Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR2005-00002 Decision - REFUGE @ FANNO CREEK
1 20 DAYS = I /24/2006 CITY OF TIGARD DATE OF FILING: 12/22/05 Community Development ShapingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER File Numbers: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 2005-00002 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEWS SLR 2005-00017,18,19 & 20 ADJUSTMENTS VAR 2005-00055 & 56. File Name: REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK Owner's Name: MBM Holdings Company, LLC Applicant's Name/Address: Spectrum Development PO Box 3440 Wilsonville Oregon 97070 Address of Property: 10225 SW North Dakota Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Ma /Lot Nos.: Washington Count Tax Assessor's Ma No. 1S135BC Tax Lot 1200 A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, FOUR SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEWS AND TWO ADJUSTMENTS. THE CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER,, 14, 2005 AND DECEMBER 12, 2005 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Request: ➢ A request for Site Development Review approval to construct two commercial office buildings totaling 26,000 square feet and three, 3-plex buildings equaling nine residential units on an 8.33 acre site. Sensitive Lands Review is required as the subject site has slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, wetlands, and 100-year floodplain. The applicant is also requesting an Adjustment to the required access width from 24 feet to 22 feet and an Adjustment to the maximum front yard setback standard in the Washington Square Regional Center to increase the setback from 20 feet to approximately 920 feet. At the close of the record on December 12, 2005, the Hearings Officer conditionally approved the applications. ZONE: MUE-2: Mixed Use Employment District - Moderate Density. The MUE-2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of the area. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.630, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as Requested Z Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: 1E Owners of Record Within the Required Distance rx-1 Affected Government Agencies IK The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator Z The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON DECEMBER 27, 2005 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 12, 2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.6.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JANUARY 11, 2006. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER CI'T'E OF TIGARD, OREGON REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR SITE ) FINAL ORDER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL OFFICE ) BUILDINGS TOTALING 26,000 SQUARE FEET ) REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK AND THREE BUILDINGS EQUALING NINE ) RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE MUE-2' ) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEWS (SLR)SLR2005-00017, M XED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT IN ) -00018,-00019,-00020 THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON } ADJUSTMENTS - VAR2005-00055, -00056 COUNTY, OR. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct two commercial office buildings totaling 26,000 square feet and three buildings equaling nine residential units. The subject property has frontage along SW North Dakota Street, between SW Greenburg Road and SW Scholl's Ferry Road.. The subject site has slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, wetlands and 100-year floodplain. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to the required access width from 24 feet to 22 feet and an adjustment to the maximum front yard setback standard in the Washington Square Regional Center to increase the setback from 20 feet to approximately 920 feet. City records indicate a previous land-use case for a 42 unit condominium development with site development review, sensitive lands review and an adjustment to the accessway width from 24 feet to 22 feet. This proposal was withdrawn. No other land.-use cases for this site exist. APPLICANT: Spectrum Development OV lNER: MBM Holding Company, LLC Attn: Peter Kusyk P.O. Box 120 P,O. Box 3440 Newberg, OR 97132-0120 Wilsonville, OR 97070 APPLICANT'S REP: SpA Design Group, LLC Attn: Matthew L. Sprague 9020 SW Washington Square Drive, Suite 350 Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 10225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1 S 135BC, Tax Lot 1200. ,ZONE: MUM-2: Mixed Use Employment Districts. The METE-2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research REFUGIE AT FANNO 9CRE EK(BDR200 02) PAGE I OF 40 and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of the area. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments) 18.630 (Washin on Square Regional Center) 18.705 (Access gress and Circulation) 18.725 nvironmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscapin and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 (Visual Clearance) Specific SDR Approval Criteria 18,360 Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 Impact Study 18.390 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL,, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval and Findings within the November 7, 2005 Staff Report. HEARING AND RECORD The Public Hearing on this matter was held on November 14, 2005 and the record was kept open until December 12, 2005 at the request of the applicant and Mr. John Frewing, an opponent of this application. At the end of the December 12, 2005 hearing y~ the applicant waived their right to havyetl 4~L - iy^.a.eL + Hg~ -M h Y HC1lJ and the 'NG<l.AT!'F was closed ~ f l1 xo~ all the record WW 17 re^llu off all the 1Gwid vpen in. V1tdL1 to file a l~yYlel resp-i testimony received and all the supporting studies, reports and the application are in the custody of the Planning Department of the City of Tigard. As explained at the hearing. The Hearing Officer (HO) has conducted a site visit prior to the Hearing (See summary of testimony below). AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered comments. Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Wetland delineation (WD03-0565) has been approved for this site. Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and issued a service provided letter with conditions. HEARING SUMMARY (Not intended as a verbatim transcript) November 14, 2005 Hearing: Mathew Sche~ the lead City planner on this application, testified that the site has slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, wetlands and a 100-year £loodplain, so sensitive lands review is required. The proposed project meets the relevant density standards. Based on the findings in the REFUGE AT FANNO CREE C(SO 00 OZ) PAGE 2 OF 40 Staff Report, Staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Deport. Peter Kusyk, the applicant's representative, testified that it has been 21 months since this project was started. At one point submission was withdrawn, because they thought it could be done better and now they think that they have now complied with everything in the code. Matt Sprague, the applicant's project manager, testified that with respect to Condition 7 in the Staff Report, we would request that the word "trees" be substituted for "Pacific willows." If the applicant can find suitable Pacific willows, they will, but would fake the option to substitute another type of tree if necessary. Next, there is a small piece of wetland mitigation; City standards do not allow landform alterations in these areas, and the applicant needs, some clarification as to what is expected. Hearing Officer (HO) indicated that he drove by the sight tonight but did not go into it and reported a concern that the sight distance from the proposed entrance to the top of the rise seemed very short. Mr. Sprague replied that perception is odd at that location, currently, but that the entrance to the site will be raised. HO: Apparently Staff resolved the issue by substituting stopping distance for sight distance? Mr. Sprague: That's correct. Judith Grey, the applicants traffic consultant with K.ittleson Associates in Portland, agreed that it is Lrlt`icy, looking at ille current sight distance b -ow that CLL1vewaJ'. Woking ing with a L1Qitlc engL[le6r she found that the current intersection sight distance does not meet the 370-foot County standard'. Stopping sight distance is the distance needed for a car to enter the traffic stream without causing the other cars to brake. The required stopping sight distance is 270 feet, and the intersection has 305 feet of available sight distance. It's not ideal, but it works, for the County's purposes. John Frewin reminded the HO that Code section 18.110 is to ensure that any development be commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land to promote public health, safety, convenience and welfare, to promote and diversify the city economy, to ensure a supply of land for various uses accommodating future growth, to encourage affordable housing, to conserve energy through land use decisions. With that he exhorted that the decision in this matter should consider the purpose of the code section as a whole, not just specific segments. Mr. Frewing then read from his prepared statement, indicating that he had 19 separate comments to submit to the record. His complete remarks are marked Exhibit A, his comments are summarized and responded to under FINDINGS. David Drescher, vice president of Fans of Fanno Creek testified that the Farr work with the City of Tigard to enhance and restore Fanno Creek and improve the watershed. As concisely as possible, Spectrum Development and SFA have given us formal presentations on their plans; ' Per 15.705.030.H.1 sight distance and deceleration standards are set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. REFUGE