autocad file of proposed street names and assignment of addresses and pay the address fee. Contact Oscar Contreras at 503-718-2678 for the submission of the Autocad file. The address fee will be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it,along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION,ATTN:Agnes Lindor (503)718-2429 or AgnesL(&tigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 2. Prior to commencing any site work,the project arborist must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. The project arborist must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 3). This fee amount will be for newly planted trees and preserved trees. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicants must provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 2. This bond amount will be for newly planted trees. 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicants must submit a plan showing screening of wall-and roof-mounted utilities. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 2 OF 88 7. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must obtain written permission from all property owners for removal of any off-site trees. The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it,along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo,Assistant City Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyTAtigard-or.1! .. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 8. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication,utilities, grading,water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS)Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes,Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue(TVF&R)Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines 9. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication,utilities, grading,water quality and quantity facilities, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. 10. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement(PFI)Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four(4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, streetrg ading,utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.tigard-or.gov). 11. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit plans showing the following required street improvements to engineering for review and approval: SW Hall Boulevard(3 Lane Arterial,half-street improvements): 0 45' minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline 0 30' pavement ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 3 OF 88 ■ 12' median/turn lane ■ 12' travel lane ■ 6' bike lane 0 5' planter strip (with curb) 0 10' sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting 0 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW Hall Boulevard frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers, ODOT and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. SW 92nd Avenue(Local Residential,half-street improvements): 0 27' minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline 0 16' pavement(on-street parking, one side) 0 0.5' curb 0 5' planter strip 0 5' sidewalk 0 0.5' public access behind sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting 0 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. SW Montage (Local Residential, full-street improvements): 0 50' minimum right-of-way dedication 0 28' pavement(on-street parking, one side) o (2) 0.5' curb o (2) 5' planter strip o (2) 5' sidewalk o (2) 0.5' public access behind sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting 0 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW Montage Lane frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. o Cul-de-sac bulb minimum requirements for SW Montage Lane terminus (residential zone): ■ 47' minimum radius right-of-way width ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 4 OF 88 ■ 40' minimum paved width ■ 6' minimum curb-tight sidewalk width o 8' multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path (MUP) connection within a public access easement between SW Montage Lane terminus and SW Hall Boulevard 12. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain all required approvals and permits for construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance with the ODOT Response Letter#8942(dated April 29, 2021). 13. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Specify if the entity is a corporation,limited partnership,LLC,etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information will delay processing of project documents. 14. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 15. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements described in ANSUIESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. 16. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed,treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 17. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 18. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 5 OF 88 19. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD) for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines, hydrants, and water services prior to issuance of city permits. 20. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow,hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. 21. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit all right-of-way dedication documents,utility easements,public access easements and maintenance agreements for City review and approval. 22. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit an erosion control plan as part of the PFI Permit. The plan must conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual"(current edition). 23. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of the site and show that it will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Division. The design engineer must indicate, on the grading plan,which areas will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as area that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections or permits will be necessary. 24. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. 25. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it,along with any supporting documents or plans that address the following requirements to the PLANNING DIVISION,ATTN:Agnes Lindor, Associate Planner at (503)718-2429 or AgnesL(aitigard-or.gov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 26. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant must request a final planning inspection. The applicant must prepare a cover letter and submit it,along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DIVISION, ATTN: Jeremy Tamargo, Assistant City Engineer at (503) 718-2462 or JeremyTA,62ard- or.2ov. The cover letter must clearly identify where in the submittal the required information ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 6 OF 88 is found: 27. Prior to final building inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 28. Prior to final building inspection, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage,water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer,water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities,the applicant must provide a two-year maintenance assurance and enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. 29. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant must submit the Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. 30. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities underground. 31. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant must record all right-of-way dedication documents,utility easements,public access easements and maintenance agreements, and provide recorded copies to the City. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal: The applicants request approval to annex approximately 2.90 acres, which includes half of the adjacent right-of-way on SW Hall Boulevard, into the City of Tigard. The proposal also includes a site development review to construct a 194-bed facility composed of 159 assisted living suites and 22 memory care suites with 33 beds. The facility will be operated by Mosaic Development Services LLC which owns and operates several other similar facilities. Improvements include parking, landscaping, common open space, and other associated site improvements. The proposal shows a driveway from SW Montage Lane through the site connecting to SW Hall Boulevard. Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject site and found three preapplication conferences (PRE2016-00010,PRE2019-00012, and PRE2020-00027) for annexation, zone change, and assisted living facility.No other previous Tigard land use records were found. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located at 9355 and 9415 SW Hall Boulevard. The site is made up of three lots totaling 2.53 acres. The site is bordered by SW Hall Boulevard to the north; Montage Townhome development with SW Montage Lane stubbed to the site to the west. The site is zoned Transit- Oriented Residential District 18-24 units per acre (TO: R18-24) by Washington County and is ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 7 OF 88 located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. Surrounding properties to the north, south,and east are located in Washington County and properties to the west are zoned Mixed- Use Residential-1 and 2(MUR-1 and MUR-2). The existing structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate the development. There is also an existing jurisdictional wetland, but not Tigard Significant,that is located along the south portion of the site. SECTION IV.PUBLIC CONFgENTS City staff posted public hearing notices for Planning Commission in four public places on December 16,2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center,Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16, 2021; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30,2021,and January 6,2022)prior to the January 10,2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. City staff posted public hearing notices for City Council in four public places on April 21, 2022 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on April 19,2022; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks(with publish dates on April 21,2022,April 28,2022,and May 5, 2022)prior to the May 10,2022 public hearing before City Council. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website,and the staff report was also posted on this website more than 15 days prior to the public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. Comments Received Prior to Planning Commission Staff Report Issuance Since the formal application was submitted,on January 13,2021,up until the Staff Report was issued for the February 28th, 2022 public hearing—which was then continued to March 14th, 2022 due to technical difficulties—staff received 79 emails,eight phone calls,seven letters,and one petition from the public. Summaries of these comments are provided in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission(dated February 15,2022). Comments Received After Staff Report Issuance After the staff report was issued, staff submitted an additional memo to Planning Commission(dated 2/24/2022). This memo included amendments to the staff report as well as comments that were received after issuance of the staff report to Planning Commission. These are the comments received: On February 15, 2022, staff received an email from Erin Fitzgerald expressing opposition to the project and concerns about traffic and compatibility with existing neighborhood. On February 16, 2022, staff received the following comments: - Email from Tracy Brophy asking about street improvements, City Council hearing date, and process for providing testimony at the hearing. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 8 OF 88 - A phone call from Clint Wilkins asking about hearing process and wanting to submit photos from a trail cam of traffic volumes. On February 17, 2022,Mr. Wilkins submitted photos from a trail camera that show vehicles and pedestrians over approximately a 24-hour period. On February 17,2022,an email from Jan Erickson with questions about the cul-de-sac and the hearing process. On February 18, 2022, an email from Rachel Stoller asking whether the applicant submitted plans showing the loading areas and parking garage entrance in a different location. On February 20,2022, an email from Michael Neunzert asking about providing testimony. On February 22, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Jan Erickson requesting a copy of the latest applicant materials. - An email from Rachel Stoller requesting a copy of the latest applicant materials. On February 23, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Anthony Ames stating that the annexation and development is not in the city's best interest due to the increased traffic and overloading the transportation system. Mr. Ames also stated that the increased traffic will impact safety of the existing streets, change the atmosphere of the existing neighborhood, and impact sensitive lands. - An email from Kathleen Noonan expressing concerns about the existing conditions of the neighborhood streets, increased traffic and commercial traffic through the neighborhood, removal of on-street parking, and increased noise. - An email from Courtney Sjoberg stating that the annexation and development is not in the city's best interest due to the increased traffic and overloading the transportation system. Ms. Sjoberg also stated that the increased traffic will impact safety of the existing streets, change the atmosphere of the existing neighborhood, and impact sensitive lands. - Four emails from Rachel Stoller expressing disappointment in the unwillingness of the developer to work with the neighborhood about their concerns. Ms. Stoller expressed concerns related to negative impacts to the current neighborhood by the development; scale and density of the development; location of service and loading areas; and insufficient parking. Ms. Stoller also stated that development does not reflect the city's strategic planning vision goal and that several residents have recently sold their homes due to impacts such as noise,pollution, and reduced safety that this development will cause. Lastly, Ms. Stoller asked where to find a map of the habitat areas. - An email from Dan Stoller providing the presentation that he would like to share at the hearing. On February 24,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Kenneth Dobson asking about deadline for public comments. - An email from Jan Erickson requesting a continuance in order to have sufficient time to review the new materials. - An email from Juanita Garnow asking about how garbage pick-up will be handled. - An email from Rachel Stoller regarding how the proposed development does not meet the Complete Streets Policy and specific related standards in the development code. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 9 OF 88 - An email from Clint Wilkins asking if his photos can be incorporated into the record and expressing opposition to the project due to traffic and access onto SW 92"d Avenue into the residential neighborhood. Comments Received After Staff Memo (dated 2/24/2022)Issuance After the staff memo (dated 2/24/2022) was issued along with the public comment above, staff received the following additional comments: On February 24,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Diane Bowman expressing concern about traffic creating unsafe conditions of existing streets with no sidewalks, and inadequate on-site parking. Recommendations were provided for safety measures that could be installed on existing streets. - An email from Tracy Brophy stating that the plan does not implement the Complete Street Policy and expressed concerns about conditions of the existing streets, scale of the development, compatibility with residential neighborhood, and increased commercial traffic and noise. - An email from Jan Erickson providing responses to the staff report related the facility containing dwelling units. - An email from Juanita Gamow expressing concerns about the conditions of the existing streets, overflow parking,noise, and location of service facilities. - An email from Vanda Makris expressing concerns about the scale of the development, location of service facilities,noise, overflow parking, increased traffic, and condition of existing streets. - An email from Jenni Nelson expressing concerns about increased traffic,noise, and scale of the development. - An email from Stephen Perry stating that the proposal does not support the Strategic Plan Vision and that the facility should be considered to contain dwelling units. - An email and letter from Robert Ruedy providing responses to the staff report and expressing concerns that his previous comment from the neighborhood meeting was not included in the record. The comment, dated August 30, 2020,is part of the record. - An email from Clint Wilkins expressing opposition to the project due to traffic and access onto SW 92"d Avenue into the residential neighborhood. On February 25, 2022, staff received the following comments: - A letter from Jim Long,representing CPO-4M, opposing the applications and requesting a copy of the complete application and additional time to study the materials. - An email from Rachel Stoller stating that the project does meet the definition of a dwelling unit and needs to comply with the standards that relate to dwelling units. - An email from Daniel Stoller with his attached presentation and asking about the process for presenting. On February 26, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Michael Dalton providing responses to the staff report related to transportation standards. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 10 OF 88 - Two emails from Shaila Kotadia expressing concerns about increased traffic and several questions specific to transportation. On February 27, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Anthony Ames stating that the neighborhood has signs posted in yards stating opposition to the Cedarbrook project. - An email from Rachel Stoller asking about providing testimony at the hearing. On February 28, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Christian Albano asking about the status of the project. - An email Justin Crest expressing concerns about increased traffic and condition of existing streets. - An email from Shannon Curran asking to be added to the parties of record list. - An email from Mike Dalton about when the meeting will start. - A letter from Kenneth Dobson,representing Teresa Gipson,responding to the staff report related to the definition of dwelling unit and engineering standards. - An email from Jan Erickson stating the development is too big for the neighborhood and also responding to the staff report related to engineering standards. - An email from Jessica Flint asking to add three contacts to the parties of record list and objecting to the March 14th hearing date. - An email from Gordon and Audrey Garmire expressing concerns about scale and traffic and asking how to log into the meeting. - An email and letter from Teresa Gipson expressing concerns about increased commercial traffic, conditions of existing streets, and inadequate parking. Ms. Gipson also stated that the proposal does not reflect the vision of the Tigard Vision and Comprehensive Plan. - An email from Chris Klingman stating that her comments were not part of the record. Staff confirmed these were included in the record. - An email from Shaila Kotadia asking to be added to the parties of record list and to also add Justin Crest. - A letter from Jim Long,representing CPO-4M, opposing the applications and requesting a copy of the complete application, additional time to study the materials. Mr. Long also stated that the staff report was not posted two weeks prior to the hearing. Lastly, Mr. Long stated that the access should be off SW Hall Boulevard. - An email from Kathleen Noonan about her neighbor, Dana Larson,having difficulty accessing the meeting. - An email from Mel Phillippi stating concerns about increased traffic. The email also stated that since most of the Metzger neighborhood is outside the city,residents cannot vote for City Council positions and is this taken into consideration. - An email from Dan Stoller submitting the script to go with his presentation and stating that he is unable to see or hear the hearing. - Two emails from Rachel Stoller related to the applicant not submitting all the comments and correspondence between the residents and the applicant after the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Stoller also asked if they are able to submit more comments until the day of the March 14th hearing and if the hearing can be moved a month out. On March 1,2022, staff received the following comments: ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 11 OF 88 An email from Anthony Ames requesting the meeting be moved to March 28th. - An email from Erin Fitzgerald confirming that the comments from February 15th were included in the record. Staff confirmed these were included. - Two emails from Juanita Garnow stating she is unable to attend the March 14th hearing and requesting the contact information for all who attended the hearing. On March 2nd and 3rd,2022,two emails from Clint Wilkins asking if the engineer was able to review his photos and since the local streets are under the jurisdiction of Washington County whether he is still able to participate in the review process for his development. On March 4, 2022, an email from Bryan Robb (Associate Planner; Washington County)responding to Gordon Garmire regarding a question about whether Washington County zoning takes precedence over City of Tigard Zoning. Mr. Robb stated that the site is currently going through the annexation process with the city and once annexed the City of Tigard will have jurisdiction. On March 0 and 7th, 2022, two emails from Clint Wilkins asking if anyone requested to view the photos that were submitted and if so to include an email from Jeremy Tamargo explaining why they are not related to the development. On March 9,2022,the applicant provided a response to the public comments.The response addressed the definition of dwelling units and application of standards related to dwelling units, street connection, rough proportionality, vision clearance, parking, service area location, stormwater, and traffic. On March 9, 2022, staff met with Jim Long and several other Metzger residents to talk about the March 14 hearing before Planning Commission and to explain the process for how to testify. Staff described how the testimony needs to be focused on applicable code criteria and standards. Lastly, staff apologized for the technical difficulties that occurred at the February 28th hearing. On March 10,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Jan Erickson requesting a copy of the applicant's response to public comments. - An email from Juanita Garnow requesting to postpone the March 14th hearing. - An email from Rachel Stoller asking to postpone the meeting until March 28th - An email from Sue Wirick expressing concerns about access. On March 11, 2022, an email from Clint Wilkins asking about links to the meeting. On March 12,2022,a letter from Kenneth Dobson,representing Teresa Gipson,stating that the notice requirements are not met and disputing the application of clear and object standards for needed housing. On March 13, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Juanita Garnow expressing concerns about removal of the white oaks on the site. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 12 OF 88 - An email from Rachel Stoller providing information on how to access the meeting and testify for the March 14,2022 hearing. On March 14, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Christina Albano to be added to parties of record. - An email from Michael Bednarek expressing concerns regarding commercial traffic on narrow neighborhood streets and restricting access to SW Hall Blvd only. - An email from Darlene Dick requesting to see the photos submitted by Clint Wilkins. - An email from Jessica Flint stating she is unable to get into the phone queue to testify. - A letter from Barrett Johnson expressing concerns about adequate parking and that the proposal does not help to address housing supply shortages. - An email from Kristine Rowan expressing concerns about traffic and safety, and existing conditions of the neighborhood streets. - A letter from Robert Ruedy providing rebuttals to the staff report and applicable standards and criteria. - An email from Dan Stoller providing a copy of his presentation. - An email from Rachel Stoller requesting to add two additional people to the parties of record. March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing: On March 14, 2022,the Planning Commission received the following public testimony: Lindsey Eick—Not against the proposal; however, is concerned about increased access on 92nd in a quiet neighborhood; and is concerned about additional traffic even if it's during "off'times. Against traffic filtering through the normally safe neighborhood. Robert Ruedy—Opposed. Doesn't like the pre-application process regarding testimony. He referred to his written testimony submitted earlier. He believes the staff report is incomplete and so the commission has not seen the entire record. Expressed a request for an extension. Diane Bowman—Opposed. Lives in Metzger neighborhood and it's pleasant as is. Regarding Greenburg& Hall is concerned about traffic &people taking shortcuts. Wants a crosswalk and is concerned about jaywalking and the safety risk. Kathleen Noonan—Opposed. She had safety and livability issues stated that there are hazardous conditions. She believes this development would adversely affect her community. She wants an extension. Vanda Makris—Opposed. Believes it's a detriment to the neighborhood. It will cause reduction of quality of life. Believes the design team had no concern for neighbors; it will be unsightly; she's concerned about noise problems. Michael Neunzert—Opposed to certain aspects of the development. Particularly the de facto truck entrance is the Montage Lane cul-de-sac. He's against commercial traffic and wrote to the Planning Commission in December when he laid out the logic for that and what code it might be in disagreement with. He believes the driveway being proposed(from the Hall entrance around ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 13 OF 88 the back of the building to the cul-de-sac) is too narrow and curvy for truck use. He said it's a violation of the Washington County Transportation Plan and that not a single street south of that neighborhood meet any of the design criteria in that plan. Charlie Daniels—Could not be understood but had his monitor was on, causing a lot of feedback. After 2 or 3 minutes of trying to understand him, President Hu asked IT to put him back into the telephone queue. Shayla Kotadia& Justin Crest—Opposed. Their main concerns centered around safety, particularly safety of the children in the area. Their daughter had been hit by a car and traffic is very concerning to them both. They are worried about it increasing. Currently, there are not enough lights on the streets. At night 92nd has very limited visibility. There are no sidewalks and only ditches to jump into to avoid cars if needed. They feel unsafe. They would like a crosswalk off of SW Hall Boulevard. Rachel Stoller—Opposed. She's not opposed to development on that land, but it's the current proposal with through traffic going through her neighborhood and an entrance right in front of her townhome that she's against. She and her husband have several issues,particularly the distance from the loading dock and entrance to the parking garage right in front of their front door. Dan Stoller—Opposed. He gave a PowerPoint presentation which Agnes shared. His proposal is to move the noise of the loading dock, employee parking garage and trash pickup toward Hall Blvd while keeping Montage Lane a dead-end and not accessible for the Cedarbrook facility. Basically, disconnect the proposed development from the surrounding community(no connection with Montage Lane, all entry/exits off of SW Hall Blvd). She would also like them to add a sound reducing wall around the entire perimeter and consolidate drop off locations into one. Juanita Garnow—Opposed to the application as currently designed. The main concern is that the property that has been proposed to develop contains several Oregon white oak trees. Concerned about the wildlife and pollinators as well. Jan Erickson—Opposed. She read through her previously submitted written testimony. She believes the developer is being favored with their half-street utility easement and that the easement should be required to be located along the frontage of Hall Blvd outside of the required right of way. It appears; however, to be excluded from the proposed development drawings. She believes the facility is too big for the 2.56-acre site and wants the plan and annexation denied. Steven Perry—It was unable to be understand him as he had his monitor on, the content was about a minute delayed and that caused lots of feedback. After a few minutes of the feedback, Mr. Perry was put back into the queue. Theresa Gipson—Opposed as currently designed. She had previously submitted written testimony. Her main concern was traffic. She believes there will be an undue burden of traffic onto Montage and along 92nd ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 14 OF 88 Jim Long—Opposed. Is speaking on behalf of CP04M said they are against the annexation& development. He believes this meeting should be continued. He was unable to hear the applicant's attorney due to technical difficulties the applicant had. He agrees with many people who have already spoken and is concerned about needing a crosswalk. He noted there are potential violations to the city's code, traffic concerns in a residential neighborhood and noise levels from emergency vehicles. Their Attorney Ken Dobson was unable to attend this meeting and is out of cell phone range, another good reason for a continuance. He doesn't think there was enough notification for people. He didn't like the meeting that took place between neighbors and Tigard staff. He wants the hearing to be rescheduled to April 11. Tigard needs to follow their own Community Development Code. He believes the city should give full notice again. They need time to look at this. Sue Wirick—Opposed. Vehicle access is a major concern, and she wants all emergency vehicles to use the Hall Blvd entrance. To have them go through the neighborhood would slow down their arrival at the site. The noise from those vehicles would be a huge issue because it could be at any time of the day. She wants a crosswalk on 90th and Hall and wants Washington County to help with street improvements by adding lighting on Montage. Courtney Sjoberg—Opposed. Her house backs to where the development will be built. She doesn't like the traffic, and pedestrian safety is a concern. She believes it's scary and dangerous to walk around their neighborhood now. Believes it will be worse. She's very concerned that the GPS app called"blaze"will take people through neighborhoods. She uses it and it's very popular. It oftentimes will take people through neighborhoods to get to places faster. She believes Waze will bring a lot of traffic through their neighborhood by default because there's always a lot of traffic on the other streets. She's very concerned about Waze traffic flowing into that area. Additionally, she doesn't like the height of the building. Because it will be only five feet away from her front door, her natural light will be cut off. She wants the community to be taken into account—especially those so close to the project. Nate Blaszak—Opposed—Concerned about traffic and thinks half street improvements won't help. He's concerned about his privacy and views this particular proposal as the lesser of possible "evils." The height could be worse. If they were apartments, the traffic would be higher. He didn't like the loopholes regarding parking and is concerned about people cutting through the neighborhood. He doesn't believe there will only be a 5% increase in traffic. Steven Perry— Strongly Opposed. He's concerned about the community, traffic, and streets, as well as the height of the building. No other public testimony was received at the hearing. Open Record: Week 1 Comments: On March 14, 2022 at the conclusion of the public's oral testimony,the Planning Commission voted to hold the record open for a period of 14 days- 7 days for anyone to submit any further information they wished, then another 7 days for any person to submit rebuttal to material submitted in the first open record period. The Planning Commission further authorized the Applicants to prepare and ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 15 OF 88 submit their final written argument on April 4, 2022. Below are the comments for the first week of the open record: On March 14, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Juanita Gamow stated that the development should only rent to seniors without vehicles. - An email from Robert Ruedy urging the public to submit written comments by March 21St On March 15, 2022, staff received an email from Juanita Garnow asking who is responsible for maintaining SW 92nd Avenue and if speed bumps and streetlights could be installed. On March 16, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Brian Hernandez asking if the next meeting will be in-person and the date and time. - An email from Dana and Karin Larson expressing concerns about traffic, location of the service area,parking, and access onto Montage Lane. - An email from Rachel Stoller asking whether it would be possible to move location of parking entrance and loading docks. On March 17,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Sharon Ream expressing concerns about 92nd Avenue,traffic, and delivery trucks. - An email from Courtney Sjoberg expressing concerns about traffic and cut-through traffic on 92nd Avenue due to apps like Waze. On March 18,2022, an email from Jan Erickson requesting the most current applicant materials. On March 19,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Laura Christensen expressing concerns about the scale of the development, removal of all the greenspace, and access to a residential street. - An email from Jan Erickson confirming she received the most current applicant materials. - An email from Clint Wilkins asking whether the trip distribution(5 percent going onto 92nd Avenue can be enforced through a condition of approval and completion date for the project. Mr. Wilkins also suggested the building have a buried story to reduce height and expressed concerns about adequate on-site parking. On March 20, 2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Juliann Hart expressing concerns about tree removal. - An email from Shaila Kotadia expressing concerns about traffic, existing conditions of existing residential streets, and lack of conversations with the developer and the community. On March 21,2022, staff received the following comments: - An email from Diane Bowman expressing concerns about the public input processes during the February 28, 2022 hearing. - A letter from Tracy Brophy concerns about the continuance date,traffic, existing conditions of the residential streets, location of loading docks, and noise. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 16 OF 88 Two emails and two letters from Jan Erickson expressing concerns about the location of the loading docks and trash pickup,traffic, and tree removal. Ms. Erickson also provided responses to questions that were asked at the hearing on March 14, 2022. - A letter from Juanita Garnow and Teresa Gipson(received from Jan Erickson)providing comments on how the proposal does not comply with applicable code sections as well as the submitted urban forestry plan. - A letter from Juanita Garnow expressing concerns about scale,parking,traffic, and adequate staffing for the facility. - An email and letter from Jim Long requesting to see the hard copies of applicant materials and asking how many public comments have been received on this proposal. Mr. Long also stated that public testimony was not allowed at the February 28th hearing,there were issues with technology,not having enough time to review the materials, and citizens unable to call to testify. Lastly,Mr. Long also expressed concerns about tree canopy and that the proposal does not meet the applicable codes. - An email from Vanda Makris expressing concerns about parking, street improvements, and the facility not being considered as having dwelling units. - An email from Kathleen Noonan providing responses to staff and applicant responses from the March 14th hearing related to public testimony in the record,tree canopy,proper notification, and traffic. On March 21, 2022, the applicant provided a revised Sheet C103 showing fire truck turning radius, correspondence from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue stating that Sheet C 103 meets the standards for turning movements, and an email from Jeremy Tamargo,Assistant City Engineer,to Chris Kittridge, project engineer, stating that the stormwater design is feasible to meet National Oceanic and Atmospheric Science Administration and City of Tigard standards. Open Record: Week 2 Rebuttals: The following rebuttals were submitted during the second week of the open record: On March 24,2022,City staff submitted a rebuttal to testimony provided in the first week of the open record regarding noticing requirements and neighborhood meetings and testimony. On March 24, 2022, an email from Jim Long asking where he can view the testimony from the first week of the open record. On March 28,2022,the following comments were received: - A letter from Jan Erickson with excepts from the February 28, 2022 meeting. - Two emails from Juanita Garnow asking to listen to the citizens and for Planning Commission to deny the proposal. - An email from Kathleen Noonan stating the March 14th hearing did not give the public proper lead time and the public testimony process. On March 28, 2022,the applicant provided the following in their rebuttal: - Response to public comments; - Memo from Kittelson&Associates related to transportation related comments; ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 17 OF 88 - Letter from Mosaic Management regarding parking supply and demand from other comparable communities; - Revised Sheet C 101 updating trees proposed for removal and preservation; - Site Section exhibit showing parking entrance and loading area; - A guide from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue for Fire and Life Safety requirements; and - PowerPoint presentation. On April 4, 2022 at 7 PM, the Planning Commission reconvened to deliberate toward a recommendation on the applications. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend to City Council approve the proposed annexation and site development review. Comments Received After April 4,2022 The following comments were received after the April 4, 2022 Planning Commission meeting: On April 6,2022, staff received the following comments: - A phone call from Juanita Garnow asking when notices will be sent and if they will be emailed or sent via mail. - An email from Jan Erickson asking when the Planning Commission Recommendation will be available and if it will be mailed. On April 8,2022, an email from Gordon Garmire asking the status of the project and when it will go before City Council. On April 13, 2022, staff received the following comments: - A call from Ken Dobson asking for clarification on whether the site development review was approved by Planning Commission. - A call from Jim Long requesting to view the applicant materials. On April 14,2022,staff received a phone call from Jim Long and Jan Erickson requesting to get paper copies of the materials. They also asked questions about the urban forestry plan, if the materials are all current, and that they would like to come back to view the materials again. Testimony submitted for the City Council's consideration largely duplicated the testimony before the Planning Commission. One commentor added new objections which are noted below. First they claimed that there was a code section called TCDC 18.510.010 that requires the city to "protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods." The Council notes that there is no such code section. She also asked the city to apply TCDC 18.330-3(B) for conditions of approval to "ensure" compatibility. The Council is unsure of what provision in the TCDC this commentor refers to. However,TCDC 18.330 applies to industrial uses. The City Council finds that the proposal is not for an industrial use so this provision would not apply regardless. She also cited provisions in 18.810, but those standards apply only to land divisions and the Council finds that they are inapplicable here. She cited TMC 10.16.051, which lists streets for which through truck traffic is restricted. However, none of the streets directly serving the proposed facility are among the listed streets. However, even if a truck might use one of these streets, the Council finds that TMC 10.16.051(3) states that trucks can use these streets if they cannot reach their destination otherwise. The Council finds that this ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 18 OF 88 provision is not an outright prohibition on trucks using the listed streets. The Council finds that this provision is irrelevant to this proposal in any case. Given several comments along these lines,the Council believes it is important to outline the standards that the City can apply to this application for the development of housing and importantly the standards that it cannot apply. This application seeks the "development of housing." That means that only "clear and objective" standards may be applied. ORS 197.307(4). The city bears the burden to demonstrate that the standards applied are clear and objective. ORS 197.831. The standards and criteria applied must be "clear and objective"on their face. ORS 227.173(2). A standard is not clear and objective if it triggers "subjective, value-laden analyses that are designed to balance or mitigate impacts of the development."(Emphasis supplied.) Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 35 Or LUBA 139, 158(1998), aff'd, 158 Or App 1 (1999). The prohibited types of non-clear and objective standards are generally standards requiring a "compatibility" or an "adverse impacts" analysis or imposing "conditions" to make a proposal "compatible" or avoid "adverse impacts." Moreover, ambiguous language in the code is not clear and objective. Nieto v. City of Talent, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2020-100, March 10, 2021);Legacy Development Group, Inc. v. City of The Dalles, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2020-099, February 24, 2021). LUBA awarded attorney fees against the cities in both Nieto and Legacy for ignoring the clear and objective requirements. Legacy Development Group, Inc. v. City of The Dalles, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2020-099, Order on Attorney Fees, May 17, 2021). The Council must exercise care to ensure that the standards applied to the applicants' site review application, are clear and objective on their face. ORS 197.522(2) states that the city "shall approve" this application for construction of needed housing. There is no dispute that the proposal is for a type of"needed housing" in the city. ORS 197.303(1). If Council were to disagree with its professional staff and decide that the application does not comply with an applicable standard, then ORS 197.522 requires that "prior to making a final decision on the application" the city "shall allow the applicant to offer an amendment or to propose conditions of approval that would make the application consistent with the plan and applicable regulations." Further, state law and the implementing TCDC standards require that only the standards and criteria in the city's adopted code may be applied to this application. ORS 227.173(1). A project,to include this one,may not be denied on the basis of a standard that is not in the city's code,under the so-called "codification"rule. Waveseer v. Deschutes County, 308 Or App 494 (2021);Nehmzow v. Deschutes County; 308 Or App 533 (2021); Jones v. Clackamas County, 307 Or App 502, 514 (2020). That means that any standards applied to this application, "must be ascertainable from the local government's legislation." Zirker v. City of Bend, 233 Or App 601, 610, 227 P3d 1174, rev den, 348 Or 415 (2010). Standards may not be developed and applied to this quasi-judicial application "through quasi-adjudicative decision-making." Waveseer, 308 Or App 494, citing Zirker. There are two applications here, consolidated for administrative convenience. The application for site review, is an application for a "limited land use decision." ORS 197.015(12). ORS 197.195(l) describes the standards that the city may apply to a limited land use application. ORS 197.195(1)says that the applicable land use regulations for this application are limited to those that are specifically ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 19 OF 88 listed in the city land use regulations in the Tigard Community Development Code. Under ORS 197.195(1), provisions in the city's Comprehensive Plan cannot provide a basis for a decision on a limited land use decision,unless they are specifically incorporated into the land use regulations. Moreover, state law says that the city may not reduce the density of housing development below the maximum allowed in the city code (ORS 227.175(4)(c)) and may not reduce the height of housing development proposals below the maximum allowed in the city code' (ORS 227.175(4)(d)). SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The following summarizes the review criteria applicable to this Decision, in the order in which they are addressed: City's Comprehensive Plan-Applicable to the Requested Annexation Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1; Goal 11.1 (Policy 4), and Goal 11.3 (Policy 6), Goal 12, Goal 14.2 (Policies 1-4). Metro Code -Applicable to the Requested Annexation Chapter 3.09 Local Government Boundary Changes Oregon Revised Statutes-Applicable to the Requested Annexation Chapter 222 City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals Applicable Development Code Review Criteria 18.720 Annexations 18.780 Site Development Review 18.120 Commercial Zones 18.210 Residential General Provisions 18.230 Apartments 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.910 Improvement Standards 18.920 Access,Egress and Circulation 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas SECTION VLAPPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following subsections address only the approval criteria applicable to this application. Chapter 18.720 Annexations 18.720.020 Approval Process 1 The proposed facility will be 46-feet in height;the maximum height allowed in the MUR-1 zone is 75-feet. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 20 OF 88 A. Quasi-judicial annexation applications are processed through a Type III-Modified procedure,as provided in Section 18.710.080.Quasi-judicial annexations are decided by the City Council with a recommendation by Planning Commission. This application is for a quasi-judicial annexation and is being processed through a Type III-Modified Procedure,as governed by TCDC 18.710,using the approval criteria contained in TCDC 18.720.030. City Council made a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning Commission for approval. 18.720.030 Approval Criteria A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with modification an annexation application when all of the following are met: 1. The annexation complies with Metro Code 3.09; and As demonstrated through the findings in this Decision, this proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in compliance with Metro Code Chapter 3.09. The specific sections of Metro Code Chapter 3.09 that apply to this application are addressed individually below. METRO CODE CHAPTER 3.09 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES 3.09.030 Notice Requirements A. The notice requirements in this section apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to section 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede, applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197,198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes. B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall set a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties, by weatherproof posting of the notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory, and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory.Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. Notice shall be published as required by state law. C. The notice required by subsection(B)shall: 1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty; 2. State the date,time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and 3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's report on the proposal. This proposed annexation is considered a boundary change decision by a reviewing entity and will not be processed as an expedited decision; therefore, these notice requirements apply. City staff determined this application was complete on March 15,2021 and notified the applicants on April 29, 2021 that deliberations on this proposed boundary change were tentatively scheduled before Planning Commission(scheduled for June 21,202 1)and before City Council(scheduled for August 10,2021). ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 21 OF 88 Due to approvability issues with the Site Development Review portion of the application, the applicants requested that the hearing dates be rescheduled to January 10, 2022 before the Planning Commission and February 22,2022 before the City Council. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16,2021; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5, 2022)prior to the January 10,2022 public hearing before Planning Commission and again prior to the February 28,2022 public hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hearing was continued to February 28, 2022. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the Staff Report was also posted on the City's website 15 days prior to the February 28, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. Due to technical difficulties, the hearing was again continued to March 14, 2022. On March 14, 2022 at the conclusion of the public's oral testimony, the Planning Commission voted to hold the record open for a period of 14 days- 7 days for anyone to submit any further information they wished, then another 7 days for any person to submit rebuttal to material submitted in the first open record period. The Planning Commission further authorized the Applicants to prepare and submit their final written argument on April 4, 2022. On April 4, 2022 at 7 PM, the Planning Commission reconvened to deliberate toward a recommendation on the applications. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council to approve the proposed annexation and site development review. On April 19, 2022, the City mailed notice that the quasi-judicial annexation and site review application would be considered at the City Council's May 10, 2022 public hearing. The notice was also published in the Tigard Times on April 21, April 28, and May 5t', 2022. The notice was posted on the site,the Permit Center,Public Works, and City Hall on April 21,2022. On May 10,2022,the City Council convened to conduct a public hearing on the combined annexation and site review application. After the public testimony segment of the City Council meeting concluded, the City Council asked several questions and asked staff to return with answers to those questions at the City Council's May 17, 2022 meeting. In addition,the applicant invoked its right to submit a final written argument supporting approval of the proposal and submitted that Final Written Argument on May 16, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the City Council convened its meeting, deliberated towards its decision and unanimously decided to approve the application. Staff was directed to return on May 24, 2022 for the City Council to review and adopt its final decision and findings. These are the findings reviewed and adopted by the City Council at its meeting on May 24,2022. 3.09.045 Expedited Decisions This proposed annexation is not being processed as an expedited decision,but Metro Code 3.09.050.1) requires that the standards in Sections 3.09.045.13 and 3.09.045.E be addressed. D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process,the city shall: ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 22 OF 88 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; The Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) is between the City of Tigard, Washington County, Metro, and the service districts for water, sewer, public safety, parks, and transportation. The agreement outlines the role, provision, area, and planning/coordination responsibilities for service providers operating in the Tigard Urban Services Area. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11:Public Facilities and Services of this report,Council finds that all urban services are available to the proposed annexation area and have sufficient capacity to provide service. The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between the City of Tigard and Washington County provides coordination of comprehensive planning and development, defines the area of interest, and includes policies with respect to the active planning area and annexation. The applicable annexation policies include the assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations addressed later in this report, and acknowledgements that the City is the ultimate service provider of urban services within the Tigard Urban Service Area. The proposed boundary change is consistent with both the Tigard TUSA and the UPAA. b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205; There is no adopted annexation plan associated with this proposal. Therefore,this provision does not apply. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2)between the affected entity and a necessary party; ORS 195.020(2) speaks to cooperative agreements between counties or Metro with each special district that provides an urban service within the boundaries of the county or the metropolitan district. Examples of special districts include those for utilities, police, fire, and schools. Upon approval of this proposed annexation, the City of Tigard will provide sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of Clean Water Services(CWS). The portion of SW Hall Boulevard that abuts the subject site will be annexed into the boundary of the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way.However, SW Hall Blvd. in this location will remain under the regulatory authority of the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT). The City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the Washington County Sheriff's Office. Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) will continue to provide water services to the site,Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue(TVF&R)will continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, and Tigard-Tualatin School District(TTSD)will continue to be the assigned school district for the site. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal on public facilities and services; The City of Tigard Public Facility Plan was originally adopted in 1991, and updated in 2019, in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 11. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, Council finds the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 23 OF 88 provisions of the City of Tigard Public Facility Plan. e. Any applicable comprehensive plan; This proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in compliance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this application are addressed later in this decision. L Any applicable concept plan; and There is no applicable concept plan associated with this proposal. Therefore, this provision does not apply. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would: a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this decision,the City Council finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site and have sufficient capacity to provide service. The City of Tigard will provide sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of CWS. The portion of SW Hall Boulevard that abuts the subject site will be annexed into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. However, SW Hall Blvd. in this location is anticipated to remain under the regulatory authority of ODOT. The City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the Washington County Sheriff's Office.Tualatin Valley Water District will continue to provide water services to the site,TVF&R will continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, and TTSD will continue to be the assigned school district for the site. E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB),except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and outside the UGB. The subject site is not located outside the UGB. Therefore,this provision does not apply. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to requirements for boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198,221 and 222 and the reviewing entity's charter, ordinances or resolutions. B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: The staff report recommendation and Planning Commission recommendation to City Council were posted on the City of Tigard website and made available to the public more than 15 days prior to their respective public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 24 OF 88 1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory, including any extra territorial extensions of service; As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, Council finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site and have sufficient capacity to provide service. 2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and The proposed annexation area will remain within Washington County, but will be annexed to the City. It will be withdrawn from Washington County's Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and Urban Road Maintenance District upon final approval of the requested annexation. The subject site will also be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District upon completion of final approval of the requested annexation. 3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change. A public hearing regarding this annexation request took place before Tigard City Council as required on May 10,2022. The City Council made the final decision on this application. The Council adopts these findings approving the requested annexation(Case No.ZCA202 1-0000 1),and the effective date of this annexation is the effective date of the approving ordinance, and filing with the Oregon Secretary of State, as outlined in ORS 222.180. C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to demonstrate that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence and findings in their application to demonstrate that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria, as demonstrated through the findings in this Decision. D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in subsections (D)and (E)of section 3.09.045. The factors set forth in Metro Code Sections 3.09.045.D and 3.09.045.E have been met,as previously addressed in this Decision. (TCDC 18.720.030 Continued) A.2. The annexation is in the city's best interest. As addressed under Metro Code Section 3.09.045.D.2 of this Decision, this annexation will help promote the timely, orderly, and economic provision of City of Tigard public facilities and services, and eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services.Accordingly,the City Council finds this proposed annexation is in the City's best interest. Several commentors contended that approval of the proposal was not in the best interest of the City,mostly because it will generate traffic. However, the Council concludes that the annexation of the subject property is in the best interests of ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 25 OF 88 the City because it provides a type of needed housing in the City(assisted living and memory care); it generates traffic within the capacity of the affected streets to accommodate and it is consistent with the City's vision for this property as articulated in the Washington Square Regional Plan. B. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property is the city's base zone that most closely implements the city's or county's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations occurs automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land that carries county designations, the city will convert the county's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the city designations that are the most similar.A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. A request for a zone change may be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. Within the Washington Square Regional Center, the assignment of city comprehensive plan and zoning designations will be as provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29, 2001, Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations. The subject properties are located within the Washington Square Regional Center, and Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations of the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan shows the properties as Mixed-Use Residential (MUR-1). Accordingly, upon approval of the proposed annexation,the properties will be designated as MUR-1 on the Tigard Zoning Map and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map, and as detailed in the section above, the assignment of city designations will occur automatically and concurrently with the proposed annexation. Some commentators objected to the application of the MUR-1 zone to the property. They argued that because the site is currently zoned R 18-24 by Washington County, that the zone applied should be limited to 18-24 units per acre and that the proposal is for "almost 3 times as much" density. Those objections are misplaced. TCDC 18.720.030(B) clearly requires that the zone be applied as required by the Washington Square Regional Center Plan: "Within the Washington Square Regional Center, the assignment of city comprehensive plan and zoning designations will be as provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29, 2001, Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations." There is no dispute that the proposal assigns the plan and zone designations " that are provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29, 2001, Figure 4 ***." Therefore, the application of the MUR-1 zone is appropriate. Moreover, as pointed out by Washington County planner Michelle Miller, the County TO:,R18-24 district would allow the proposal as a type of"group living"that is allowed outright. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 1.1: Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16,2021;and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 26 OF 88 for more than two successive weeks(with publish dates on December 23,2021,December 30, 2021, and January 5, 2022)prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission and again prior to the February 28,2022 public hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hearing was continued to February 28, 2022. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the Staff Report was also posted on the City's website 15 days prior to the February 28, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. Due to technical difficulties with the Teams App that is used by the City for its COVID-19 virtual hearings, the hearing was opened by the Planning Commission but public testimony could not be taken, although several members of the public wrote comments in the MS "Teams" app and requested that the hearing be continued to a date and time when the technical difficulties were resolved. Accordingly,the Planning Commission continued the initial evidentiary hearing that had been opened on February 28, 2022 to a date and time certain to March 14, 2022 at 7 pm. On March 14, 2022 at the conclusion of the public's oral testimony and at the request for several participants including the Applicants, the Planning Commission voted to hold the record open for a period of 14 days - 7 days for anyone to submit any further information they wished,then another 7 days for any person to submit rebuttal to material submitted in the first open record period. The Planning Commission further authorized the Applicants to prepare and submit their final written argument on April 4, 2022,which was not allowed to contain any evidence. On April 4, 2022 at 7 PM, the Planning Commission reconvened to deliberate toward a recommendation on the applications. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council to approve the proposed annexation and site development review. On May 10, 2022,the City Council conducted a public hearing providing citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in the Council's decisionmaking. The City Council's May 10,2022 public hearing was "de novo"meaning that anyone could raise any issue and provide any evidence they wanted to. This standard is met. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services As detailed in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities and Services refer to Stormwater Management, Water Supply and Distribution, Wastewater Management, Community Facilities, and Private Utilities. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's Glossary includes public safety, parks, and transportation under Public Facilities and Services. As detailed in the findings below,the Council finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area and have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Stormwater — City of Tigard Public Works Department. City storm sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site. There is an existing storm sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard and a storm sewer main located at the SW Montage Lane public street stub. The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicants' annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the site, stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards for surface water management systems, including runoff treatment and control. City storm sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 27 OF 88 Water—Tualatin Valley Water District. The subject properties are located within the water service area for TVWD, which will not change with this annexation request. Tualatin Valley Water District reviewed the applicants'materials,and responded with no objections to the proposal on April 2,2021. Sewer — City of Tigard Public Works Department. City sanitary sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard. The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicants' annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the site, sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards. City sanitary sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Police — City of Tigard Police Department. The Washington County Sheriff's Office currently provides police services to the subject properties. If this annexation request is approved,the site will be withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and the City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services to the site. Fire—Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The subject properties are located within the service area for TVF&R.Accordingly,TVF&R currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the site,which will not change with this annexation request. Parks — City of Tigard Public Works Department. The applicants propose to annex three properties, totaling approximately 2.56 acres in size, into the City of Tigard. Staff has reviewed the applicants' proposal and determined that this request will not adversely impact the City's ability or capacity to provide for parks and recreational needs. Streets — City of Tigard Engineering Division. The subject property has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. Southwest 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. Upon development of the property, street improvements are required along the property frontage in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 18.910, the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards and the ODOT Highway Design Manual standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. Goal 11.1,Policy 4: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to receiving stormwater services. City storm sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site. There is an existing storm sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard and a storm sewer main located at the SW Montage Lane public street stub. The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicants' annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the site, stormwater systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards for surface water management systems,including runoff treatment and control. City storm sewer facilities have adequate capacity to ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 28 OF 88 serve the subject site. Goal 11.3,Policy 6: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to receiving wastewater services. City sanitary sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area or can be made available to the subject site. There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main along the property frontage within SW Hall Boulevard. The City of Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the applicants' annexation proposal and had no objections. Upon development of the site, sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards. City sanitary sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Goal 12: To provide and encourage a safe,convenient, and economic transportation system. The subject property has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. Southwest 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. Upon development of the property, street improvements are required along the property frontage in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 18.910, the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards and the ODOT Highway Design Manual standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. The applicants' January 4, 2021 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) demonstrates that the traffic generated by a "reasonable worst case" analysis of development allowed in the MUR-1 zone,adds only 389 average daily trips over those that could be generated under the current Washington County zoning. ODOT characterizes that difference as a "small increase." The applicants' TIA also demonstrates that the MUR-1 zone is consistent with the functional classifications of both Hall Boulevard as well as 92nd Avenue and Montage Lane; it will not degrade the performance of any affected transportation system below the performance standards listed in the City's TSP or comprehensive Plan or further degrade a transportation system that is projected not to meet performance standards in the TSP or City comprehensive plan. Goal 14.2, Policy 1: The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed property that most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation for that property. The applicable Tigard zoning district designation for the subject property is addressed under TCDC Section 18.720.030.13 of this report and that discussion is incorporated herein Goal 14.2,Policy 2:The City shall ensure capacity exists,or can be developed,to provide needed urban level services to an area when approving annexation. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan,Goal 11:Public Facilities and Services of this Decision,the Council finds that all urban level services are available to the proposed annexation area and have sufficient capacity to provide service. Goal 14.2, Policy 3: The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 29 OF 88 request: A. Can be accommodated by the City's public facilities and services; and As addressed under Comprehensive Plan,Goal 11:Public Facilities and Services of this Decision,the Council finds that all City of Tigard public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area and have sufficient capacity to provide service. B. Is consistent with applicable state statute. As addressed later in this Decision,the Council finds the applicable provisions of ORS 222 have been met, consistent with this policy. Goal 14.2,Policy 4: The City shall evaluate and may require that parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: A. Avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City; B. Enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or C. Implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. The subject properties are located directly east of the City of Tigard's border with unincorporated Washington County. Because the subject site is only bordered on one side by the City of Tigard boundary, this annexation will not create an "island" of unincorporated land, and it is not necessary to include the adjacent properties in this annexation request. This annexation will enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the subject properties. The site is within the boundary of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan(WSRCP),which is a sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. However,there are no aspects of the WSRCP that are applicable to this property that would require adjacent parcels to be annexed. OREGON REVISED STATUTES ORS Chapter 222—City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city,on its own motion,or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. (5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city.The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. 222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter,the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 30 OF 88 (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. The owner of the subject properties submitted an annexation petition to the City on January 13,2021. Additionally, the City of Tigard Charter does not expressly require the City to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the City for their approval or rejection.Therefore,an election is not required for this annexation application. However, the City is required to follow the public hearing and public noticing requirements outlined in ORS 222.120. The deliberations on this proposed boundary change were tentatively scheduled before Planning Commission(scheduled for June 21,202 1)and before City Council(scheduled for August 10,2021). Due to approvability issues with the Site Development Review portion of the application, and at the request of the applicants,the hearing dates were rescheduled to January 10,2022 before the Planning Commission and February 22,2022 before the City Council. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on December 16, 2021 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on December 16,2021; and the City published a public hearing notice in the Tigard Times for more than two successive weeks (with publish dates on December 23, 2021, December 30, 2021, and January 5, 2022)prior to the January 10, 2022 public hearing before Planning Commission. Staff did the same again for the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website and was also posted on this website 15 days prior to the public hearing before the February 28, 2022 Planning Commission hearing. On April 19, 2022, the City mailed notice that the quasi-judicial annexation and site review application would be considered at the City Council's May 10, 2022 public hearing. The notice was also published in the Tigard Times on April 21, April 28, and May 5d', 2022. The notice was posted on the site,the Permit Center,Public Works, and City Hall on April 21,2022. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the annexation criteria have been fully met. The Council approves the requested annexation. 18.780 Site Development Review 18.780.020 Applicability A. This chapter applies to the following types of development, except as provided in Subsections 18.780.020.13 and C below: 1. Apartments, 2. Cottage clusters, 3. Courtyard units, 4. Mobile home parks, ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 31 OF 88 5. Quads, 6. Rowhouses, 7. Wireless communication facilities, and 8. Nonresidential developments,including mixed-use developments. The proposed application is for a new assisted living and memory care facility,which the Council finds is a type of"group living" use that the TDC describes as a"residential use." TCDC 18.60.040(C). Some commentors argued the facility should be reviewed as a commercial use,but Council disagrees because TCDC 18.60.040(C) specifically assigns the proposed use to the residential use category. The Council further finds that the proposal is for residential use which is the development of housing,triggering state law protections for the approval of the development of housing. The Council finds that the proposed facility does not fall into any exception to uses in the Residential Use category and no one has argued otherwise in this proceeding. TCDC 18.60.040(A)lists the "Characteristics" of the "Residential Use" category to include "the occupancy of an institution or facility where the components of a dwelling unit are shared by residents." The Council finds that the proposal is for an institution or facility that has the "components" of a dwelling unit that are shared by residents,to include a common commercial kitchen where food is prepared and served by others to residents who eat in a common dining area. However,the Council finds that the facility is not itself and does not contain"dwelling units." The City Council finds that it considers the proposal to be apartment development for the purposes of applying development standards, therefore the Council finds that this chapter applies. This is consistent with the TCDC 18.210.010 "Purpose" that says that the "Residential Development standards" are "broadly applicable" to "all residential development in residential and commercial zones." The City Council expressly notes,however,that while the proposal does not neatly fit into the "apartments" category because it does not contain any "dwelling units," the Council finds that the TCDC intends that the proposed facility be reviewed under TCDC standards that apply to apartments that do not have dwelling units. This is because the TCDC expressly states that the TCDC development standards apply to all residential development in residential or commercial zones, and the only category that fits the type of proposal at issue here, are "apartments." In this regard, the Council expressly finds that the structure of the TCDC development standards do not require that all "apartments" have "dwelling units" and many standards in the apartment development review standards reflect this interpretation. Specifically, many apartment development standards expressly apply only to dwelling units while others apply regardless of whether the building has a "dwelling unit". In fact, some apartment development standards expressly differentiate between apartments that have dwelling units and those that do not. For example, TCDC 18.230.040(C)(1) pertaining to "Facade design", differentiates fagade standards that apply to facilities with and without dwelling units "Buildings that do not include dwelling units are exempt from providing architectural features on facades that face common open areas." This would be unnecessary if all apartments regulated under the apartment development standards necessarily included dwelling units. Further, the City's definition of"dwelling unit" is specific and requires a "dwelling unit" to have permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation." TCDC 18.30.020(D)(14)(a). The use of the term"permanent"is meaningful. The dictionary defines the term"permanent"to mean"lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely." The Council finds that the proposed assisted ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 32 OF 88 living "suites"will have no "permanent provisions" for"cooking." Rather,the Council finds that the assisted living suites cooking facilities will be limited to a microwave and that such microwaves are intended to be removable and state law requires that those microwaves be removed by facility staff if it poses a danger or risk to the occupant or others. The microwaves are not and cannot be intended to remain, unchanged indefinitely, as a matter of state law. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the memory care facilities do not have any cooking facilities to include microwaves whatsoever. Meals are provided in a central dining area and are made in a central commercial kitchen that serves the central dining facility. The residents' monthly fee includes their central dining meals. Accordingly, the Council expressly interprets the term "dwelling unit" used in the TCDC to require that there is permanent provision for cooking and that the use of the term "permanent" in this regard, does not include microwaves in assisted living facilities like the proposal. This interpretation is consistent with the express words used in the TCDC definition of"Dwelling Unit" and "Residential Uses" as well as the policy regarding the regulation of individual dwelling units. The reason that the City defines dwelling units in a way that requires permanent provision of cooking, among other facilities (as so exclude residential uses that do not include "permanent" provision for cooking), is that many of the TCDC requirements that apply to dwelling units, simply do not make sense in the context of an assisted living and memory care facility like the proposal. These include requirements for "Private open space" that is "directly accessible" from interior of dwelling unit,contrary to safety needs of residents and,with respect to memory care, are contrary to state law requirements for facility security. TCDC 18.230.040(D)(2); OAR 411-057-0110(15). Similarly,the requirement that dwelling units must have a certain number of vehicle and bike parking spaces for each "dwelling unit" makes no sense to be applied to the proposed facility, because the only evidence in the record is that more than 95% of assisted living residents do not have cars and no resident of memory care drives a car. In this regard, the Council finds that the evidence shows that the small number of residents who are drivers is intentional as the profile of a resident of assisted living is in their 80s. The Council finds that the evidence also demonstrates that 100 percent of the residents of the facility will not travel by bicycle. If the proposed assisted living and memory care facility suites were "dwelling units"that would lead to the facility being vastly overparked. This is illustrated in TCDC 18.230.040 Table 18.230.2: Table 18.230.2 • Quantity Vehicle Maximum Apartment Size Vehicle Minimum Bicycle Minimum (Zones A and B) 500 sq ft or less 1 space per dwelling unit 1 bedroom 1 space per dwelling unit None 1 space per 2 dwelling units 2 bedroom 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit 3 bedroom 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit Some opponents argued that because there is a commercial kitchen in the facility,that means that the facility's single commercial kitchen causes the entire facility to have "permanent provision for cooking." They argue that commercial kitchen should be imputed to every suite,to assert that the proposed facility has 194 dwelling units. The Council fords this to be an incorrect interpretation of the TCDC. Just as a house or apartment with three bedrooms is a single dwelling unit and not three dwelling units, a facility with 194 beds (like the proposal)does not have 194 dwelling units. Here, ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 33 OF 88 there is a separate common commercial kitchen where people other than the residents prepare and serve their food and there is a central dining area where the residents are served and both are in the context of a facility that provides significant care for the residents. As such,there simply are no "dwelling units" in the proposed facility within the intended meaning of that term. However,the Council finds in the alternative only that if the code definition of"dwelling unit" can be interpreted to mean that the presence of the single commercial kitchen in the facility means that the facility has a "permanent provision for cooking,"then the Council finds that means that the proposed facility has one "dwelling unit," like a house with one kitchen and multiple bedrooms is a single dwelling unit. These findings will reflect both interpretations of the TCDC,but the Council intends the correct interpretation of the TCDC,that is consistent with the text,purpose,policy and context, is that the facility has no dwelling units at all. To reiterate,the City Council finds that the "suites" associated with the proposal for both assisted living and for memory care, do not have any"permanent provisions" for"cooking" as the City's definition of dwelling unit requires and the commercial kitchen where others prepare food for the residents who are in turn served in a common dining room does not convert the entire facility into a dwelling unit or a number of dwelling units. I There are provisions in the TCDC standards that apply to apartments that do not rely upon the presence of"dwelling units." Those are applied as approval standards here. The City Council has previously interpreted assisted living and memory care facilities like the proposal as a type of "apartment" for purposes of applying approval standards that are not specific to "dwelling units." The City Council finds that there is no reason for the City to depart from this interpretation here. However, as noted, even if the entire facility is viewed as one "dwelling unit",then the apartment standards that apply to that dwelling units are met when the entire facility is viewed as a dwelling unit. 18.780.050 Approval Criteria The approval authority will approve or approve with conditions a site development review application when all of the criteria listed below are met. These criteria broadly reference all chapters in this title that contain standards that may apply to the development. The city will identify which standards are applicable through the land use review process and evaluate the proposed development accordingly. A. The proposed development complies with all applicable base zone standards; The development is proposed to be located within a Mixed-Use Residential-1 (MUR-1) base zone. The TDC lists the MUR-1 zone as a"Mixed Use Residential"zone that is a type of commercial zone. TDC 18.120.020(J). In the MU-1 zone, residential use is allowed outright per Table 18.120.1. As proposed,the development does comply with all applicable base zone standards as discussed later in this Decision.The proposed use is a Residential Use and the Housing Type for purposes of this review is Apartment,which is an allowed use in the MUR-1 zone. This criterion is met. B. The proposed development complies with all applicable residential and nonresidential development standards; ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 34 OF 88 As proposed,the development does comply with all applicable residential development standards. The applicable standards are discussed below: This criterion is met. 18.210 Residential General Provisions 18.210.020 Fence and Wall Standards Fences and walls may be located within required setbacks.Fences and walls located within required setbacks are subject to the standards in this section. Fences and walls located outside required setbacks are subject to the standards in the applicable housing type chapter in 18.200 Residential Development Standards. A. Fences and walls in a required front setback may be a maximum of 3 feet in height where abutting a local or neighborhood street and a maximum of 6 feet in height where abutting a collector or arterial street. B. Fences and walls in a required side, street side, or rear setback may be a maximum of 8 feet in height.Fences and walls 7 feet or more in height require a building permit. C. Fences and walls with barbed or razor wire are prohibited. D. Fences and walls must meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. A six-foot fence is proposed along the west, east,and south property lines. The site is located along a collector street,therefore fences within the front setback may not exceed six feet. Barbed or razor wire is not proposed and all fences will meet clear vision areas. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, all of the applicable residential general provisions have been fully met. 18.230 Apartments 18.320.020 Applicability A. The standards of this chapter apply to nonresidential development in the C-N, C-C, C-G, C-P, MUC, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUR-1, and MUR-2 zones. Additional standards apply to nonresidential development in the River Terrace Plan District and Washington Square Regional Center Plan District as provided in Chapter 18.640, River Terrace Plan District, and Chapter 18.670, Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. The proposed development will be located within the MUR-1 zone upon annexation therefore, this chapter applies. The site is also located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, however, standards in the plan district chapter only apply to nonresidential and mixed-use developments. The Council finds that the proposal is not for a mixed use or a nonresidential use. Rather,the Council finds that the proposal is for a type of residential use, as explained above. 18.230.040 Development Standards A. Base zone development standards are provided in Table 18.230.1. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 35 OF 88 Table 18.230.1 Apartment Development d, COME MUR-1 Proposed Minimum Lot Size 0 ft 93,368 sq ft Minimum Setbacks -Front 0 ft 1.3 ft -Street side 5 ft N/A -Side 0 ft [2] 49.75 ft(west)/45.5 ft(east)/ 12.75 ft(south) -Rear 20 ft [2] 53 ft Maximum Setbacks -Front 20 ft 1.3 ft -Street side 20 ft 5 ft/8 ft Minimum Height 2 stories 4 stories Maximum Height 75 ft 46 ft Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 79.3% Minimum Landscape 20% 21.1 % Area Minimum Density 50 units per acre N/A Maximum Density None N/A. [2] Minimum side and rear setbacks are 0 feet, except the minimum side and rear setbacks are 20 feet where the site abuts an R-1 through R-12 zone. The proposed front setback is 1.3 feet from the north property line adjacent to SW Hall Boulevard. The site abuts a residential zone to the south and a 20-foot rear setback is required. The rear setback is 53 feet. The site is not rectangular in shape and contains three sides and two street sides. The street side setback is a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 20 feet. The proposed street side setback adjacent to SW 92"d Avenue is 5 feet. The proposed street side setback adjacent to SW Montage Lane is eight feet. The other three sides that require a minimum setback of five feet meet this minimum standard. The proposed building will be four stories and approximately 47 feet in height. The maximum lot coverage standard for the site is 80 percent or 74,694 square feet based on a property area of 93,368 square feet. Based on Sheet A 1.2,the applicant is proposing 74,055 square feet of impervious surface,approximately 79.3 percent. The maximum lot coverage standard for the site is 20 percent or 18,674 square feet based on a property area of 93,368 square feet. Based on Sheet A1.2, the applicant is proposing 19,776 square feet of landscape area, approximately 21.1 percent. Up to 25 percent of hardscape area may be used to meet the landscape standard, the applicants are proposing to use 4,475 square feet of hardscape area toward the landscape standard,which is approximately 22.6 percent. These standards are met. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 36 OF 88 B. Landscaping and screening. All required landscaping, including landscaping used to meet screening or tree canopy standards, is subject to the general provisions of Chapter 18.420, Landscaping and Screening. 1. The minimum landscape area standard is provided in Table 18.230.1. Landscaping standards are provided in Section 18.420.040. Any landscape area that meets the L-2 standard and any required common open space area may count toward meeting the minimum landscape area standard. As provided in Table 18.230.1, the minimum landscape area standard is 20 percent, or 18,674 square feet based on a property area of 93,368 square feet. Based on Sheet A1.2,the applicants are proposing 19,776 square feet of landscape area, approximately 21.1 percent. Up to 25 percent of hardscape area may be used to meet the landscape standard, the applicants are proposing to use 4,475 square feet of hardscape area toward the landscape standard, which is approximately 22.6 percent. This standard is met. 2. Screening standards are provided in Section 18.420.050. Screening is required as follows: a. Service areas and wall- and roof-mounted utilities must be screened to the S-1 standard. Service areas and utilities are also subject to the standards in Subsection 18.230.040.G. The narrative states that any wall or roof-mounted utilities will be screened to meet the S-1 standard. The trash areas will be located in the parking garage. Screening of service areas are appropriately shown on Sheet L2. The applicants did not provide a plan showing how wall and roof-mounted utilities will be screened. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicants must submit a plan showing screening of wall- and roof-mounted utilities. This standard is met with respect to service areas screening. With respect to wall and roof mounted utilities, the screening standard is met through a condition of approval. b. Apartments that abut an R-1 through R-12 zone must be screened to the S-3 standard along all property lines, except street property lines. The site abuts a Washington County R-5 zone to the south, therefore, an S-3 screen is required along the south property line. The site plan shows an S-3 screen along the south property line. This standard is met. c. Surface vehicle parking areas, loading areas, and drive aisles within 20 feet of a street property line must be screened to the S-4 standard. Screening must be provided directly adjacent to the street property line, except where access is taken. The applicants propose a drive aisle and loading area within 20 feet of a street property line. The applicants'proposal includes a drive aisle within 20 feet of SW Hall Boulevard near the northeast corner of the site. An S-4 screen is required, and the applicants' site plan shows an S-4 screen. The applicants propose a loading area on the SW 92nd Avenue frontage for the temporary parking of vehicles to facilitate the loading and unloading of residents and guests,therefore, an S-4 screen ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 37 OF 88 is required. The applicants are also proposing a loading area off of the cul-de-sac for deliveries. The applicants' site plan shows an S-4 screen is provided for both areas. This standard is met. 3. The minimum tree canopy standards for the site and any off-street vehicle parking areas are provided in Section 18.420.060. The proposed parking lot meets the minimum tree canopy required, as provided in Section 18.420.060. The canopy standards are discussed later in this Decision. This standard is met. C. Common open space. 1. Common open space is required. The minimum total area of required common open space is 10 percent of the gross site area or 750 square feet, whichever is greater. More than one common open space area may be provided to meet this standard, but any area used to meet this standard must be a minimum of 20 feet in width and depth. 2. Apartment developments with less than 20 dwelling units must provide at least 2 different items from the list below within areas identified as common open space. Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must provide at least 4 different items from the list below within areas identified as common open space. a. Playground equipment or play area for children, b. Sport court, c. Playing field, d. Lawn or garden, e. Covered seating, f. Swimming pool or water feature, g. Plaza or courtyard with permanent seating, h. Gazebo, i. Club house, j. Workout room, or k. Other similar item as determined by the director. The proposed development is for an assisted living and memory care facility.None of the proposed rooms contain permanent cooking facilities and do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit as explained above. Pursuant to Section 18.30.020, a dwelling unit is a structure or portion thereof that is used for human habitation including permanent provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. None of the assisted living or memory care suites have permanent provision for cooking. Therefore, because the development does not include any dwelling units, this standard does not apply. However, if the entire facility is considered a dwelling unit per the alternative findings above, then this standard is met. For this facility, the Council finds that the indoor open space meets the requirement for common open space. The gross site area of the site (before any dedications) is 110,556 sq. ft. Therefore 11,055 sq. ft. of the site should be dedicated to common open space under the above standard and the Council finds may include indoor open space. The applicants' plans show that there is a total of 16,613 square feet of indoor common space or 15 percent of the gross site that meets the 20' x 20' dimensional standard. That calculation does not include the assisted living or memory care courtyards or the assisted living deck. The reason is that these latter facilities are "private" to the particular assisted living or memory care community ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 38 OF 88 and they are not generally shared among the entire community who lives in the proposed facility. In this regard, the Council expressly interprets the term "common open space" as open space that can serve the needs of to the entire community of assisted living and memory care residents who live in the facility. The City Council finds again in the alternative only (if the entire facility is viewed as a dwelling unit), that the proposed indoor common open space provided exceeds the standard by 5 percent. 3. At least 50 percent of the dwelling units in a development must face outdoor common open space or a public street. This standard is met when the front door or a window from the kitchen,living room,or dining room of a dwelling unit faces the outdoor common open space or a public street. The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, this standard does not apply. In the alternative only, it is clear from the plans that if the entire facility is deemed a "dwelling unit,"that all of the proposed facility either faces common open space or a public street. Either way, this standard is met. 4. Building facades, including accessory structure facades, that face outdoor common open space must meet the 15 percent window area requirement in Subsection 18.230.050.B or be screened to the S-4 standard as provided in Table 18.420.2. The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, common open space is not required. This standard does not apply. In the alternative only, it is clear from the plans that if the entire facility is deemed a"dwelling unit," that the building facades that face the outdoor open spaces well-exceed the requirement for 15 percent window area. 5. Common open space may not be located in the front setback or include sensitive lands. The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, common open space is not required.This standard does not apply. In the alternative only(if the entire facility is a dwelling unit), no common open space is in the front setback and none includes sensitive lands. It is all indoors, so it cannot be in either. D. Private open space. 1. Private open space is required for each dwelling unit. Each private open space must be a minimum of 48 square feet in area and a minimum of 5 feet in width and depth. 2. Private open space must be directly accessible from the interior of the dwelling unit that it serves. 3. Additional common open space above the required minimum may substitute for some or all of the required private open space at a 1:1 ratio. The proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, private open space is not required. This standard does not apply. In the alternative only, if the entire facility is deemed ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 39 OF 88 to be a dwelling unit, then there is private open space well in excess of this requirement. The assisted living courtyard(which the plans show is 2,986 sq. ft.)and the assisted living deck(which the plans show is 1,009 sq. ft.) is private to the assisted living community. It well exceeds 48 square feet in area and 5-feet in width. Similarly, the memory care courtyard (which the plans show is 1,489 sq. ft.) also well exceeds the minimum required. E. Pedestrian access. 1. Paths must provide pedestrian access from public sidewalks abutting the site to all required building entrances on the site. 2. Paths must provide pedestrian access between all common open space areas, vehicle and bicycle parking areas, building entrances, and service areas designed for use by residents. Paths within parking areas or along drive aisles are subject to additional standards in Subsection 18.410.040.B. 3. Paths must extend to the perimeter property line to provide pedestrian access to existing or planned pedestrian facilities on adjacent properties, such as trails or public access easements. 4. Paths must be constructed with a hard surface material and have a minimum unobstructed width of 5 feet. The narrative states and the site plan shows,that a five-foot pedestrian path is provided from public sidewalks abutting the site to all required building entrances on the site. The paths on the site provide circulation between vehicle and bicycle parking areas,building entrances, and along drive aisles. There are no existing or planned pedestrian facilities on adjacent properties. The applicants are proposing an eight-foot-wide multi-use path from SW Montage Lane to SW Hall Boulevard that will be within a public access easement.All paths will be constructed of hard surface materials and have an unobstructed width of at least five feet. This standard is met. F. Vehicle and bicycle parking. 1. The applicable provisions and standards of Sections 18.410.010 through 18.410.060 apply to apartment developments. 2. The standards in Sections 18.410.070 through 18.410.090 do not apply to apartment developments. 3. The minimum and maximum number of off-street vehicle and bicycle parking spaces are provided in Table 18.230.2. Any fractional space requirement is rounded up to the next whole number. The applicable provision and standards of Chapter 18.410 are discussed later in this Decision. As explained above, the development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, there are no minimum vehicle or bicycle parking requirements. This standard does not apply. Regardless,the City Council finds that the applicants are proposing a total of 92 vehicle spaces that includes four accessible spaces. With regard to parking, while the City does not have an applicable parking standard for the proposed assisted and memory care facility, the City Council has reviewed the evidence and argument in the record and agrees with staff and the applicants that the proposed 92 parking spaces provided by the proposal are adequate to serve the needs of the facility without visitors, employees,vendors or residents having to park on local streets. As explained above,none of the memory care residents have cars (or bicycles) and the evidence is that none of the assisted ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 40 OF 88 living residents commute by bicycle and only up to 5% of the assisted living residents may have cars. The evidence in the record supports that the applicants' other similar facilities have few visitors, that some staff to the proposed facility will commute using transit and that the maximum number of staff onsite at the specific proposed facility at any given time will be 51 employees. The evidence in the record establishes that the parking for the proposed facility is similar to the parking provided by other of the applicants' facilities and that the applicants' facilities with similar and more parking have many empty parking spaces -they are "overparked. The record supports a finding that the parking provided for the proposed facility is adequate and is unlikely to result in cars related to the facility having any need to park on the public street system. In the alternative only, if the entire facility is deemed to be a "dwelling until" then the provision on 92 parking spaces well-exceeds the minimum that would be required - which at the maximum is 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 4. Apartment developments with 10 or more required vehicle parking spaces must also provide additional vehicle parking for guests. The minimum amount of additional parking spaces is 15 percent of the minimum vehicle parking requirement as provided in Table 18.230.2. Guest vehicle parking must be clearly identified with pavement markings or signs. Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, there is no minimum parking requirement. Guest parking is not proposed, and it is not required. This standard does not apply. Nonetheless, the record supports a finding that the total number of 92 parking spaces proposed is adequate to provide parking for residents, their visitors (guests), employees and any others who may visit the facility. Moreover, in the alternative only, the Council finds that if the facility is viewed as having "dwelling units", it can only have one "dwelling unit" for the reasons explained above. And the TCDC is clear that one dwelling unit requires only at most 1.5 parking spaces, not 10 parking spaces. The City Council finds that this standard simply is not triggered by the proposal here. 5. Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must also provide additional bicycle parking spaces for guests. The minimum amount of additional parking spaces is 15 percent of the minimum bicycle parking requirement as provided in Table 18.230.2. Guest bicycle parking must be located within 20 feet of the street property line and be visible to pedestrians from the public sidewalk in front of the site.Bicycle parking may be located in the public right-of-way with approval of the City Engineer. Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore,there is no minimum parking requirement. Guest parking to include guest bicycle parking is not required. This standard does not apply. Regardless,the applicants are proposing a total of ten bicycle parking spaces, which is adequate for the needs of the proposed facility. Further, the Council finds that even if the proposal is viewed as a dwelling unit, it is viewed as one dwelling unit and therefore does not have "20 or more dwelling units" and that means this standard is not triggered regardless. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 41 OF 88 6. Apartment developments with 20 or more dwelling units must provide all required non-guest bicycle parking spaces inside a structure or under a roof. Required bicycle parking is exempt from the location standard of Subsection 18.410.050.A but may not be located inside individual dwelling units. Parking requirements are based on dwelling units and the proposed development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, there is no minimum parking requirement. Further, as explained above, the Council expressly rejects any interpretation of the City code that the proposed facility has any dwelling units. Moreover, in the alternative only, the Council finds that at most, the proposal can only have and be one dwelling unit(as explained above). Therefore, this standard is not triggered regardless because there is no case in which the TCDC should be interpreted to mean that the proposal as 20 dwelling units. Bicycle parking is not required. This standard does not apply. 7. Surface parking,detached garages,and attached or detached carports may not be located closer to a street property line than the building closest to that street property line. Surface parking is not located closer to a street property line than the building closest to that street property line. Parking is also proposed on the ground floor of the building. This standard is met. 8. Parking areas may not occupy more than 50 percent of the total length of each street frontage as measured 20 feet from the street property line. Drive aisles without adjacent parking spaces do not count as parking areas for the purposes of this standard. As shown on the site plan, parking areas occupy less than 50 percent of the street frontage. This standard is met. 9. Attached garages may be attached to any side of an apartment building. If attached to the street-facing facade, they may not be located closer to the street property line than the apartment building facade and the facade must include at least 1 entrance for each proposed garage that meets the standards of Subsection 18.230.050.A. Driveways associated with attached garages that take direct individual access from a public or private street must meet the rowhouse location and access standards in Paragraph 18.280.050.E.3 and Subparagraph 18.280.050.E.2.a. Garages are not proposed. This standard does not apply. G. Utilities and service areas. 1. Private utility facilities, such as transformers or control valves,that serve a single development must be located below ground unless the functional properties of the facility require above-ground placement. If located above ground, all facilities 1 cubic foot or greater in volume, or with any one dimension greater than 2 feet, ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 42 OF 88 must meet the following standards where not wall- or roof-mounted or located inside a building: a. The facility may not be located within 20 feet of any street property line; and b. The facility must be dark in color and painted or wrapped with a non- reflective material 2. Service areas, such as waste and recycling containers, outdoor storage, and mechanical equipment, may not be located within 20 feet of any street property line, except where located inside a building. The evidence demonstrates that all utilities will be underground and service areas where waste and recycling containers are provided will be located within the building (the parking garage). Some commentors objected that garbage collection vehicles will be outside the service area and will "reach into" the underground service areas with tongs to lift containers into refuse vehicles. They claim that such refuse collection does not meet the requirements of G(2) above. The City Council finds that these commentors are mistaken. The Council interprets this standard, as relevant to this objection,to refer to containers not refuse collection trucks; and that the standard means that such refuse containers may not be located within 20-feet of any street or property line, unless the containers are located in a building. The Council expressly finds that the containers are located inside a building. The Council finds that this standard is met. H. Lighting. 1. Minimum illumination levels are measured horizontally at ground level. a. The minimum average illumination is 1.5 footcandles for paths, except those within parking areas,which are subject to the lighting standards in Subsection 18.410.040.I.All points of measurement must be a minimum of 0.5 footcandles. b. The minimum average illumination is 3.5 footcandles for required building entrances and 2.0 footcandles for any non-required building entrances. All points of measurement must be a minimum of 1.0 footcandle. 2. Maximum illumination levels are measured vertically at the property line or sensitive lands boundary line.The maximum illumination is 0.5 footcandles at side and rear property lines, except that the maximum illumination may be increased to 1.0 footcandle where the development abuts a commercial or industrial zone. The maximum illumination is 0 footcandles at any sensitive lands boundary line. 3. Lighting must be shielded, with a cutoff angle of 90 degrees or greater to ensure that it does not shine upwards. Lighting sources, such as lamps and bulbs, may not be directly visible from adjacent properties or sensitive lands. The applicants have provided a photometrics analysis that meets the required elements of the lighting standard. This standard is met. 1. Apartments are subject to all other applicable requirements of this title including but not limited to standards related to streets, utilities, sensitive lands, and signs. The development complies with all other applicable requirements of this title, as discussed elsewhere in this Decision. This standard is met. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 43 OF 88 18.230.050 Design Standards A. Entrances. 1. For dwelling units with internal building access, a minimum of 1 entrance per building must be visible and accessible from a public or private street or outdoor common open space.Additional entrances may face drive aisles,parking areas,or service areas. 2. For dwelling units without internal building access, a minimum of 1 entrance per dwelling unit must be visible and accessible from a public or private street, outdoor common open space, or drive aisle that has a curb and path adjacent to the dwelling unit. 3. A required building entrance must be at an angle that is no more than 45 degrees from the street, common open space, or drive aisle that it faces. A required building entrance to an individual dwelling unit may exceed this standard where it opens onto a porch or stoop provided the angle is no more than 90 degrees from the street, common open space, or drive aisle that it faces. 4. A required building entrance must be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature that provides weather protection for pedestrians. The required weather protection must be at least as wide as the entrance, a maximum of 6 feet above the top of the entrance, and a minimum of 3 feet in depth. The required weather protection may project into the minimum front setback. The development does not include any dwelling units; therefore, the first two standards do not apply. The Council finds in the alternative only, that if the facility is in total a "dwelling unit" that (A)(1) is met and(A)(2) would not apply. There is internal building access and there is a minimum of one building access that is visible and accessible from Hall Boulevard and from 92nd Avenue. With respect to TCC 18.230.050(A)(2) and(3), the City Council finds that the required entrance is visible from SW Hall Boulevard, is parallel to the drive aisle it faces, and is covered by a roof. The second entrance that is parallel to the drive aisle on SW 92nd Avenue is also covered. Both entrances meet the dimensional standards and maximum height standards as shown on the elevation plans (Sheet A7 and A8). This standard is met. B. Windows. 1. All building facades that face a public or private street must include a minimum of 15 percent window area. 2. The minimum window area standard does not apply to stories with sloped roofs or dormers. The elevation drawing submitted shows that the north fagade that faces SW Hall Boulevard will provide 22 percent window area. The west fagade that faces SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Ave will provide between 16 to 19 percent window area. This standard is met. C. Facade design. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 44 OF 88 1. All building facades that face a public or private street or outdoor common open space must include at least 2 different architectural features from the list provided below.An additional 2 different architectural features per facade are required on all buildings with 20 or more dwelling units. This standard may be met by including different architectural features on different facades of the same building. Buildings that do not include dwelling units are exempt from providing architectural features on facades that face common open areas, but must provide at least 2 different architectural features on all street-facing facades. a. Facade articulation. A wall projection or recession that is a minimum of 6 feet in width and 2 feet in depth for a minimum of half the height of the facade and with a maximum distance of 40 feet between projections or recessions. b. Roof eave or projecting cornice. i. An eave that projects a minimum of 12 inches from the building facade; or ii. A cornice that projects a minimum of 6 inches from the building facade and is a minimum of 12 inches in height. c. Roof offsets or dormers. i. A roof offset that is a minimum of 2 feet from the top surface of one roof to the top surface of another roof as measured horizontally or vertically with a maximum distance of 40 feet between offsets. See Figure 18.230.1; or ii. One dormer for each top-story dwelling unit that is a minimum of 4 feet in width and integrated into the roof form. d. Accent siding. A minimum of 2 different siding materials are used, and one siding material covers a minimum of 40 percent of the building facade. e. Distinct base and top. The first story is visually distinguished from the upper stories by including a belt course and at least one of the following: i. a change in surface or siding pattern; ii. a change in surface or siding material; or iii. a change in the size or orientation of windows. L Window area. A minimum of 50 percent window area is included. g. Window shadowing. All windows include at least one of the following: i. Window trim that is a minimum of 2.5 inches in width and 0.625 inches in depth; or ii. Windows that are recessed a minimum of 3 inches from the building facade. h. Balconies. Balconies are included on all upper stories that meet the dimensional requirement for private open space provided in Subsection 18.230.040.D. i. Covered porches or recessed entrances. All first-story dwelling units with individual entrances include at least one of the following: i. A covered porch that is a minimum of 5 feet in width and depth; or ii. An entrance area that is a minimum of 5 feet in width and recessed a minimum of 2 feet from the building facade. j. Enhanced entrances or awnings. A building that provides internal access to dwelling units includes at least one of the following: i. A building entrance area that is a minimum of 8 feet in width and is either: ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 45 OF 88 (A)recessed a minimum of 5 feet from the building facade, or (B)covered with a permanent architectural feature that provides weather protection. The architectural feature must be at least as wide as the entry, a maximum of 6 feet above the top of the entry, and a minimum of 5 feet in depth. The architectural feature may project into the minimum front setback; or ii. A permanent architectural feature above all first-story windows, such as an awning or series of awnings,that are at least as wide as each window, a maximum of 6 feet above the top of each window, and a minimum of 3 feet in depth. The architectural feature may project into the minimum front setback. The proposed development does not include any dwelling units, therefore, the Council finds per the express terms of the above standard that only two different architectural features are required for buildings without dwelling units. The north fagade faces SW Hall Boulevard and the west fagade faces SW 92 Avenue and SW Montage Lane. The north fagade and west fagade portion that faces SW 92"d Avenue provide articulation and an enhanced entrance with a permanent architectural feature. The west fagade facing the cul-de-sac on SW Montage Lane provides articulation and roof offset. In the alternative only if the entire facility is viewed as one dwelling unit under the alternative interpretation of the TCDC expressed above,the Council finds that this standard applies enhanced fagade requirements to"all buildings with 20 or more dwelling units". The Council finds that there is no interpretation of the TCDC that it agrees with in which there are "20 or more dwelling units" in the facility. The Council finds that this standard is met. 2. The following building materials are prohibited on all building facades,including accessory structure facades, that face a public or private street or outdoor common open space. They may not be used collectively on more than 35 percent of any other building facade. a. Vinyl PVC siding, b. T-111 plywood, c. Exterior insulation finishing (EIFS), d. Corrugated metal, e. Plain concrete or concrete block, f. Spandrel glass, or g. Sheet pressboard. The development does not include any of the prohibited materials. This standard is met. 18.230.060 Accessory Structures Accessory structures are allowed subject to the following standards: A. Accessory structures are prohibited in the required front or street side setback; B. Accessory structures may be located in the required side or rear setback provided they are a minimum of 5 feet from the side and rear property lines and a maximum of 15 feet in height; and ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 46 OF 88 C. All accessory structures, including structures required to screen utilities and service areas, and all site improvements, such as fences, walls, signs, and light fixtures, must use materials, colors, and architectural design features that are similar in scale and appearance to those on primary buildings.Chain link fencing and unfinished concrete blocks are prohibited. Accessory structures are not proposed. These standards do not apply. FINDING: Based on the above analysis,all applicable apartment development standards have been fully met. C. The proposed development complies with all applicable supplemental development standards,including but not limited to off-street parking and landscaping standards; As described in the following section of the report, the proposed development does comply with all applicable supplemental development standards (18.400's): 18.410 Off-Street Parking and Loading 18.410.020 Applicability The provisions of this chapter apply to all new development and all modifications to existing development, including changes of use, unless stated otherwise. The proposal is for an assisted living and memory care facility, which is considered development. Therefore, this chapter applies. 18.410.030 General Provisions A. Location. Required off-street parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves, except where an on-street credit has been granted through the provisions of Section 18.410.090. All proposed parking for the development is located on the same lot as the development. This standard is met. F. Accessible Parking.All parking areas must include the required number of accessible parking spaces as specified by the state building code and federal standards. Such parking spaces must be sized, signed, and marked as required by these regulations and in compliance with ORS 447. Based on the 92 vehicle parking spaces provided, four accessible parking spaces are required. The proposal includes four accessible parking spaces. The spaces are proposed to be sized, signed, and marked as required. This standard is met. 18.410.040 General Design Standards A. Vehicular access. Vehicular access to off-street parking or loading areas must meet the requirements of Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation and Chapter 18.930, Vision Clearance Areas. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 47 OF 88 The proposed access meets the requirements of Chapter 18.920, as discussed later in this Decision. The proposed development has frontage on a both an arterial and a non-arterial street. The vision clearance areas are shown on the plans and comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.930. As shown on the applicants'preliminary site plan,vision clearance triangles have been established at the intersections of the new proposed driveways in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter. The City Council finds that this standard is met. B. Pedestrian access. Paths that cross access driveways or parking areas are subject to the following: 1. Paths must be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation,except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are allowed for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used; 2. Paths must be a minimum of 4 feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts; and 3. Paths must be in compliance with applicable federal and state accessibility standards. The proposed paths are separated from vehicular traffic by a curb and do not cross drive aisles by more than 36 feet. The paths are five feet wide. All paths meet the minimum unobstructed width of four feet. The paths will comply with state and federal accessibility standards. This standard is met C. Loading and unloading driveways. Passenger loading and unloading areas must be designed such that vehicle stacking does not impact any public right-of-way. The applicants have proposed two driveways along SW 92nd Avenue for a drop off location for loading and unloading. As shown on Sheet Al provided by the applicants, the proposed loading and unloading area provides sufficient vehicle stacking length to accommodate three vehicles on private property outside of the public right-of-way. The proposed design allows sufficient vehicle stacking length on private property for one vehicle to exit the driveway, one vehicle to actively load or unload, and one vehicle to queue while not impacting the public right of way. Some commentors argued that the queuing for pick ups and drop offs at the memory care access on 92nd Avenue will have long queues that will spill onto the public street because it takes memory care residents a long time to get in and out of vehicles. The Council disagrees that queueing will impact the street system. First, the facility will have only 33 memory care residents and these are the people using the loading area on 92nd Avenue. There is ample room in the loading and unloading areas for three cars per the applicants' sheet Al and that is adequate for the needs of that facility. Second,because the memory care facility is a secure facility where residents are signed in and out to be released, their family will park in the parking garage and take the elevator to the memory care facility to retrieve their loved one, sign them out, and take them (likely via wheelchair)to the car in the parking garage. A similar pattern will occur for returns, where loved ones will park in the garage,take their loved one to the memory care facility, sign them in,transfer their care to staff and then leave from the parking garage. Memory care residents cannot sign themselves in or out ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 48 OF 88 of the facility. Therefore, as a practical matter, there is no pick up or drop off of memory care residents by their family in the loading area off of 92nd Avenue. The Council finds that this standard is met. E. Surfacing. Off-street parking areas must be paved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface,with the following exceptions: 1. Off-street parking areas associated with a temporary use application, as provided in Chapter 18.440, Temporary Uses, provided the approval authority determines that unpaved parking will not create adverse conditions. 2. Off-street overflow parking areas in the Parks and Recreation zone. All off-street parking areas will be paved. This standard is met. F. Striping. 1. Except for parking required for single detached houses and accessory dwelling units, and individual spaces for rowhouses, all off-street parking spaces must be clearly and separately identified with pavement markings or contrasting paving materials; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles must be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow. All off-street parking spaces are clearly and separately identified with pavement markings. Interior drives and access aisles that provide access through the site from SW Montage Lane and SW Hall boulevard, entrance to the parking garage on the east side, and circulation within the parking garage are clearly marked and signed on the Sheet Al. This standard is met. G. Wheel stops. Parking bumpers or wheel stops a minimum of 4 inches in height must be provided a minimum of 3 feet from the front of parking spaces wherever vehicles can encroach on a right-of-way or pedestrian path. Curbing may substitute for wheel stops if vehicles will not encroach into the minimum required width for landscape or pedestrian paths. Wheel stops are shown on the site plan in places where the overhang encroaches into landscape areas. This standard is met. H. Lighting. Lighting in parking areas must meet the following standards: 1. Parking areas must include lighting sufficient to illuminate all pedestrian paths and bicycle parking areas to a minimum level of 0.5 footcandles at all points, measured horizontally at the ground level. 2. Lighting luminaires must have a cutoff angle of 90 degrees or greater to ensure that lighting is directed toward the parking surface. 3. Parking area lighting may not cause a light trespass of more than 0.5 footcandles measured vertically at the boundaries of the site. A photometrics analysis was submitted that meets the elements of this standard. This standard is met. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 49 OF 88 I. Space and aisle dimensions.The minimum dimensional standards for surface parking spaces and drive aisles are provided in Figure 18.410.1 and Table 18.410.2. As shown on the site plan, all parking stalls meet the dimensional standards. This standard is met. 18.430.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location. 1. Required bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of a required or main entrance of a primary building; and 2. Required bicycle parking for nonresidential development must be covered and located within 100 feet of a required or main entrance of a primary building on the site if any required vehicle parking spaces are provided in a structure. Bicycle parking is not required for this development; however, it is provided within 50 feet of the north building entrance. This standard does not apply because no bicycle parking is required for the facility. Nonetheless, the standard is met. B. Design. 1. Bicycle racks must be designed to allow a bicycle frame to lock to it at 2 points of contact, except that spiral racks and wave racks with more than one loop are prohibited; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall, or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces must be at least 2.5 feet in width and 6 feet in length and have an access aisle between each row of spaces that is at least 5 feet in width. Covered bicycle parking must provide a vertical clearance of 7 feet; and 4. Bicycle parking spaces must be paved with a dust-free hard surface material. The proposed bicycle racks will allow a bicycle frame to lock to it at two points of contact and will be a U-shaped style. The racks will be securely anchored to the ground on a paved surface. The development proposes ten bicycle parking spaces. The applicants' site plan (Sheet A1) shows that the bicycle spaces meet the dimensional standards. This standard is met. C. Quantity. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is provided in Table 18.410.3. If the minimum bicycle parking requirement as calculated in Table 18.410.3 is less than two spaces, then the minimum number of spaces is two. Single detached houses, accessory dwelling units, cottage clusters, courtyard units, quads, and rowhouses are exempt from minimum bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking quantity requirements do not apply as is discussed under Chapter 18.230 in this Decision. The reason is that the proposed facility does not include any "dwelling units" as the City defines that term and the requirement for bicycle parking in Chapter 18.230 is tied to dwelling units. This standard either does not apply or it is met. 18.410.070 Vehicle Parking Quantity Standards ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 50 OF 88 A. Off-street parking requirements. The ratios for providing minimum and maximum vehicle parking spaces are provided in Table 18.410.3. If application of the maximum parking standard results in less than 6 parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, the development is allowed up to 6 parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard results in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, the development is allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. There are no applicable maximum parking quantity requirements as is explained in this Decision under the findings regarding Chapter 18.230. In sum, the parking requirements are tied to "dwelling units" and the proposal includes no "dwelling units." Therefore, there are no applicable on-site parking area requirements. Regardless, the evidence in the record establishes that the parking provided by the proposal is adequate and there is no plan or need to use on-street parking. The City Council asked staff to produce information about the Bonaventure and other facilities that the city has approved. If the parking assumptions for the Bonaventure development are applied here, the proposed facility has more parking than was required for that facility: e. Off-street parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.765. Response! An adjustment to the off-street parking standards was originally requested to reduce the minimum required parking from 120 to 105 spaces,consistent with$onaventure's experience with Senior Housing and Chapters I8.765 and 18.370,but the adjustment is unnecessary as the applicant submitted plans on April 15 that demonstrate parking facilities and a revised unit rrux in compliance with the standards of chapter 18.765,as demonstrated in the table below. This standard is tnet. Parking Standard Pro posed Match 17 RevigedA til 21 Independent 1.0 per room 71 70 Assisted 1-0 per 2.5 beds 57 59 MemoryCare 1.0 per 2.5 beds 24 23 Total Units 152 152 Required Parking120 spaces 119 spaces Proposed Parkin 105 spaces 12D s aces The Cedarbrook proposal will have 194 beds. Using the ratio of 1 parking space per 2.5 beds for Assisted Living and Memory Care per the above table referenced from the Bonaventure approval, means that the total requirement for Cedarbrook would be 77.6 spaces. Because Cedarbrook proposes 92 spaces,it will provide 14 spaces more than the minimum parking requirement that the city applied to Bonaventure. The standards that applied to the Bonaventure facility are no longer in the city code. However, as a sensitivity test, this information establishes that the proposed amount of parking is adequate and unlikely to cause any need for use of streets for parking. In the alternative only, if the entire facility is a dwelling unit per the analysis above, then it provides the minimum of 1.5 parking spaces. This standard either does not apply or it is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all applicable off-street parking and loading standards are met. 18.420 Landscaping and Screening 18.420.020 Applicability ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 51 OF 88 A. Landscapinll standards. Landscaping standards apply to new and existing development that must provide a minimum amount of landscape area as required by the applicable development standards chapter. The proposal is for a new development, this section applies. B. Screening standards. Screening standards apply to new and existing development with uses or site improvements that must be screened from other uses or the street as required by the applicable development standards chapter. The proposal is for a new development, this section applies. C. Tree canopy standards. Site and parking lot tree canopy standards apply to the following types of new and existing development, except that parking lot tree canopy standards do not apply to subdivisions or partitions: 1. Subdivisions and partitions; 2. Apartments; 3. Nonresidential development, including mixed-use developments; 4. Wireless communication facilities; and 5. Mobile home parks. The proposal is for a new development, this section applies. 18.420.060 Tree Canopy Standards A. Site tree canopy standards, which are stated as a percentage of effective tree canopy cover for an entire site, are provided in UFM Section 10, Part 3, Subparts N and O. Parking lot tree canopy standards are provided below. The required tree canopy for the proposed development is 33 percent. The applicants submitted an urban forestry plan. Compliance with the site tree canopy standards is discussed in Subsection 18.420.060.13 below. B. An urban forestry plan is required to demonstrate compliance with site and parking lot tree canopy standards and must meet the requirements of UFM Sections 10 through 13. An urban forestry plan must: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a project landscape architect or project arborist, i.e. a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, except that land partitions may demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; An Urban Forestry Plan that was coordinated and approved by Brian Lind of Lenity Architecture, Inc, a certified landscape architect, and Todd Prager of Teragan and Associates, Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor has been submitted. This standard is met. 2. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree preservation and removal site plan standards; ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 52 OF 88 A tree preservation and removal site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been submitted, see Sheet L1. The City Council notes that the applicants submitted a revised C101 to ensure consistency between the arborists report and the L1 drawing. Only trees located within the boundaries of the subject properties are proposed for removal. In response to public comments, a condition of approval is added to ensure this is the case. All open grown trees and five stands of trees are proposed for removal in order to accommodate the proposed site and street improvements. This standard is met. 3. Demonstrate compliance with UFM tree canopy and supplemental report standards and provide the minimum effective tree canopy cover; A tree canopy site plan that meets the standards set forth in the Urban Forestry Manual has been submitted. A supplemental report was prepared and submitted by Brian Lind of Lenity Architecture, Inc, a certified landscape architect and Todd Prager of Teragan and Associates,Inc, a certified arborist and tree risk assessor.This report includes all required items,as outlined in Section 10,Part 3, Subsection D of the Urban Forestry Manual. The minimum required effective tree canopy for the entire site is 33 percent. The supplemental report states that the effective tree canopy for the entire site is 34.7 percent (32,473 square feet). Commentors requested that the two white oak trees on the site and other trees be preserved. However,the city code does not require that those trees be preserved and the Council acknowledges that it is only allowed to apply standards and criteria to the proposal that are in the city's acknowledged code. This standard meets the requirements regarding trees in the City's acknowledged code. 4. Demonstrate compliance with parking lot tree canopy standards,where applicable, by providing the minimum effective tree canopy cover of 30 percent for all parking areas,including parking spaces and drive aisles.Only the percentage of tree canopy directly above parking areas may count toward meeting this standard; and The proposed parking lot canopy plan shows parking lot trees distributed throughout the parking lot that provide 5,659 square feet of canopy coverage. The parking lot area is approximately 13,451 square feet and the trees provide approximately 42 percent canopy. This standard is met. 5. Include street trees where right-of-way improvements are required by Chapter 18.910,Improvement Standards. a. The minimum number of required street trees is determined by dividing the length in feet of the site's street frontage by 40 feet.When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of street trees is the nearest whole number.More than the minimum number of street trees may be required along the site's frontage depending upon the stature of trees chosen and the specific spacing standards for the chosen trees. b. Street trees must be planted within the right-of-way wherever practicable.Street trees may be planted a maximum of 6 feet from the right-of-way when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable as determined by the City Engineer. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 53 OF 88 c. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: i. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; and ii. The tree would be permitted as a street tree in compliance with UFM street tree planting and soil volume standards if it were newly planted. The linear amount of adjacent street frontage on the site is approximately 1,011 feet; therefore, the site is required to have a minimum of 25 street trees (1,011 feet divided by 40 feet, rounded to the nearest whole number). The applicants provided a tree canopy site plan that shows 25 new street trees will be planted at this site. Furthermore,the project landscape architect submitted an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report, which describes how the street trees will be maintained according to the Street Tree Soil Volume Standards that are outlined in the Urban Forestry Manual. These standards are met. E. Urban forestry plan implementation. 1. Implementation of the urban forestry plan must be inspected, documented, and reported by the project arborist or landscape architect in compliance with the inspection requirements in UFM Section 11,Part 1,wherever an urban forestry plan is in effect. In addition,no person may refuse entry or access to the Director for the purpose. Implementation of the urban forestry plan will be inspected,documented, and reported by the project landscape architect and project arborist in compliance with the inspection requirements in UFM Section 11,Part 1. This standard is met through the following conditions of approval. Prior to commencing any site work,the project landscape architect must perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. The project landscape architect must perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the Urban Forestry Plan, and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 2. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan must be guaranteed and required in compliance with the tree establishment requirements in UFM Section 11,Part 2. Section 11, Part 2, Subsection A of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any site work, the applicants must provide a tree establishment bond for all on-site trees to be planted per the approved urban forestry plan. Therefore, a condition of approval is added to address this requirement. This standard will be met through conditions. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicants must provide a tree establishment bond that meets ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 54 OF 88 the requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11, Part 2. This bond amount will be for newly planted trees. 3. Spatial and species-specific data must be collected in compliance with the urban forestry inventory requirements in UFM Section 11,Part 3 for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan and supplemental report of a previously approved urban forestry plan. Section 11, Part 3, Subsection B of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any site work, the applicant must provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire Urban Forestry Plan. Therefore, a condition of approval is added to address this requirement. This standard will be met through conditions. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicants must provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan (Urban Forestry Manual, Section 11,Part 3). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all applicable landscaping and screening standards are met or can be through conditions of approval. D. The proposed development complies with all applicable special designation standards, including but not limited to sensitive lands protection; The development does not contain any special designations and no identified Sensitive Lands. The wetland on the site is not a Significant Wetland identified within the Tigard Local Wetland Inventory and so is not regulated by the City of Tigard. This criterion does not apply. E. The proposed development complies with all applicable plan district standards and requirements; and; The development is located within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, however, the standards of that chapter only apply to nonresidential and mixed-use development. This criterion does not apply. F. The proposed development complies with all applicable street and utility standards and requirements. As described below, the proposed development does comply with all applicable street and utility standards or can be made to comply through conditions of approval. This criterion is met. 18.910 Improvement Standards 18.910.020 General Provisions A. Applicability. Unless otherwise provided,construction,reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs, and other public improvements shall occur in compliance with the standards of this title.No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 55 OF 88 public facility requirements established in this chapter and adequate public facilities are available.Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. The proposal includes the construction of new structures,this chapter applies. 18.910.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter,provided, however,that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this chapter are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. 5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements,the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or L Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.020.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 56 OF 88 development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards.In evaluating the impact on the public interest,the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Subsection 18.910.030.E.An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. As shown in the preliminary site plan, the proposed development has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue and an existing public street stub from SW Montage Lane. SW Hall Boulevard is classified as an arterial and is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Southwest 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane are classified as local streets and are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard. As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, are proposed along the applicants' frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter,ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. Improvements must meet the following City of Tigard minimum requirements: SW Hall Boulevard(3 Lane Arterial,half-street improvements): 0 45' minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline 0 30' pavement ■ 12' median/turn lane ■ 12' travel lane ■ 6' bike lane 0 5' planter strip (with curb) 0 10' sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting 0 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW Hall Boulevard frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers, ODOT and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. SW 92nd Avenue(Local Residential,half-street improvements): 0 27' minimum right-of-way dedication from centerline 0 16' pavement(on-street parking, one side) 0 0.5' curb 0 5' planter strip 0 5' sidewalk 0 0.5' public access behind sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 57 OF 88 o 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. SW Montage Lane(Local Residential,full-street improvements): 0 50' minimum right-of-way dedication 0 28' pavement(on-street parking, one side) o (2) 0.5' curb o (2) 5' planter strip o (2) 5' sidewalk o (2) 0.5' public access behind sidewalk o Street trees o Street lighting 0 8' public utility easement across road frontage, outside of right-of-way ■ Franchise utilities may be placed under the sidewalk within the public right- of-way along the SW Montage Lane frontage with written approval from all affected franchise utility providers and the City of Tigard. Utility locations are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. o Cul-de-sac bulb minimum requirements for SW Montage Lane terminus (residential zone): ■ 47' minimum radius right-of-way width ■ 40' minimum paved width ■ 6' minimum curb-tight sidewalk width 0 8' multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path (MUP) connection within a public access easement between SW Montage Lane terminus and SW Hall Boulevard The applicants have proposed street improvements, including additional street width, along the applicants' frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter,ODOT Highway Design Manual(HDM) standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. SW Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). According to comments received from ODOT(ODOT Response Letter#8942 dated April 29,2021), ODOT staff have met with the applicants'civil engineer several times to discuss the conceptual layout for the improvements within highway right of way. The applicants' submitted civil plan sheet #105 shows the layout for improvements on SW Hall Blvd which is consistent with input from ODOT. The plan sheet identifies that additional right of way is necessary to construct improvements within the highway right of way. ODOT recommends that the City of Tigard require the applicant to donate right of way to ODOT consistent with applicants' civil plan sheet #105. As discussed with the applicants,the ODOT Highway Design Manual standard left turn lane is 14-feet,so the applicants are required to obtain a Design Exception from ODOT for the proposed 12-ft left turn lane. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 58 OF 88 Prior to commencing any site work,the applicants must obtain all required approvals and permits for construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance with the ODOT Response Letter#8942 (dated April 29, 2021). According to a memorandum provided by the applicants on June 10, 2021, from Wendie L. Kellington, the applicants established that the extension of SW Montage Lane for a full street connection to SW Hall Boulevard, in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.H.,is not roughly proportional to the impact of the development. The draft traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicants,dated May 19,2020,establishes that the development is expected to generate an average of 484 daily trips,of which 80%of the site trips are estimated to be distributed to/from the proposed site access to SW Hall Boulevard and 20% of the site trips are estimated to be distributed to the private driveway connection at SW Montage Lane. A more recent traffic analysis prepared and submitted in the Kittelson final January 4, 2021 Traffic Impact Analysis is based upon closer study and national and local sources of information and supersedes the draft May 19, 2020 traffic analysis. Specifically, the Kittelson final January 4, 2021 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) provided a trip distribution estimate supported by more detailed data and analysis. That January 4, 2021 final TIA establishes that only 5% of site trips are projected to use SW Montage Lane and SW 92nd Avenue to access the site and that equates to 2 weekday AM peak hour trips (1 entering and I exiting) and 3 weekday PM peak hour trips (1 entering and 2 exiting). The City Council finds that even assuming 20%of the site traffic could use SW Montage Lane as contemplated in the applicants draft May 19, 2020 TIA, that would result in 10 PM peak hour trips (4 entering, 6 exiting) traveling on SW Montage Lane and 92nd Ave. Therefore, the City Council agrees that the impacts of this proposed development are not proportional to the costs of a public through-street connection in this location. Some public testimony raised concerns regarding the amount off-site traffic expected to use SW Montage Lane to access the site, arguing that much greater trip distribution should be assumed from the proposal to SW Montage Lane and 92nd Ave. However, the City Council finds that the applicants adequately responded to these concerns in the March 28, 2022, 2nd Open Record Period Testimony memorandum prepared by Kittelson&Associates, Inc. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L, a cul-de-sac is required when strict adherence to other standards in the code precludes a full street connection and through circulation. Here the requirements of rough proportionality foreclose the city from requiring the full street improvement that the code contemplates. TDC 18.910.020(A). Therefore, a cul-de-sac is required in its place. As required by City Code,all cul-de-sacs must terminate with a turnaround. The applicants have provided the required cul-de-sac for the public terminus of SW Montage Lane with the required minimum widths for street characteristics in accordance with Tigard Community Development Code Table 18.910.1. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.040, while the full street connection is improper for the city to exact, the applicants' preliminary site plan provides the required eight-foot multiple use path connection within a public access easement in accordance with the standards of this chapter. Some commentors asked the city to require a street through the site from SW Montage Ave to Hall Boulevard; others objected to any traffic on SW Montage Ave., presumably objecting to extending Montage as a through street between SW Montage and Hall. Regardless, there is no serious dispute that the city cannot demand a street through the site under the Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994)United States Supreme Court holding that such an exaction ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 59 OF 88 can only be required if the city demonstrates rough proportionality to justify the exaction. Similarly, to impose an exaction,the city must establish that there is an essential nexus between the posited cut through-street and the proposed Cedarbrook Senior Assisted Living and Memory Care facility to support an exaction under Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n., 483 US 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). As the Oregon Court of Appeals has explained,Nollan requires that there be a government interest that could form the basis for denial of an application that is substantially impeded by the impacts that flow from a project. Hill v. City of Portland, 293 Or App 283, 289-90 (2018) (citing,Nollan, 483 US at 835-36). Here, the proposal is for a unified assisted living—memory care facility located in a single building occupying much of the site. It requires no more than direct driveway access to Hall Blvd. and to Montage Ln., which is what is proposed, and then requires adequate on-site circulation for parking and deliveries, which is also proposed. The Council finds that neither an essential nexus nor rough proportionality can be shown to justify an exaction of a cut through street through the subject property. An exaction cannot be required if it does not meet constitutional tests. Dudek v. Umatilla County, 187 Or App 504, 69 P3d 751 (2003) (affirming county decision not to enforce a provision of its ordinance and not to impose a related condition due to disproportional relationship between development impacts and costs of condition);Hill v. City of Portland,293 Or App 283,285,428 P3d 986(2018)("the city cannot evade the requirement that it demonstrate that the impacts of a particular proposal substantially impede a legitimate governmental interest so as to permit the denial of a permit outright, simply by defining approval criteria that do not take into account a proposal's impacts."); Kingsley v. City of Portland, 55 Or LUBA 256,267-68 (2007),aff'd 218 Or App 229 (2008) (same); McClure v. City of Springfield, 37 Or LUBA at 769("We agree with both parties that the fact that an exaction is required by city ordinance is irrelevant to whether an exaction is imposed pursuant to that ordinance is in fact roughly proportional to the impacts of development."). (Emphasis added.) Only impacts that reasonably flow from the proposed development can be mitigated by demanded exactions. McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 764 (citing, Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or App 220, 228, 884 P2d 569 (1994). The city is not allowed to consider benefits to the general public or surrounding neighborhood that will flow from an exaction when evaluating rough proportionality for an exaction. Art Picullel Group, 142 Or App at 337 n 4;McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 771; Carver v. City of Salem, 42 Or LUBA at 334-35. Likewise, the fact that an applicant may have known that an exaction might be sought, does not support an exaction. McClure 1, 37 Or LUBA at 770. A single erroneous finding that plays a significant role in the required constitutional analysis can lead to reversal of a decision on constitutional grounds. Art Picullel Group, 142 Or App at 335. Oregon courts have been clear that when a city standard would lead to an impermissible exaction on development,the decision maker can decide not to apply the standard that would impose the exaction. Dudek v. Umatilla County, 187 Or App 504, 506, 69 P3d 751 (2003); Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, 58 Or LUBA 235, 241(2009). That is what the city must do here. The Council understands that before the City can impose conditions of approval demanding exactions to include either land dedications or demands for construction of street improvements,that the city must perform the analysis required by Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, supra, and Dolan v. City of Tigard,supra. As a result,neither a demand for unconstitutional conditions nor denying an application for housing because the developer will not accede to unconstitutional conditions are allowed. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 60 OF 88 Therefore,the burden of demonstrating that an exaction satisfies constitutional requirements rests upon the city; it is not an applicant's burden to show that a condition is unconstitutional. Dolan 512 US at 391. Relatedly, ORS 197.796(4) states "In any challenge to a condition of approval that is subject to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the local government shall have the burden of demonstrating compliance with the constitutional requirements for imposing the condition." The Court of Appeals discussed the government's burden in Art Piculell Group v. Clackamas County, 142 Or App 327, 331, 922 P2d 1227(1996): "Dolan's test also is more rigorous for the government because it places the burden on the government in the first instance to justify the condition as sufficiently proportionate,rather than giving the property owner the initial burden to demonstrate the lack of the necessary relationship between the impacts of the development and the condition imposed." The city's code in TCDC 18.910.020(A)recognizes these legal principles and states that the city may require an applicant to dedicate land or construct a cut-through street through the applicant's property, "only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development." (Emphasis supplied.) Applying these principles, the city's professional staff and planning commission have acknowledged that the city cannot demonstrate rough proportionality to support a demand for a cut-through street exaction through the property,and there is no serious claim otherwise. Some commentors argued that the City must ignore the Supreme Court's Dolan holding because it is not "clear and objective" or should simply require a public street connection, but call it a "private street"to avoid constitutional requirements that apply to exactions of private property for public use. However, these commentators ask the city to do what it may not. If the city imposes a requirement for the construction of a street that the public can use to cut through from Montage Lane to Hall Boulevard,that is an exaction subject to the constitutional rules of Dolan v. City of Tigard. Some commentators argued that the city code does not allow the city to require a cul-de-sac instead of a cut through street through the site. They are mistaken. TCDC 18.910.030(L) says that a cul- de-sac is allowed when "other standards in this code preclude street extension and circulation." This is the situation presented here. TCDC 18.910.030(H)(2) says a street connection "is considered precluded" when it is "not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide the required extensions." It is not possible for the city to redesign or reconfigure the street patten to provide a street cutting through the applicant's site without violating the city code and the United States and Oregon Constitutions. As noted above, TCDC 18.910.020(A) makes clear that the city may not require the applicant to dedicate land or construct a cut-through street through the property, stating: "Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development." Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final plat; however, the council may approve the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 61 OF 88 creation of a street by acceptance of a deed,provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of 1 acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or partitions. c. The street is located within the mixed use central business district (MU-CBD) zone and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name "the public" as grantee. As shown in the preliminary civil plans submitted, the applicants have proposed dedication of right- of-way along the SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd Avenue through dedication deed in accordance with the standards of this chapter. This standard is met. C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207. 2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.920.030.H and I. The applicants have not proposed an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this chapter as the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. This standard is not applicable. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 62 OF 88 D. Street location,width and grade. Except as noted below,the location,width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets,to topographic conditions,to public convenience and safety,and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in compliance with Subsection 18.910.030.N; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission,if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. As shown in the preliminary civil plans, street improvements, including additional street width, are proposed along the applicants' frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter and ODOT Standards. There is an existing street stub for SW Montage Lane located at the western property boundary for the proposed development. As stated in Section 18.910.030.D.2, where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development must provide for the continuation of existing streets in the surrounding area. As discussed above, the City Council concurs with city staff and the applicants that a full, public street connection is not proportional to the impacts of the development. In such cases where a street extension and through circulation are precluded, Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L requires a cul-de-sac. Pursuant to City Code, all cul-de-sacs must terminate with a turnaround. The applicants have provided the required cul-de-sac. See findings under Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L. This standard is met. E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Tigard Downtown Plan District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are provided in Table 18.910.1. The approval authority shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 63 OF 88 1. The type of road as provided in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter - functional street classification. 2. Anticipated traffic generation. 3. On-street parking needs. 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements. 5. Requirements for placement of utilities. 6. Street lighting. 7. Drainage and slope impacts. 8. Street tree location. 9. Planting and landscape areas. 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 11. Access needs for emergency vehicles. Right-of-way and roadway widths for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue,and SW Montage Lane must meet the minimum widths for street characteristics in accordance with Table 18.910.1. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. This standard is met. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition.The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant's request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed,and a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the city engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicants do not propose an application for a subdivision or partition. A future street plan is not required with this application. The City Council finds that SW Montage Lane is not required to be extended to the boundary line of the tract to be developed to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land. This standard is not applicable. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 64 OF 88 G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.920.030.H. Street spacing and access management is discussed under Chapter 18.920, Access, Egress, and Circulation. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways,pre-existing developments,lease provisions,easements,covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15 percent for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities,such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. The proposed development site abuts the stubbed street SW Montage Lane, classified as a local street, on its western boundary. Pursuant to TCDC 18.910.030.H.2, the applicants are required to extend SW Montage Lane unless such extension is precluded. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. The approximate distance between connections on SW 92nd Avenue and SW 90th Avenue along Hall Boulevard is in excess of 750 feet, which exceeds the spacing standard of no more than 530 feet between connections. The applicants identified barriers to the extension of SW Montage Lane based upon constitutional law that would preclude the street extension for the public cul-de-sac terminus. TCDC 18.910.020(A). As discussed above in the findings for TCDC 18.910.030.A, the City Council finds and acknowledges that a full, public street extension would not be roughly proportional to the development's impacts. Where a full street connection is precluded as it is here, the TCDC 18.910.030.L requires a cul-de-sac. The applicants have proposed to extend the street stub of SW ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 65 OF 88 Montage Lane and provide the required public cul-de-sac terminus. The applicants have proposed internal private circulation within the private development site that provides short, direct travel routes and minimizes travel distances within the proposed development. This standard is met. I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 751 unless there is special intersection design, and: 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and 3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. The applicants have not proposed any new intersections of public streets. This criterion does not apply. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width,additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Right-of-way dedication for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane must be provided in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter is required. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. This standard is met. K. Partial street improvements.Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet,while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. Partial street improvements are not proposed. Street improvements for SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane (terminating in the approved cul-de-sac) in accordance with the minimum standards of this chapter are required. This standard is not applicable. L. Cul-de-sacs.A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: 1. All cul-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular shall be approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the 2 streets to the radius point of the bulb. 3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the city. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 66 OF 88 The applicants are not required to extend SW Montage Lane as a public street because such full extension would not be roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Because full street extension and through circulation is precluded, the applicants are required to provide a cul-de-sac pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.910.030.L. As shown in the preliminary site plans,the applicants have proposed to extend the street stub of SW Montage Lane and provide the required public cul-de-sac terminus. This standard is met. M. Street names.No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County,except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the City Engineer. The proposed development does not propose new street names. This criterion does not apply. N. Grades and Curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10 percent on arterials, 12 percent on collector streets,or 12 percent on any other street(except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The existing street grade will not be changed with development. Grades are not proposed in excess of 10 percent on arterials or 12 percent on any other street. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair,bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04, Work in the Right-of-Way, and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except: 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with city engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city configuration standards. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in compliance with standards specified in this chapter and Chapter 15.04,Work in the Right-of-Way. This standard is applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: 1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 67 OF 88 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5. If a lot has access to 2 streets with different classifications,primary access should be from the lower classification street. The proposed development has frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, an arterial street under the jurisdiction of ODOT.The preliminary site plan has provided driveway access to SW Hall Boulevard. The driveway has been designed to minimize traffic conflicts. The applicants have proposed street improvements,including additional street width,along the applicants'frontage on SW Hall Boulevard in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter,ODOT Highway Design Manual(HDM) standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. This standard is met. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. The applicants'narrative acknowledges their intent to comply with this requirement.It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least 2 dwelling units. 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on the preliminary plat or development plan,and shall be approved by the City Engineer/U.S.Post Office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer/U.S. Post Office prior to final approval. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in compliance with regulations adopted by the city's direction. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must provide a photometric analysis for the review and approval. The applicant must submit plans showing the location of streetlights and the type and color of pole and light fixture for review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 68 OF 88 recommended values and requirements described in ANSVIESNA. All public streetlights must be PGE Option B. Through a condition of approval,this standard is met. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within 1 year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed or 3 years from the commencement of initial construction of the development,whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; 3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city final acceptance of the roadway; however,not before 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed unless 3 years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1.5 inches in thickness. The development will require frontage improvements along SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane; therefore, this section is applicable. Street improvements along SW Hall Boulevard must be completed by the applicants and accepted by ODOT, which is the agency with jurisdiction of SW Hall Boulevard along the proposed development frontage. Street improvements along SW 92nd Avenue and SW Montage Lane must be completed by the applicants and accepted by the City. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the proposed development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the City Engineer determines that the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic calming measures. The City Engineer will determine the amount of funds required and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy,or in the case of a subdivision,the date of final plat approval. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 69 OF 88 Any funds not used by the city within the 5-year time period will be refunded to the developer. A Transportation Impact Study (prepared by Kittleson & Associates, dated January 4, 2021) was submitted by the applicant(Exhibit K).Based on the traffic analysis study submitted by the applicants' traffic engineer, traffic calming is not proposed or deemed necessary for the proposed development. The City Council agrees with this fmding and finds the applicants evidence in this regard credible and reliable. This standard is not applicable. CC. Traffic study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10 percent or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3000 v d 2,000 v d 3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more A final Transportation Impact Study(prepared by Kittleson&Associates,dated January 4,202 1)was submitted by the applicant (Exhibit K). The TIA concludes that the proposed assisted living and memory care facility is estimated to generate 512 average daily trips, 37 weekday AM peak hour trips, and 51 weekday PM peak hour trips. In addition to the required half-street improvements on SW Hall Boulevard,the applicants'final traffic report recommendations included the widening of SW Hall Boulevard to provide a center left turn lane that extends along the entire frontage, plus for a distance of approximately 150 feet west and 200 feet east. This standard is met. Some public testimony questioned use of trip data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, rather than locally collected data. The applicants responded to these concerns in the March 28,2022,2nd Open Record Period Testimony memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Staff also agreed with that analysis that using ITE trip generation data was appropriate. The Kittelson response explains that trip data for the January 4, 2021 Transportation Impact Analysis(TIA)was sourced from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition,in compliance with City Code and standard industry practice. The City Council agrees. Per the City of Tigard TMC 18.660.040.B.3.a.i: "The City Engineer will determine whether the proposed development is estimated to generate any new vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle trips using the best available data and analysis, including but not limited to the ITE Trip Generation Manual or a Transportation Impact Study prepared by a transportation engineer licensed in the State of Oregon." This is further evidence that the use of ITE data is appropriate for this project and the City Council so finds. If a proposed land use is not represented in the Manual, collection of local data may be necessary as stated in the Manual's guidance. However, in the case of the proposed development application, the Manual provides data for land use code 254 (Assisted Living) that is directly applicable. The Assisted Living trip data in the Manual includes at least one site in the Portland, ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 70 OF 88 Oregon, area. In addition to peak hour trip generation data, the Manual also provides a daily trip generation rate that accounts for off-peak shift changes. Both peak hour and daily trip estimates were documented in the Kittelson reports. As such, the City Council finds that the applicants adequately responded to these public concerns regarding the use of ITE trip data and the City Council finds their response credible and persuasive. 18.910.040 Blocks A. Block design.The length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or rights-of-way shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by Paragraph 18.910.040.B.1. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The existing block perimeter bounded by SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92"d Avenue, SW Borders Street and SW 95d' Avenue is approximately 2,700 feet, which exceeds the maximum perimeter length of 2,000 feet. The block length standard for maximum of 2,000 feet is not applicable for blocks adjacent to an arterial street, which is the classification of SW Hall Boulevard. However, when an applicant is exempted from the 2,000-foot block length because of its adjacency to an arterial street, the applicant must provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection in accordance with the standards of this chapter. While the full street connection is exempted by rough proportionality as described in the findings for Section 18.910.030.A,the applicants'preliminary site plan has provided the required eight-foot multi-use path connection within a public access easement in accordance with the standards of this chapter. This standard is met. The City Council notes that several commentators requested that we require the applicants to provide a cross walk at Hall Boulevard. However, both staff and the applicants testified that ODOT is unlikely to allow a cross walk and the decision belongs to ODOT because Hall Boulevard is an ODOT facility. No applicable city standard in the city's acknowledged land use rules allows the City Council to require the applicants to install a crosswalk on this ODOT transportation facility and the City Council declines to do so. 18.910.050 Easements ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 71 OF 88 A. Easements.Easements for sewers,drainage,water mains,electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or City Engineer. Drawings indicating preliminary easement widths and locations have been provided to the City. Coordination will be performed with the City of Tigard, ODOT and CWS during the final construction drawing phase to make sure all required easements are provided as the impacted jurisdictions require. The proposed development is not traversed by a watercourse or drainage way. The development will require an eight-foot public utility easement along all road frontages,outside of the right-of-way.The required eight-foot wide PUE will be required as requested,unless private utilities are placed directly in the public ROW under the sidewalk. This will be achieved along Hall Blvd. Both ODOT and the City or Tigard staff have indicated support for this utility placement. The property owner has made arrangements with both the City and ODOT as necessary for required utility easements. Prior to final building inspection,the applicants must record all utility easements including for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the City. The applicants submitted preliminary plans for storm drainage and a preliminary drainage report. The applicant has provided the minimum 15-foot-wide public utility easement as required by CWS standards for conveyance of public stormwater through the site from the existing stormwater facility located immediately west of the proposed development. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit all right-of-way dedication documents, utility easements,public access easements and maintenance agreements for City review and approval. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all right-of-way dedication documents, utility easements,public access easements and maintenance agreements and provide recorded copies to the City. Through the conditions of approval, this standard is met. 18.910.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks.All public and private streets adjacent to industrially zoned properties shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least 1 side of the street.All other public and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 72 OF 88 street.A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. Sidewalk improvements are required along the development frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. As shown in the preliminary civil plans, sidewalks are proposed along the applicants' frontage on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92nd Avenue in preliminary accordance with the standards of this in accordance with the standards of this chapter, ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards, and the City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards. Through conditions of approval, this standard is met. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 0.50 miles of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks,libraries,etc.).In addition,the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. As shown in the preliminary civil plans,the applicants'proposed sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk located to the west along SW Hall Boulevard. This standard is met. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least 5 feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas,etc.)that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.910.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. A planter strip separation of a least five feet between the curb and sidewalk is required in the design of the frontage improvements along SW Hall Boulevard, SW 92nd Avenue, and SW Montage Lane. See findings in Section 18.910.030.A. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 73 OF 88 D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. The property owner will take full responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips. This standard is applicable. E. Application for permit and inspection. Separate street opening permits are required for sidewalk segments that are not part of a current subdivision approval: 1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provisions of this section are satisfied. 2. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time; b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk; c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on 1 or both sides of the street; or d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible. 3. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit a Public Facility Improvement(PFI) Permit to cover all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four(4) sets of detailed public improvement plans must be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater quality and water quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities are required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvement must be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement Permit plans must conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ti arg dor.gov). Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must obtain all required approvals and permits for construction from all necessary agencies, including but not limited to, ODOT in accordance with the ODOT Response Letter#8942 (dated April 29,2021). Through the conditions of approval,this standard is met. 18.910.090 Sanitary Sewers ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 74 OF 88 A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements and the-comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the approval authority where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. The preliminary utility plan provided by the applicant shows connection to an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main located within SW Hall Boulevard. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final building inspection, the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities must be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. No oversizing of sanitary sewer is proposed deemed necessary. Through conditions of approval,this standard is met. 18.910.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible,inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The applicants proposed a storm water drainage system separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system.Inlets are provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection. Surface water drainage patterns are shown on the development proposal plan. These criteria are met. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right- ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 75 OF 88 of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The development is not traversed by a watercourse or drainageway. This standard is not applicable. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage.A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the City Engineer. D. Effect on downstream drainage.Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in compliance with Clean Water Services requirements. A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. The applicants have proposed to meet CWS standards for water quality and water quantity through a combination of an onsite storm filter cartridges and underground detention.As shown on the preliminary civil set,the stormwater system will outfall at the southeast corner of the proposed development. The applicant submitted preliminary plans for storm drainage and a preliminary drainage report. The applicant has provided preliminary civil plans showing the required public utility easement as required by CWS standards for conveyance of public stormwater through the site. See findings in Section 18.910.050. The applicants' preliminary drainage report also provides calculations and a conceptual plan for meeting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SLOPES V standards for stormwater requirements for site impacts to the wetlands. Final approval of stormwater design details is subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities,grading,water quality and quantity facilities,streetlights,easements,easement locations,and utility connections for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer's review,modification, and approval. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit site plans and a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated, and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report must be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans must be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The City will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a performance bond for all stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 76 OF 88 Prior to final building inspection all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities must be provided with two years of maintenance and entered into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. Through the conditions of approval,this standard is met. 18.910.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city's adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the City Engineer unless specified in Table 18.910.1. 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this chapter and on the adopted bicycle plan. The City's Transportation System Plan identifies bike lanes along SW Hall Boulevard, consistent with the arterial street section. The required half street frontage improvements will include widening the pavement cross section to provide a future bike lane. This standard is met. 18.910.120 Utilities A. Underiround utilities.All utility lines including,but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility facilities, and: ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 77 OF 88 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common,but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 3. Properties within the MU-CBD zone shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in Paragraphs 18.910.120.C.1 through 3 shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city.All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this chapter. 2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis. 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the city at large. The City Engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the city. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the city council for their review and approval annually. The applicants'narrative has indicated intent to comply with the requirement for all existing overhead utilities along the project frontage and proposed new utilities to be placed underground. A fee-in-lieu of undergrounding is not proposed by the applicant. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 78 OF 88 Prior to final building inspection,the applicant must place all existing and proposed utilities underground. Through the conditions of approval,this standard is met. 18.910.130 Cash or Bond Required A. Guarantee. All improvements installed by the developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of 1 year following acceptance by the city council. B. Cash deposit or bond. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. Compliance requirements. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.830.070. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicants must provide a performance bond for all public improvements and private stormwater treatment facilities associated with the development. Prior to building inspection, all improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction must be constructed, completed and/or satisfied. The applicant must obtain conditional acceptance from the City and provide a two- year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to final building inspection, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, communication, and wireless must be completed. Private storm water quality and quantity facilities, the applicant must provide a two-year maintenance assurance and enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the City. Through the conditions of approval,this standard is met. 18.910.140 Monuments—Replacement Required Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final acceptance of the improvements. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.150 Installation Prerequisite A. Approval required. No public improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans have been approved by the city, permit fee paid, and permit issued. B. Permit fee. The permit fee is required to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the city for construction and other services in connection with the improvement. The permit fee shall be set by council resolution. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 79 OF 88 The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.170 Plan Check A. Submittal requirements. Work shall not begin until construction plans and construction estimates have been submitted and checked for adequacy and approved by the City Engineer in writing.The developer can obtain detailed information about submittal requirements from the City Engineer. B. Compliance.All such plans shall be prepared in compliance with requirements of the city. Improvements associated with public infrastructure including street and right-of-way dedication, utilities,grading,water quality and quantity facilities,streetlights,easements,easement locations,and utility connections must be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services(CWS)Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Codes,Municipal Codes • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue(TVF&R)Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit the exact legal name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the"Permittee",and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. and the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information will delay processing of project documents. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking must be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and must include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the Conditions of Approval and the PFI permitting process. 18.910.180 Notice to City A. Commencement.Work shall not begin until the city has been notified in advance. B. Resumption. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the city is notified. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 80 OF 88 18.910.190 City Inspection of Improvements Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the city. The city may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. The applicants'narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. 18.910.200 Engineer's Written Certification Required The developer's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the city that all improvements, workmanship, and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to city acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. The applicants' narrative has acknowledged intent to comply with this requirement. It is feasible and possible to meet this standard through the PFI permitting process. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the applicable improvement standards have not been fully met,but can be through conditions of approval. 18.920 Access,Egress and Circulation 18.920.020 Applicability A. Applicability.The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures,the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access requirements. This application is for residential development(the application is for the development of housing,but not of dwelling units as the city defines dwelling units as explained elsewhere in this Decision),which is considered development. Accordingly, the provisions of Chapter 18.920 Access, Egress and Circulation apply. 18.920.030 General Provisions B. Access plan requirements. No land use approval or development permit shall be approved or issued until plans are approved, as provided by this chapter that demonstrate how access,egress, and circulation requirements are to be met. The applicants have submitted a preliminary civil plan containing proposed access, egress, and circulation routes through the site. See findings in Section 18.920.030.I. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Subsections 18.920.030.11,I and J shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 81 OF 88 As shown in the preliminary site plan, all vehicular access will be via public street. This standard is met. E. Surfacing. Driveways and drive aisles must be paved with a dust-free, hard-surfaced material,or utilize a turf grid or open joint pavers. As shown on the preliminary civil plan, the proposed driveways and drive aisles are paved. This standard is met. G. Pedestrian access.Paths for pedestrian access and circulation are required to,through, and sometimes between development sites. Path standards are provided in 18.200 Residential Development Standards, 18.300 Nonresidential Development Standards, and Chapter 18.410, Off-Street Parking and Loading. Additional standards may also apply if the site is located in a plan district. The development meets the requirements of Chapter 18.230, Apartments, and Chapter 18.410, Off- Street Parking and Loading, as discussed in this Decision. This standard is met. H. Inadequate or hazardous access. 1. Applications for development permits will be referred to the Director for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed: a. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or b. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or c. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist that would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets from single detached house lots is discouraged. Direct access to collector or arterial streets will be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. If direct access is allowed by the city,the applicant will be required to mitigate for any safety or neighborhood traffic management(NTM) impacts deemed applicable by the City Engineer. This may include, but will not be limited to, the construction of a vehicle turnaround on the site to eliminate the need for a vehicle to back out onto the roadway. 3. The design of the service drive or drives must not require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single detached houses are exempt from this requirement. As shown on the applicants'preliminary civil drawings,the applicants have provided the required cul- de-sac terminus per Section 18.910.030.L within the public right-of-way for the extension of SW Montage Lane. The City Council finds that the proposed development does not propose inadequate or hazardous access. The applicants have not proposed direct individual access to the arterial for a single detached house lot. The design of the service does not require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street. This standard is met. L Access management. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 82 OF 88 1. An access report must be submitted with all new development that verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance, and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city, and AASHTO(depending on jurisdiction of facility). 2. Driveways must not be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection is 150 feet, measured from the right- of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area,as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer.In a case where a development has less than 150 feet of street frontage,the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent lot. If shared access is not possible or practicable, the driveway must be placed as far from the intersection as possible. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector is 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial is 600 feet. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street is 125 feet. The applicants have submitted a preliminary civil plan and traffic study containing proposed access, egress, and circulation routes through the site. Preliminary civil plans have been submitted by the applicants to demonstrate preliminary compliance with the access, egress, and circulation requirements of this chapter. The proposed driveways are not located in the influence area of a collector or arterial street. The applicants have proposed one driveway off of SW Hall Boulevard, two driveways off of SW Montage Lane and two driveways off of SW 92nd Avenue. The proposed driveways meet the minimum spacing requirements based on the respective functional classifications. This City Council finds that standard is met. J. Minimum access requirements for residential uses. 1. Vehicle access and egress for residential uses must comply with the standards provided in Table 18.920.1. 2. Vehicular access to apartment structures must be within 50 feet of the first-story entrance or the first-story landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units; 3. Private residential access drives must be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code. 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length must be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is 5 percent. 5. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 83 OF 88 directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. 6. Where allowed, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets must be at least 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. The proposed development requires one driveway that must comply with the standards provided in Table 18.920.1. Vehicular access to apartment structures must be within 50 feet of the first-story entrance or the first-story landing of a stairway,ramp, or elevator leading to the development. Private residential access drives must be provided and maintained in compliance with the Oregon Fire Code. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length must be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicants must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow,hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. The proposed driveway to SW Hall Boulevard is at least 20 feet in width. This standard can be met through conditions of approval and the PFI permitting process. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the applicable access, egress, and circulation standards have not been met,but can be through conditions of approval. 18.930 Vision Clearance Areas 18.930.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to all development, including the construction of new structures,the remodeling of existing structures,and to a change of use that increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or changes the access requirements. The proposed development includes construction of new structures. This chapter applies. 18.930.030 Vision Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the MU-CBD zone, a vision clearance area must be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited.A clear vision area must be maintained free of vehicles,hedges, plantings,fences,wall structures,and temporary or permanent obstructions(except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding 3 feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade. Trees exceeding 3 feet in height may be located in this area, provided all branches below 8 feet are removed. C. Additional topographical constraints. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures, and temporary or permanent obstructions must be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 84 OF 88 The vision clearance requirements of this chapter are applicable. The applicant has proposed private driveways on SW Hall Boulevard, SW Montage Lane, and SW 92"d Avenue. See findings in 18.930.040. The City Council finds that all vision clearance standards are met. Some commentors argued otherwise,but there is no evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the proposal as it is currently proposed fails to meet any vision clearance area requirements. 18.930.040 Computations A. Arterial streets. The vision clearance area is not less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. B. Non-arterial streets. 1. Non-arterial streets 24 feet or more in width. At all intersections of 2 non-arterial streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where at least 1 of the streets or driveways is 24 feet or more in width, the vision clearance area is a triangle formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points that are 30 feet distance from the intersection of the right-of-way line and measured along such lines. See Figure 18.930.1. 2. Non-arterial streets less than 24 feet in width.At all intersections of two non-arterial streets, a non-arterial street and a driveway, and a non-arterial street or driveway and railroad where both streets or driveways are less than 24 feet in width,the vision clearance area is a triangle whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of-way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of single detached houses, and 30 feet back from the property line on all other types of uses. The proposed development has frontage on a both an arterial and a non-arterial street. This standard is applicable. As shown on the applicants'preliminary site plan, vision clearance triangles have been established at the intersections of the new proposed driveways in preliminary accordance with the standards of this chapter. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must submit a Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must submit a Final Sight Distance Certification for review and approval. Through the conditions of approval,this standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the applicable vision clearance areas standards have not been fully met but can be met through conditions of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis in this report,the all applicable site development review criteria have not been fully met but can be met through conditions of approval. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 85 OF 88 ADDITIONAL CITY AND AGENCY REQUIREMENTS: Easements: Prior to final building inspection, the applicant must record all public access and utility easements including for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and franchise utilities and provide recorded copies to the City. Fire and Life Safety: Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must provide written approval from TVF&R for fire flow,hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. Public Water System: The existing public water mains are under the jurisdiction of Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD). The site plans indicate that services will be provided to serve the proposed development via the existing public water main located on SW Hall Boulevard. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant must obtain approvals and permits from Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD)for all proposed and/or extensions of public water lines,hydrants,and water services prior to issuance of city permits. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management regulations established by CWS Design and Construction which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. In addition, a maintenance plan must be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant must obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI permit. Plans must be submitted to the city for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Grading and Erosion Control: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Prior to commencing any site work,the applicant must submit an erosion control plan for review and approval. The plan must comply to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual"(current edition). The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. The site is greater than one acre. Prior to commencing any site improvements, the applicants must submit a final grading plan the existing and proposed contours. The plan must detail the provisions for surface drainage of the ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 86 OF 88 site and show that it will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. The design engineer must also indicate, on the grading plan, areas that will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as areas that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and permits will be necessary upon development. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for the approval of new street names and assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. Contact Oscar Contreras with Engineering Division at 503-718- 2678 to ensure new addresses are assigned. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant must pay the addressing fee. The address fee will be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department was sent a copy of the applicants'proposal and stated they had no objections to this proposal. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Staff sent request for comments on this project on March 30, 2021 and October 26, 2021. The following agency comments were received: Clean Water Services issued a Service Provider Letter (CWS file 20-003178) stating the development site contains a wetland and vegetated corridor in degraded condition. The agency also submitted written comments, dated April 22, 2021, stating that a storm water connection permit is required. The Decision has been conditioned to comply with CWS requirements. Comcast was sent a copy of the applicants' proposal and stated that any relocations needed will be responsibility of developer. Oregon Department of State Lands was sent a copy of the applicants' proposal and stated that jurisdiction wetlands existing on the property(WD2018-00493).Based on the site plan it appears that the wetlands will be impacted by the development and a state permit is required. In addition,approval from the Army Corps of Engineers may also be required.A condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply to obtain all required agency approvals. ODOT was sent a copy of the applicants' proposal and stated that donation of right-of-way on SW Hall Boulevard will be required and improvements on SW Hall Boulevard will require approval by ODOT. A condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply to obtain all required agency approvals. Pride Disposal was sent a copy of the applicants'proposal and stated that Waste Management is the provider. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 87 OF 88 Tualatin Valley Water District was sent a copy of the applicants'proposal and stated they had no objections to this proposal. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicants'proposal and responded on April 15, 2021. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided comments regarding Fire Apparatus Access, Firefighting Water Supplies, Fire Hydrants, and Building Access and Fire Service Features. A condition of approval has been added that requires the applicant to comply with all TVF&R standards. Washington County was sent a copy of the applicants' proposal and provided a copy of the pre- application notes that the applicant previously had with the County. The County stated that these would no longer apply if the property is annexed into the City. ZCA2021-00001 CEDARBROOK PAGE 88 OF 88