AT FANNO CREE 5 2) PAGE 3 Of 40 however, there are a number of instances in which our concerns have not been met. According to 18.775, a 50-foot buffer, rather than a 25-foot buffer, should be required for this location, because the habitat is not degraded. He introduced aerial photos dating back to 1936 for the purpose of showing that habitat was in good condition until 2003. He agreed with Mr. Frewing's comments regarding the critical height for fire vehicle access and the reference to the wetland delineations in the wetlands report; it would be helpful to get some clarity on that issue. He added that the proposed driveway has not been used in 50+ years. The evidence shows that the requirements of 18.775 have not been met, and we ask you to deny this application. His remarks and Exhibits are marked as Exhibit B and are responded to under FINDINGS. Brian Weaner testified that he represents Tualatin Diver Keepers. In response to page 12 of the application, provisions for public transportation, what this says is that public transport roust be provided if the project is within 500 feet of the public right-of=way. This project is within 100 feet of the railroad tracks, so this requirement has not been met. On page 16 of the application narrative, there is no evidence that access could not be reasonably achieved to the north. It would be prudent to put the burden of proof on the applicant to show they have made an effort to secure that access. He agreed that emergency access is inadequate, according to the standards set forth by TVFIZ. Also, the main, access road goes through the flood plain and would be flooded during a flood event; There is no evidence that the applicant has the right to excavate under the railbed to increase the access height. On states "the a 1 1d_.f1tl"ifotlll ClGa_VG __aio I1not result It! f1 t _Q.L,arldas to- 1110 page 79, it sG~ that l LI1 proposeu ~7lLleilt -W-111111 111G di1GS property." One concern is that the walls along the driveway could cause offsite effects - erosion - on the far side of the stream. You are not allowed to build walls or fences in the floodway. His comments are responded to under FINDINGS Sued, testified as Vive President of Friends of Summer Creek and indicated that she and her husband have lived near the proposed project site for 15 years and frequently walk the trail on the west side of Fanno Creek. She expressed concern about development along Fanno Creek and would prefer to see the site completely protected. She submitted her written comments to the record (Exhibit C) and then she proceeded to read them.. Her comments are responded to under FINDINGS. In her oral testimony she highlighted that the applicant is requesting a reduction in pavement width from 24 feet to 22 feet for the access road; however, there is no evidence that the option of a northern access has been pursued. The applicant has failed to show why joint access could not be achieved to the north. If the applicant truly wants to protect the natural resources on the site, they would aggressively pursue access to the north, rather than building a 920-foot road bisecting the site. The application should be denied. The application does not meet the dedication of open space requirements or trail requirements. The construction of the 920-foot access road will result in the removal of a large amount of important vegetation in the drainageway. 40 REFUGE AT P'ANNNO C EK(EO 005.9 ►2) PAGE 4 OF Within wetlands, the applicant proposes to alter wetlands at three locations on the site; Staff argues that only one of these areas is significant. However, after inspecting the applicable resource maps, we would argue that all three wetlands should be considered significant. The application goes on to state that the three wetland alterations should be allowed, because they are being done under the direction of the City. This is not true. Landform alterations are not allowed in the floodway; such alterations are subject to a Type IV proceeding. Two of the alterations would result in significant negative impacts, resulting in a loss of wetland habitat for songbirds and other species. The City is required to discourage development of areas designated as significant wetlands. We request that the sensitive lands permit be denied, and that the entire application be denied. With respect to the degraded corridors argument, it is very difficult to determine where those are located, or, in fact, what the overall condition of the wetlands are and how they have been changed. Native vegetation was cleared: from the site in 2003, when the applicant, without the necessary permits, graded and filled the subject area. Portions of the vegetated corridor, however, still contain substantial stands of Pacific willow, much of which will be removed if this application is approved. Again., we ask that it be denied. Finally, there was a stop work order placed on the site, as far as we know, that is still in effect. We ask that that be looked into. Mr, Frewing commented that Ms. Beilke has raised several issues he would lake to respond to in writing and requested a two-week continuance. Mr. Robert VanBrocklin, attorney for the applicant indicated support a continuance, perhaps 21 days, given the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. That would put us to December 5. HO: I think the applicant is entitled to copies of the materials and written testimony submitted tonight. Because of Thanksgiving the matter will be continued until Monday, December 12 at 7 pm. The applicant might have to waive the 120 day rule. Anyone who wants to submit anything in writing prior to the hearing, please do so by December 5 at 5 pm, so that there are no surprise submittals on the day of the hearing. Mr. VanBrocklin: The applicant preserves his rights to submit a final written closing argument. Open Record ]Period: Exhibit D: Mr. Frewing responded on December 5t' arguing that: 1. Alternate access is inadequate because the applicant's easement 950015055 is to the railroad right of way and not under it. 2. The illegal fill on the site has not been resolved 3. The HO takes notice of the Highway 217 Task force which has recently completed a study which somehow conflicts with this proposal. 4. That the ODFW "Fish Passage Criteria" will be violated because the proposed private road will prevent Ash Creek from meandering. A long bridge would not do that. 5. The applicant is not required to improve his North Dakota frontage including the bridge over Fanno Creek, thereby violating 18.810.030. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK(SDR2005-00002) PAGE 5 OF 40 6. There is no proposed parallel road next to the rail right-of=way in violation of 18.810.030P 7. There is inadequate visual clearance to the east along Borth Dakota in violation of 19.795 8. 18.4 is violated when the development creates a 2000 foot block perimeter. Exhibit E: Dated December 3, 2005, Ms. Beilke argues that the "Stop Order" issue needs to be resolved.. She restates her prior argument that CWS was either confused or negligent in issuing the Service provider letter, because they made a determination that the vegetated areas were "degraded" only because the significant amount of vegetation, including native willows, was removed in early 2003. Secondly, the prior fill, for which there is Stop Work Order required a DSL permit and that it could not have been to fix the road, because there was no road there prior to the fill. Thirdly 18.775 would be violated because the wetland delineation is not complete and the annual flooding is not accounted for. A 50-foot buffer is required and the proposed road would violate that standard. The illegal gravel fill has distorted adequate survey of the wetland. Finally the existing culvert for Ash Creek should be removed and the creek restored to its historical meander and that this is the responsibility of this development. Exhibit F: Received December 5, 2005 is SFA response to the issues raised at the first hearing supported by attachments: Technical Memorandum from SWCA Environmental Consultants regarding fish passage, Technical Memorandum from Fishman environmental Services, LLC regarding the location of good buffers, Waste Management Approval Letter, Tigard Significant Wetlands Map and legend, Wetland Delineation Approval from the Department of State Lands, Map, documents relating to Property, Sensitive Area Submittal documents to CWS, Arborist 1Y ap, Original 4..~iY S Application for a Sensitive Area Certification, CVv S rS1. ervice Provider Le6LGr with Map used by CWS for approval, Building Elevations. The substance of that response will be covered in the Findings below. December 12, Hearing: The HD requested Staff testimony, but none was offered. Mr. Scheidegger indicated that the City is not making any changes to their previous findings. HO: One of those findings had to do with the fact that the applicant had not provided information about the height of the buildings; that information has now been submitted, so 1 assume that finding, at least, will need to be changed. Matt 2rague, applicant's representative, stated that the information he submitted tonight is the applicant's rebuttal to the information presented at the initial hearing (It has been marked as Exhibit G). There are several overarching issues the applicant has responded to; the first is wetlands - how they are delineated and mitigated for. There are two impacts on the east side of the accessway, which are not significant. The third impact is west of the accessway. The Ash Creek riparian area is not a significant wetland area, but it is a riparian area. The applicant is making the argument that planting would be allowed within significant wetland areas in this particular case; that would be approved or disapproved by the DSL. All activities within the wetlands are also approved by the City. REFUSE AT FAN is CRE EK(SOR2005- ) PAGE 6 OF 40 Another overarching issue is the alternate access; that access is not required, but it is an opportunity to provide connectivity, primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists, but occasionally by emergency vehicles. HO: And the alternate access will be graded and paved? Mr. Sprague replied in the affirmative and indicated that the alternate access has also been reviewed and approved by T*VFR. The applicant will need to continue to work with the railroad on the access, however. With respect to the buffers, Clean Water Services (CWS) agrees with the applicant about the condition of the buffers. The applicant has received a letter from CWS approving their plan for improving the condition of those buffers. The final Issue is fish migration. The applicant is not arguing about whether or not anadromous fish are present in Ash Creek, but is merely submitting an affidavit that shows that the Ash Creek culvert does not detrimentally impact fish passage. HO: What about the report that discusses the fact that Ash Creek meanders and that the private road will prevent that meandering? Paul Fishman, applicant's consulting biologist, responded that there is no regulatory requirement that covers meandering. The existing culvert is passable and meets the standards for fish passage. There is no requirement for the applicant to make any changes to the culvert; essentially, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. John Frewing testified again that he submitted comments on November 14 and supplemental comments on December 5 (Exhibits A and D). SFA Design Group has now responded to his December 5 comments. With respect to the alternate access, this plan does show one; the HO is obliged to either approve or disapprove this plan. He indicated that he has visited Washington County records and looked at easement number 950015055. This easement actually provides access to the property, not through the property. The applicant, SFA, responded that they have submitted documentation of all easements benefiting this property; however, these documents do not address access through the railroad property. That is a condition of development and proof of ownership or control must be shown, so this application should be denied. With respect to the technical adequacy of the passage under the railroad, TVFR. requires 13.5 feet of clearance under the railroad overpass for emergency vehicle access; the clearance under this railroad overpass is two inches short. HO: That's why I asked whether the access road would be graded and paved. Mr. Frewing agreed that it will be. He then testified that he asked TVFR, how high is their biggest rig? Their best measurement was about 12 feet. The bottom line is that TVFR's largest vehicles simply won't fit through the alternate access. (This was illustrated by a drawing showing the wheels of the emergency vehicles rising 20 inches above the center point under the trestle, thus 13'8" over the height of the passage), REFUSE AT FA O CREEK(SU 00002) PAGE 7 OF 40 With respect to the illegal fill on the site, he believes that he has now documented that it occurred; if HO approves this application, they will be building atop illegal fill and that should not be permitted. Ms. Beilke testified that she didn't have a chance to see the materials the applicant submitted until tonight, but had a couple of responses. She also submitted submitted a new letter (Exhibit H). The first has to do with the stop work order; they argue that if this application is approved, the necessary fill permits will have been acquired. She did not agree with that position. HO: I think they're arguing that they did not fall the wetland areas. Ms. Beilke said that she is arguing that they did, Second, there is the buffer issue; Ash Creek and various significant wetland areas are present on the site. The previous owners cleared the site of understory vegetation in early 2003, prior to the wetland delineation; that act alone changed the quality of many areas later surveyed by CWS and SFA - wetland and buffer areas that would have been found to be in good condition were then found to be degraded: "I have lived in this neighborhood for 15 years, and have seen that area many, many times. A lot of that vegetation is now gone, and that really affects the quality of that habitat." HO: Isn't it true that the access road is the only thing that will be built in the buffer? Also, they are planning to do some plantings and other mitigation. It's a fairly difficult site to develop; they are avoiding most of the wetland and buffer areas. Why is the prior condition of the buffer critical for me to know? Ms. Beilke replied that when CWS issues a permit to do the work, they assess the condition of the buffers. These buffers have been reduced because of their degraded condition.. First, the removal of vegetation affects buffer width, which sho-iud be seater than. 25 feet between the wetland and the road. For years, even large developers have assumed this site was too difficult to develop and this is still the case. HO: So let's say there was a 50-foot buffer. Or look at it this way. The City has designated this area for development. They could have zoned it open space, but they didn't - that's a policy choice. How would a 50-foot buffer affect the proposal? Ms. Beilke replied that her argument is that there should be a 50-foot buffer all the way around the wetland. To do that, they would have to move the road, and they can't. The only way they could do it would be to reduce the road width to a trail no more than about 5 feet wide. For this reason, and others, the HO should not approve this application; the stop work order has not been resolved. HO: I don't understand that argument. The order is issued, and the work stops. The applicant then applies for a perni t, and if it is approved, they resume work. Any penalties will be addressed through a separate process. I'm not sure what further resolution you expect d_ the stop work order is not before me tonight. Ms. Beilke said that her point is simply that the illegal clearing that took place has influenced every aspect of this application that came later, including the wetland delineation and the buffers that were then approved. REFUGE AT F Ni O CREEN;(SD 2) PAGE 0 OF 40 On rebuttal Mr. Sprague waived his right to keep the record open in order to submit a final written rebuttal and expressed confidence in the easement documentation the applicant has submitted in support of the alternative access. He reiterated that TVFR has approved this plan. The diagram that was drawn on the white board is not an accurate reflection of actual conditions as the road passes under the overpass. Brent Fitch testified that he is the engineer on this project and in his opinion, based on his calculations, there is plenty of room for even the largest TVFR vehicles to pass safely beneath the overpass. He added that the dip in the road will be widened to allow even more room. Mr. Sprague continued that the wetland delineation occurred prior to the time the clearing and fill was done on the site, in 2003, and that it was Clean Water Services that concluded that the buffers were in a degraded condition, prior to any work on the site. If the buffers are degraded, then CW S allows you to put into practice a number of averaging scenarios; the applicant is removing a significant amount of old fill and doing some additional planting. HO: The CWS permit is a separate permit, which includes a significant number of conditions? Mr. Sprague: That's correct. Mr. Kusyk, the applicant, summed up that he was very proud of his original application and feels that he has gone out of our way to address all of the concerns the neighbors have raised and asked that this application be approved. HO: Closed the record. FINDINGS The Hearing Examiner adopts as his own and incorporates by reference each and every finding and conclusions contained in the November 7, 2005 Staff Report and Recommendation, except to the extent expressly modified or supplemented herein. Only the issues and the approval criteria raised in the course of the application, at the hearing or before the close of the record, are discussed in this section. Any standard that might be deemed to be an applicable approval criteria but which was not raised by staff, the applicant or a party to the proceeding has been waived as a contested issue and no argument with regard to any such issue or criterion can be raised in any subsequent appeal. Criteria not discussed specifically in these findings below are deemed to be met as discussed in the Staff Report. The site is located in the MUE-2: Mixed Use Employment District. Residential uses are a restricted use in the Mixed Use Employment District (METE-2). According to Table 18.520.1 attached residential units are subject to the provisions of 18.630 Washington Square Region Center Design Standards. Office uses are permitted outright within the MUE-2 zoning district. As noted at the hearing, the City faces a number of policy choices when it chooses it's zoning designations. The proposed use for this site, relative to the size of the lot, is a relatively modest one, two office buildings and nine residential units. When the City designates a use for a site that has natural resources and constraints on it for development, it is the hearing officer's job to determine whether the proposal can meet the City standards. REFUGE AT IFANNO C E (SD O2) PAGE 9 F 40 The City Council designated this site as MUE-2, by which I understand that it wanted to see compatible development commensurate with the site's physical characteristics. The policy choice was not open space or some other equivalent. The task is to approve something that would fit on this very constrained site and not to search every plausible theory, however self contradictory, in order to find an excuse for denial. But to respond to every conceivable theory proposed for denying this application, I have to respond to the opponents arguments. We start with Mr. Frewing's 26 issues: JOHN FRS G Issue l: an alternate access is proposed; the applicant should show clear ownership or authority, to all aspects of that access. The applicant submitted easement documents for all of the existing easements benefiting the property. The easement in question and its purpose under the railroad tracks is shown in book 567 page 615 number (3). "Subject to an easement to Members of f the Public for access to that certain Southern Pack Railway Under-Pass lying approximately one thousand feet northwesterly of Southwest Dakota Street under the Southern Pacific c Railway tracks and westerly of the parcels herein conveyed " The applicant has the right to use the easement for an alternative access as proposed and will be working with the railroad in the final design which would be necessary regardless. This issue is raised again by Mr. Frewing as Issue A on December 5, 2005. The language quoted contradicts Mr. Frewing's argument that the easement is to the railroad right-of-way only. The easement is to the underpass for members of the public. The applicant has provided evidence of their ability to utilize the casement under the railroad. The applicant also argues, just in case, that only one access is required for the proposed development, which is why TURF has required a sprinkler system. The applicant is nevertheless proposing a second access for emergency use. TVFR has reviewed the applicant's plan and approved the alternate access as described in response to Mr. Frewing's Issue 4 through 6 below. The evidence also shows that the conduit attached to the railroad will be moved upwards to be out of the clear space and not obstruct access and that easement will be graded and paved allowing the largest TVFR to pass through, even under Mr. Frewing's calculations. The appl'icant's engineer and TVFR are more credible than Mr. Frewing, whose credentials have not been established, on the issue of adequacy of the easement to provide second emergency access. The easement clearly exists under the railroad. Issue 2: the incursion into wetland areas is inconsistent with Section 360 of the code. Alternative construction techniques, such as building on pilings, would be more appropriate. Wetland incursion has been raised by several parties. The applicant is not proposing an incursion into a wetland area other than minor areas to complete the access drive. The applicant is giving regard to the natural environment by reducing the width of the proposed access drive to limit impacts to the wetland resources. The applicant is also giving regard to wetlands by removing non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry and replanting all of the existing wetland buffers adjacent on the development area in accordance with Clean Water Services standards except for one small area in the northwest corner of the site which is the only area determined to be in good condition. The removal of non-native species and new plantings in the wetland buffers in turn enhance the appearance of the City which is also in the purpose statement of Chapter 360. The REFUSE AT FA NO CREW (SDR20 B 0002' PAGE 10 OF 40 applicant has complied with the approval criteria of this chapter and the approval criteria are designed to implement the purpose statement of the chapter. Therefore, the applicant complies with the purpose statement of Chapter 360 Issue 3: the City's notice to the Division of State Lands, which is contained in the record for this case, says a conditional use is proposed. The Staff Report and application do not address section 330, which covers conditional use, and so the application should be denied. The notice that was sent out to the Division of State Lands and the notice does not reference a conditional use permit. No conditional use has been applied for by the applicant. The Division of State Lands is currently reviewing the wetland fill permit and proposed enhancement through plantings. Issue 4: TVFR emergency vehicle access minimum width and height requirements are not met by the alternative access proposed in this application - it is too short, by 4-6 inches, to accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Also, any flood event will also flood the emergency vehicle access - it is in the 100-year floodplain. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District reviewed the plan and prepared recommendations for conditions of approval. The applicant is sprinkling the units per condition #3 of the TVFR letter which relates to the Fire Apparatus Access Road Exception For Automatic Sprinkler Protection: This option allows the fire official to approve modifications to the access when buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.. Condition 3 of the TVFR. letter in bold states, "The alternative emergency access roadway proposed is acceptable to the Fire District given that all buildings within the development will be provided with automatic fire sprinkler systems. " Therefore, the width of the alternative access drive does not have to be 20- feet. The clearance was also reviewed ©y B v rrc and Bound to bve acceptable. The reason the floodplain elevation does not appear on the alternative access drive is because the lowest elevation on the alternative access drive is 161 feet. The floodplain elevation at this location is below 161-feet. The 100-year floodplain (approximately 160.5') only reaches 161-feet in the extreme northeast corner of the site. Therefore, during a 100 year event, the alternative access road should not be flooded. Issue 5: TVFR also specifies some critical dimensions for these access roads - for example, a 10X30 foot turnout is required, but is not provided, according to this application. There are also problems with the curve radius of the turnaround and the first public street access. These safety requirements are not met by the current application. The accessway is over 400 feet long and a 10 by 30 turnout is normally required. However, the applicant is proposing to sprinkle all of the units and TVFR has approved the accessway as designed. The fire code official can otherwise approve longer access drives without need of turnouts as demonstrated in Condition #3 and #8 of the Tt1FR letter. Therefore, with review by the fire district, the design complies with this standard. Issue 6: the exterior walls of all buildings cannot be more than 150 feet from the emergency vehicle access. This condition is not met under the current application.. REFUSE AT FANNO CREEK(SOR2005-ON02) PAGE 11 OF 40 TVFR has reviewed the applicant's plan. Portions of the building are just over 150-feet from the accessway however TVFR can modify this standard through condition number 3 as they have done. "When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic f r°e sprinkler system, the requirements forge apparatus access may be modified as approved by the fire code official. " Issue 7: the applicant describes buffer trees that are supposed to meet the requirements in 18.360. However, those trees are shown as planted on the railroad right-of-way; there is no evidence that those buffer trees will remain, so I believe that code section is not met. The applicant does not just describe plantings in the railroad right-of-way as a means to buffer the development from rail traffic. The buffering tapes place in many other forms including, distance, elevation and new plantings. There is a separation between the tracks and the nearest proposed building of approximately 135-feet. The elevation of the tracks is approximately 15-feet above the site thereby directing much of the noise over the development. The applicant is planting the wetland buffer of which approximately 40-feet exists on the applicants property and the plantings will grow to a height in excess of 4-feet and some of the proposed trees will be much higher than that. Regardless of whether the larger trees are removed from the railroad right-of-way or not, adequate buffering has been provided by the applicant through multiple means of achieving the buffering needed. Issue 8: the Washington Square Regional Center plan proposes transit within 500 feet of this site. Code sections 18.360 and 18330 are not met by this application. The transit route proposed adjacent to this site will be a commuter rail line and is currently being planned by local governments who will establish the final route and stops along the route if it is ever implemented. No opportunity exists a1vur, tuv ales S bo'wuucay w%itu die pail ime w provide a transit stop as it is physically and economically limited with the raised grade of the tracks, the location of Ash Creek and the intervening wetlands between the tracks and the parking area. The applicant can however provide provisions for access to the new commuter line by providing pedestrian and bicycle connections from the site to the public streets which will facilitate use of commuter rail by the new residents and employees of the proposed development. The applicant is providing a pedestrian and bicycle access to both Cascade Avenue and North Dakota thereby complying with this requirement to provide provisions for future transit routes. Issue 9: the proposal must be consistent with the surrounding area. This proposal is not consistent with the Washington Square Plan, and so should be denied. The proposal does not violate the ability for transportation improvements to be made as shown in the Washington Square Plan. The WSRC implementation plan contains recommended improvements to the motor vehicle system which include a Nimbus to Greenburg connection. Currently, the City does not have a defined route for this connection. The map currently shows the connection west of the developed area on the site then crossing the proposed access drive where Ash Creek goes below the railroad. The proposal complies with and permits this alignment as the road would miss the proposed buildings and will be elevated substantially in order to clear the railroad tracks. Access to the development would not be affected. In order for the route to be designed through the developed portion of the site it would require the removal of buildings located immediately north of the site which is unlikely. In addition, the applicant has been conditioned the applicant to submit and receive approval from the City Engineer for a future street REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK(SOR2005-OW02) PAGE 12 OF 40 extension plan that addresses the Collector extension included in the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. Issue 10: the rules for public outdoor space require a certain amount of space to be dedicated to public use; this requirement is not met. The rules for outdoor space are very specific and the applicant complies completely. 18.360.090.A.7.b(4) states... "The shared outdoor recreation space for multi. family use can be provided as part common space and part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit. „ The applicant is providing both common area and private balconies and therefore complies with the required recreation space approval criteria. . Issue 91: when fill is used in a wetland area, a trail is required. No trail is proposed in this application. 18.360.090 (8) is in reference to floodplains and not wetlands. Where landfill or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area is supposed to be at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. The City in reviewing the application has considered this dedication. Because there is an existing pathway on the west side of Fanno Creek., the Staff found that a duplicate path on the east side is not necessary, In addition, the applicant has proposed dedication of all of the lands outside of the development area to the City of Tigard for greenway purposes. The area contains lands within the floodplain of the same elevation as the pathway on the west side of the creek. As such, should the lily liC/fisitiGi L11G t01-Isp.1U4L1V11 (Ji q.ll C;4s4-sim.1G FGLRi1tNGR'J' 41ll;1JU'~,i1 411G greerlway lr1 Li1G 1ULU1G, 411Gy W111 have more than an adequate amount of land to do so if they accept the dedication. This code section does not require the applicant to construct the pathway. Issue 12: the map of wetland areas and 50-foot buffers is unclear, making it unreadable. Until the wetland area and the buffers are clearly identified, a decision is not possible in this matter. The wetland boundaries and wetland buffers are clearly delineated on sheets one through five and L I of the applicant's plans. The wetland delineation has been approved by the Division of State Lands. Clean Water Services is the agency in charge of the required buffers for the wetlands. They have reviewed and approved the proposed buffers for the project in accordance with their requirements as shown by the service provider letter submitted by the applicant. Issue 13: the applicant claims to be landscaping more than the 15% minimum of the entire site but the requirement is 20% udder 18.360 18.360.A.12.b. & c. requires "...20% of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped" and "a minimum of 15% of the gross site area shall be landscaped. " Two interpretations for this statement could be 20% of the gross area in which you have to include the areas described or just 2010 of those areas described. As such, the applicant has run the calculation both ways and complies with the standards. If the gross site including the described areas is included, there is no question that more than. 20% of the site is landscaped including natural and planted vegetation as is clearly evident on the plans showing the wetlands and wetland REFUGE AT FA NO GREEK(SU ate 002) PAGE 13 OF 40 buffers. The wetland and wetland buffers west of the developed area consist of 216,519 square feet alone or 60% of the gross site area. tf just the parking, loading and service areas are to be included then the calculation is as follows. The parking, loading and service areas equate to approximately 42,929 square feet. Of that area the applicant has landscaped 8,803 square feet or 20.5% not including hardscape. 't'herefore, the proposal complies, with the landscape requirements of chapter 18.360. Issue 14: the applicant does not meet the Washington square minimum density rules, which as applied require a minimum density of just over 10.12 dwellings and the applicant is proposing 9; this requirement is not met. The minimum density on this site is 25 units per acre and the maximum is set by 18.630.020.0 as 110/® of the minimum density. The minimum density as demonstrated on page 37 of the applicant's narrative is 9.2 units. As it is not possible to build a fraction of a unit, the applicant has rounded down to 9 units as permitted by the City of Tigard. To clarify the maximum, 110% of the minimum density is the maximum density for sites which include or abut a riparian setback. Therefore, 9.2 X 1.10 is 10.12 units maximum. By developing nine residential units (minimum) and less than 110% of the minimum, (which is the maximum) the applicant complies with the density requirements of the code. Issuer; Section 360 requires the creation of CC&R.s. This project does not involve subdivision. of land nor a planned Association,, therefore, CC&R.s are not necessary or proposed. Access to the units will be provided via a common easement and maintenance of the common areas will be accomplished through a maintenance agreement rather than CC&Rs. The code requires the applicant to submit existing and proposed CC&Rs. Because LUVIV are no eXtstlur, ed CCL~G.1n1.s there is no rCMU.iren1Q1LL W bU'.vUUL thelll and the U lMant b' ~ Ur pS.~MJf'os ~ ~1 F'p complies with the criteria. Issue16: Section 705 calls for a walkway on Cascade Avenue, but is not shown in the plans. Sidewalks should have planting strips, except when crossing Ash Creek. There is not a specific requirement for a walkway under the railroad tracks. 18.705.030. F.1 states, "Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. " Because the railroad right-of-way is between the proposed development and existing development on the east side of the tracks, a walkway would typically be impractical. Although not required, the applicant has an opportunity to provide the connection via an easement and has therefore proposed the connection. The code requires hard surfaced materials for required walkways and the applicant has proposed a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in conjunction with the secondary emergency vehicle access which is paved rather than a soft surface as .could be proposed because the pathway is not required, Planting strips are not required to separate the sidewalk from the driveway. Vehicular use of the emergency access would occur in uncommon flood events to avoid driving through standing water on the primary accessway. Issue 17: the applicant uses different terms, including "driveway" and "private roads" to describe the auto access to this site. There are different rules for these different designations. Justification for adjustments are not provided. REFUGE AT FANN O EK(SD 00 02) PAGE 14 OF 40 The applicant is proposing a private accessway, private driveway or parking lot. There are many different terms that can be used for the type of access proposed and the City has found that the applicant has complied with the applicable criteria for the access and for the adjustment to reduce the width to 22-feet in accordance with 111.370020.0.5. The adjustment is necessary to limit impacts to the floodplains and wetlands on the site. No opportunity to share access as explained below in response to Sue Beilke regarding 18.520 and 18.370. there are no alternative access points on the street in question or from another street, the request is the minimum adjustment required to provide access, the access with the adjustment remains safe and the visual clearance requirements will be met. The applicant is not proposing a Private :Drive or Public Street or Cul- de-sac. See pages 16 & 17 of the applicant's narrative for detailed compliance with the adjustment standards. Issue IS: a bridge over Ash Creek, rather than culvert and fill, would be a better comply with words of 18.775 and minimuin required for use is subject to the ODFW fish passage criteria. The approved culvert does not comply. It should not be approved now. The applicant is not proposing a culvert or fills on Ash Creek. The creek currently flows through a large culvert which will remain in place. Because the applicant is not proposing any change to the existing culvert or fill associated with the culvert through which Ash Creek flows, the applicant is providing the "minimum required for use". In addition, the applicant has analyzed the existing culvert for fish passage and has submitted a letter from Steve Novotny who is a Fish and Aquatic Biologist and Steve Johnson who is a Senior Fish and Aquatic Biologist with SWCA Environmental Consultants demonstrating that the existing culvert is adequate for fish passage. In any event I am not sure how the existing culvert not impacted in any way by the applicant ,-1~_ the applicant's , , ~__4_ ,a and , would De Lyle applicants responsibility. hert; would be no necessary nexus an no legal authority has been sited for this proposition. Issue 19: the current tree plan is incomplete and wrong. Arborist did not identify trees to be removed and new mitigation rules apply. As with all development proposals in Tigard where trees are involved, an applicant hires an arborist to evaluate the existing trees by location, size and species and make recommendations for preserving trees and/or for mitigation. The applicant has attached the original plan by the arborist from which the applicant's tree removal plan was developed. Working with the arborist, the applicant prepares the "Tree Removal Plan" (sheet 4) which identifies trees to be removed for review by the City. All of the required elements of the Tree Plan are included in the application either on the plans or in the narrative (pages 85 90) and arborist report. It has been the policy of the City of Tigard to not count trees removed that are hazardous or impacted by improvements to existing roadways and therefore the hazardous trees are not counted towards the mitigation requirements because they should be removed anyway. A hazardous tree by City definition is a. "...tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property: " The application complies with the requirements section 18.790 and how the City views tree removal for hazardous trees. I do not find it necessary to count those trees in the mitigation calculations, the applicant will either pay fee in lieu or propose plantings in accordance with the percentage requirements described in 18.790 for the additional trees as permitted by the Code. The revision REFUSE AT FANNO C K(SD 005 MI A 15 OF 40 would result in three hazardous trees numbered 632, 643, and 644 being mitigated and the total number of trees would be 28. Hazardous trees 660 and 667 are not being removed as their location in relation to buildings, parking areas and walkways will not pose in immediate danger and they will be available for wildlife use. The resulting preservation would be 9 of the 28 trees which is a higher preservation rate of 32% and mitigation would remain at 2/3rds of the 303 inches removed for a total of 202 inches of mitigation. There are no new mitigation roles that apply to the way the applicant has calculated mitigation. The methodology remains the same. Issue A (December 5 objections): Alternate access is inadequate because the applicant's easement 950015055 is to the railroad right of way and not under it. As already discussed, the applicant has submitted easement documents for all of the existing easements benefiting the property. The applicant has provided evidence of their ability to utilize the easement under the railroad. Only one access is required for the proposed development. The applicant is proposing a second access for emergency use. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the applicant's plan and approved the alternate access as described in the applicant's rebuttal response to Mr. Frewing's Issue 4 through 6 from the initial hearing. The conduit attached to the railroad will be moved upwards to be out of the clear space and not obstruct access. Issue B: The illegal fill on the site has not been resolved. Several opponents raise the issue of needing to resolve the stop order issue. Stop order is a code enforcement issue and not before me. As discussed at the hearing, there is no issue to resolve. The applicant has been stopped. The applicant has not violated this order. The applicant will resume or revise that work when an appropriate permit is issued. Approval of this application will ~ ar"ea" `u C s-to wo rk 47 14f✓1 7..y .1L1...,,u.;...,^' i + th`~ -511 +a„-:.,1 1,- n„ +1..o r,+n Z'.~,J.(a,~, ~ Uy ~JGi1 ;~.[,(,ul~`D iilua11L 6✓ Vl a p e kn l.C 1V 11,11W llil 11-Alal cV vw vll 4111L 0111*1. The applicant states that original survey completed by the property owner was done before any fill activities occurred and as a result; the current applicant has the original ground to work from. The fill placed by the owner is accounted for in the applicant's submittal. No fill activities occurred within any wetland areas. Some of the opponents argue that the fill distorted the buffer consideration, but no evidence has been provided that this is so. For the purpose of this application I review the site as I find it, with other agencies approvals. The arguments that the area was not degraded and should have been treated differently by DSL of GWS is a collateral attack on other jurisdictional decisions. Attacks on those decision are subject to different jurisdictional. authority, time, limits and procedures. For the purposes of these application those agencies findings are diapositive. Issue C. The HO takes notice of the Highway 217 Task force which has recently completed a study which somehow conflicts with this proposal. This issue is addressed under Issue number 9 above and in their rebuttal to public testimony provided at the hearing. No additional argument has been posed by Mr. Frewing in his supplemental comments. 2'd Issue C: That the t, DFW `Fish Passage Criteria" will be violated because the proposed private road will prevent Ash Creek from meandering. A long bridge would not do that. HUGE AT F O CREEK(SO 0O0 2) PAGE 16 OF 40 The applicant has submitted documentation that the existing Ash Creek culvert provides adequate fish passage, The three new culverts proposed by the applicant for high water conditions are not intended for fish passage nor required to meet fish passage criteria as the primary channel of the creek already provides fish passage through the existing culvert. No one is arguing whether native migratory fish are or have been present in the waters. The applicant is arguing and has demonstrated that based on an analysis of the existing Ash Creek culvert, fish passage is adequate at this time and will remain adequate after the development is completed and he is not impacting that culvert. Issue D: The applicant is not required to improve his North Dakota frontage including the bridge over Fanno Creek, thereby violating 18.810.030. The specific code section being discussed is 18.810,030.A.5.a-f. The applicant has specifically addressed the criteria on page 94 and 95 of the applicant's narrative. More specifically Issues a, b and f: a. "A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards, " A partial improvement is not feasible because proper design standards can not be met due to the future bridge replacement project and the change in vertical grade. The applicant can not design and build a half street improvement without rebuilding all of North Dakota on both sides and for a considerable distance to the west. This improvement will need to be accomplished in a single project in order to achieve proper design standards. b. "A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians. " The elevation of the applicant's half street improvement would be significantly higher than the opposite side of the street and result in a drop-off where the frontage terminates. f: "Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street " The City of Tigard will need to determine the appropriate vertical alignment and final centerline profile of North Dakota to include the bridge replacement and the approaches to the east and west of the bridge. This project contains only 9 multi-family attached units and 26,000 square feet of commercial office that will contribute only 340 trips per average weekday which is minor in comparison to the existing traffic on the street regardless of the future traffic on the street~ The applicant has clearly demonstrated that specified conditions exist which the City has reviewed and found it appropriate that the applicant provide a fee-in-lieu of the half street improvements. Issue Ee There is no proposed parallel road next to the rail right-of-way in violation of 18.810.030P The standard in question is 18.810.030.P which states... "Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. " The applicant is proposing an access way which provides access in a manner suitable for the use of the land. The access has been located REFUGE AT FANNO C (ib 065 M) PAGE 17 OF 40 with consideration to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of- way. A street is not necessary to make appropriate use of the land and is therefore not required adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. In addition, map 18 of the Transportation System flan includes no mention of a local street in that location as connectivity is limited by existing development, wetlands, drainage courses and topography. The applicant complies with this standard. Issue F: There is inadequate visual clearance to the east along North Dakota in violation of 19.795 The opponents argument is confusing two very different criteria. One is Vision Clearance and the other is Sight Distance. Vision clearance is measured at point 30 feet from the right of way and the applicant meets this standard. The vision clearance standards can be found in 18.795. For the type of accessway proposed, the vision clearance triangles are formed by measuring 30 feet into the site along the centerline of the access way and 30 feet in both directions along the intersected street. 35,feet is used along the intersected street if it is an arterial only. North Dakota is not an arterial street. The applicant complies with the Vision Clearance requirements and the owner will be responsible for maintaining the vision clearance area. Sight distance, which appears to be the issue being raised, is measured from point 10-feet from the fog line in this case. The applicant has demonstrated that safe stopping site distance exists at the intersection in accordance with the findings in the traffic study and Judith Grey's testimony in the initial hearing. The applicant has complied with both the Vision Clearance requirements and sight distance requirements. Issue G: 18.410.040 is violated when the development creates a 2000 foot block perimeter. 8.810.040.3B.1 states... "The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2- feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: b. For blacks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads." The block discussed by iv. Frewing is adjacent to a railroad and therefore exempt from the block length requirements. The applicant is providing a bicycle/pedestrian way (alternate access) in the only location possible along the railroad as well. The applicant is not required to meet the spacing standard of 330 feet due to the existence of the raised railroad which presents a topographical constraint and due to the existing development patterns of which the railroad is a part of. In conclusion, none of Mr. Frewing°s many arguments justify denial of this application, which is an attempt to squeeze a relatively modest development out of very limited site. I9.A.VID I?I_ESiCUR Issue 1: What is the floodplain elevation? The elevation of the floodplain increases with distance as you go upstream because the elevation of the creek bed and floodplain rises. The elevation of the floodplain on this site is 160-feet at the bridge on the lower part of the creek and 161-feet on the upper stretch of the creek near the sites northern boundary. The applicant has taken this into account when establishing the finished floor elevations for the buildings to ensure they are elevated above the flood plain by approximately 1.5- feet. Issue 2: Wetland delineation is needed to evaluate a variance. The applicant is not proposing any variances. The applicant is proposing an adjustment to the width of the access drive and the front building maximum setback from a public street in order to REFUGE AT FANNO CR K(S® 02) PAGE I OF 40 limit impacts to resources. The wetland delineation approval from the Division of State Lands including the applicant's delineation report has been included with the applicant's response. Issue 3: Photos indicate that most of the site was in good condition until sometime in 2003 The photo evidence submitted by Mr. Drescher does not demonstrate that the buffers were in good condition. The vegetation that is seen in the aerial photographs includes primarily nonnative species such as Himalayan. Blackberry which is shown as growing out over the access road to North Dakota. The buffers are not and were not in good condition in 2003. A Technical Memorandum from Fishman Environmental Services (attached) dated June 22, 2004 describes and has an exhibit of the only location where the vegetated corridor is designated in good condition. Issue 4: The driveway had not been used as such and since 1953 the access was under the railway. The aerial photographs submitted by the opponents show the access road in the 1936, 1950 photos. More vegetation has grown up on each side of the access road in the photos from 1969, 1977 and 1983 however; the access road is still visible. The age of the access road and the amount of use it sees is not relevant nor does it have a bearing on the approval. The fact that it is there simply means that because no other access is available to serve the site, the access will be utilized and the fact that it is there also reduces the impact constructing a new access would cause otherwise through the same area as no alternative exists. Due to the Necessity of Way Standards, the City is obligated to permit access to the public street where available. This evidence also contradicts Mr. Frewing's repeated assertions that there is no easement under the railroad, only to it. SUE HEM Ms. Beilke asserted violation of a number of ordinances, although the heart of her complaint is that, notwithstanding the zoning and the surrounding development, the site contains important wetlands and two creeks which ought to be preserved to provide habitat for fish and wildlife species and that the City of Tigard should purchase it and protect it. 18.360.0'70 The applicant has included the proposed elevations within the attached information demonstrating compliance with all of the design standards and height requirements. The residential structures will be slightly less than 39 feet in height above the lowest floor grade and the commercial buildings will be slightly shorter at 32-feet tall. Therefore, the applicant proposes buildings of a height less than 60-feet which is the maximum height within the MUE-2 zone. The applicant submitted a landscape plan in the initial submittal and addressed the landscape requirements in response to John Frewing's Issue # 13. 18.520 See the initial findings and responses to John Frewing's #13 and 18.360.070 above. The applicant complies with the building height and minimum landscape requirements as shown by the submittals of December 5, 2005, but even if he didn't this is only requires a condition of approval. 18.520.2 and 18.370 The applicant has discussed the attempts to acquire access to the site from a northerly direction with the opponents as a part of the neighborhood meeting and meetings with individual members REFUGEE AT FA O C EK(SO &O 02) PAGE 19 OF 40 of Fans of Fanno. In addition, the City Engineer stated that the City would not want the primary access to be via an easement across another property. It would have to be in a tract. When the applicant contracted to purchase the property, the first goal was to achieve access from Nimbus to the north. The applicant contacted the agent that was marketing that property. After the agent contacted the owner of the adjacent property, the agent informed the applicant that the owner had no interest in any discussions about his property being encumbered in any way or at any price by the subject property. This is unfortunate for the applicant in that the northerly direction would be the most economical connection to make for the development. The applicant pursued this access as required by the development code. No alternative exists for access that would allow the applicant to design in a manner which would not require the adjustment to the maximum setback from a public street even if the alternative access to the north was available. The setbacks relate to the building locations in relation to the public street not the location of the access. I believe that it would have been in the applicant's every interest to secure northern access if it was possible. In choosing the only access possible, the applicant was acting rationally. 18.705 The applicant has attempted to obtain access to the north as described above. 18.370A20.5.b(1) & (2) are two of the criteria that must be met in order to allow the adjustments to the access. Both of those relate to shared or alternative access points. The applicant has no opportunity to provide shared or joint access with an adjoining property and therefore complies with the standards for approval of adjustments to the access. In addition, the widths of the requested adjustments have no relation to the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and Design Standards regarding Nimbus. 18.630 tiz n r i + T-% I t. eww+ +9 The Washington Square negaonas UvateH vesign Standards were developed w armpiculc11.1, Ulu Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Plan is not intended to show all future building locations and no final alignment has been determined for the extension of SW Nimbus. The City is not even sure that the extension is economically feasible. The applicant has addressed the Design Standards of 18.630 and demonstrated compliance with all but.the maximum front yard setback standard. Because the City recognized that complying with all standards may not always be possible due to site conditions or conflicts with other Code requirements, they provide a method for adjusting or varying from those standards. In order to meet the standard in question, the applicant would have to build a building in Ash Creek and the Significant Wetlands of Fanno Creek. The code does not allow this and therefore, the applicant must request the adjustment. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the adjustment criteria and the City Staff has recommended approval of the adjustment based upon their findings and the applicant's information. Neither the WSRC Plan nor the City's Transportation plan show a trail along Ash Creek. Ash Creek is represented on the plan as a dotted line which may be mistaken as having the appearance of a pathway. 18.775 Bullet 1: Neither the WSRC Plan nor the City's Transportation plan show a trail along Ash Creek. Ash Creep is represented on the plan as a dotted line which may be mistaken as having the appearance of a pathway. REFUSE AT FA O CR K(SO 005 002) PAGE 20 OF 40 Buret 2: The applicant has proposed the dedication of open, land area to the City should they decide to accept it for greenway purposes. See response to Jahn Frewing's Issue # 11 Bullet 3: The code section referred to states, "The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. " The applicant has no alternative access to a public street and therefore must provide access to SW North Dakota. The access is being constructed on top of the only existing access to the property which can accommodate the use contemplated. The applicant has reduced the width of the access through the adjustment process. Therefore, since no alternative access exists and the width is being reduced, the applicant has proposed land form alteration or development in a manner which is the minimal necessary to access the site and therefore will not create disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. Bullet 4: See response to John Frewing's Issue #11 Bullet 5: The applicant is altering wetlands in three locations. The first two are on the east side of the existing accessway along Ash Creek. These wetlands are not designated significant by the City's "Wetlands & Stream Corridors" mapping (See attached map and legend). There is a riparian setback overlay only on the east side. These two areas can be clearly seen on sheet 3 of the submitted plans. The first is approximately 200 feet north of North Dakota near the 159-foot contour line and the second is north of that where the applicant proposes to install 3 new culverts for large storm events. These two wetland areas on the east side of the accessway are considered Jurisdictional and therefore land form alterations are permitted in compliance with 18.775.020.1) below. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or GlGV cu~naeiaca which are orhy within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained The remaining wetland area is significant and is located on the west side of the access drive. The applicant is proposing to install wetland plant materials as shown on the landscape plan. The area is labeled "Wetland Enhancement Area" and is part of the permit from the Division of State ]ands and Army Carps of Engineers for the filling of the two small wetland areas on the east side of the access road. This is permitted by Tigard Code as activities restricted in significant wetlands are those that include "land form alterations or development" as excepted from the Code and shown above. The definition of development as defined by the City of Tigard Development code is as follows: "Development" - 1) A building or mining operation; 2) a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, or 3) division of land into two or more parcels, including partitions and subdivisions as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes 92. The proposed plantings do not include a building or mining operation, a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land or a division of land into two or more parcels. REFUGE AT FAMHO CREEK(SD ®2) PAGE 21 OF 40 Tigard code does not have a definition for "land form alteration" however based upon the wording, land form alteration consists of a change to the land in question such as grading, not the vegetation upon it. Therefore, the proposed plantings should be permitted regardless if it is under City direction or not. In the alternative the applicant has offered to complete the wetland mitigation plantings on the east side of the accessway instead. Finally, the City of Tigard Development Code implements the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Flan. By complying with the Development Code, the applicant complies with the Comprehensive Plan. 18.775.090 The applicant is submitting the wetland delineation report with the letter of concurrence from the Division of Mate Lands who found the wetland and waterway boundaries to be accurate, The wetland buffers on the other hand are regulated by CWS Design and Construction Standards. The applicant submitted a Sensitive Area Assessment (also attached) and received approval by CWS for the design and concurrence on the condition of the buffers. The buffers were found to be in a degraded condition except for one small area in the northwest corner of the site. As a result, the applicant is required to bring the condition of the buffers up to a good standard and will be planting their entire width of the approved buffers with upland vegetation plantings further improving the on-site resources. As discussed before, Ms. Beilke?s argument is either incorrect and the CWS classified the buffer area as degraded before any fill or CWS made an error and this is a collateral attack on the decision of another agency, in which case the argument should be raised with CWS in accordance with their procedures and timelines. The record shows that the vegetative community assessment as dated July 29, 2003 for this previous application - the N.Dakota Condos. DSL wetland delineation was approved January 12, 2004 - based on materials dated July 25 and 29, 2003. yrXTAle M.-s. Beilke argues that the darnag-, to the buffer was done in early 2003 - her photographs have no internal datings, but she dates them as July, 2003. She provides neither independent specific dates, nor written evidence. The applicant admits that the property owner completed some clearing work on the upland areas outside of the wetlands in 2003. The vegetation removed from the existing access was primarily non-native Himalayan Blackberry which prohibits the growth of native species. Other vegetation removed consisted of a boxwood hedge, laurel hedge and small trees less than 6-inches near where the home used to be located. There were some small undergrowth native species removed on this portion of the site however this is not prohibited on an individual property so long as the vegetation removed is not significant trees or within wetland areas. The large tree shown in the photograph submitted by Ms. Beilke was already dead and lying on the ground. It was not cart down by the owner. The owner of the property cleared the property in a manner permitted by the Code and CWS. In removing the overgrown vegetation on the site, the owner also removed two track loads of garbage from several "bum" camps consisting of tents, mattresses, syringes, garbage, sleeping bags, etc. Even Mr. Frewing photograph from December 5, 2005 still shows garbage and tires under on the path toward the under-pass which implies that the area has a long history of being a dumping ground. In addition, this application includes the removal of fill that was historically placed on the site including concrete, asphalt, dirt, chunks of curb and rock. The fill appears to be from an old street improvement somewhere nearby and shows on the 1974 USGS mapping of the area along with the existing access to forth Dakota. This application provides the opportunity to REFUSE AT FANNO CREEK(SDR2005-00002) PAOE 22 OF 40 remove additional "garbage" from the site and improve the resource as the fill area is within the wetland buffer area.. in the final analysis the vegetative state is now what it is and the issue of whether DSL or CWS made the correct assessments is theirs to consider or reconsider. 1 find applicant's testimony and evidence on this issue substantial and convincing. 15.790 A tree removal permit is necessary to comply with the tree removal standards of the Tigard Development Code, not because sensitive lands exist on the site. A tree protection plan is described in detail in the arborist report. A mitigation plan is not required because the applicant can pay a fee-in-lieu of mitigation for the removal of trees. No tree was removed on the site in 2003 which would require a permit or mitigation. The applicant invites the City on the site to investigate any tree removal that is alleged to have occurred. StopWork Order The step work order was placed upon the owner as a result of adding gravel to the existing driveway for maintenance purposes. No work on the site has been done on the site since the stop work order went into effect. The current applicant and application when approved will dispose of the issue by authorizing proper permits and approvals from the proper agencies for the rock which was placed on the existing roadway. The applicant's base mapping was completed prior to the owners work and therefore the original ground elevations are known and the calculations for cut and fill will be based on the site prior to the rock placement. On December 5, 2005 Ms Beilke reiterated her issues Bullet 1 The stop work order has been addressed both by the City of Tigard and the applicant in previous responses. The fill did not result in the creation of the access. The property owner was placing rock on the access as a part of its maintenance. The stop work order requires the acquisition of appropriate permits for the fill activity. The approval of this application will fulfill this requirement because the proper approvals for fill on the site will have been acquired. Clean Water Services is also in agreement with the applicant's findings that the wetland buffers are and have been degraded save one small area in the northwest corner of the site. Clean Water Services has provided the applicant with a Service Provider Letter which addresses the buffers proposed and approved by them. All of the buffers are not 50-feet because of the existing access, CWS recognizes the applicant's right to access the property and the applicant in turn has provided buffers in some areas exceeding 50-feet and will be removing the historic fills in exchange for some of the reduced buffers. The buffers have all been proposed, reviewed and approved in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards. Bullet 2 The City's significant wetland mapping previously submitted by the applicant including the legend clearly demonstrates that the wetland area on the east side of the accessway is not significant wetland but a riparian corridor instead. The applicant is therefore permitted to fill within this wetland area as long as the applicant obtains the necessary permits from the Division of State Lands, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. This application will not alter a significant wetland on the east side of the accessway. There is no restriction from altering the floodplain in the manner the REFUGE AT FdRNNO CREEK(" DR200 02) PAGE 23 OF 40 applicant has proposed. Because of the proposed work within the floodplain, the appropriate decision maker is the bearing's Officer and based on the findings below and in the Staff Deport all the flooplain permits are approved with conditions. Bullet 3 The wetlands and wetland buffers are described within Mullet Item. 1 above. The buffers under many circumstances would be 50-feet however the applicant must be able to access the property so in some areas the buffers are less and additional buffers have been added in other areas such as just north of Ash Creep between. Fanno Creek and the proposed access. The applicant has received approval from Clean Water Services. Clean Water Services is the responsible agency for reviewing and approving wetland buffers in accordance with their Design and Construction Standards. Bullet 4 The wetland delineation for the site is complete and has been approved by the Division of State Lands as shown by the approval submitted December 5, 2005 by the applicant. The field work and survey was completed prior to the placement of any fills on the site and the mapping is an accurate depiction of the existing wetlands. Bullet 5 A hydrology report is not required to be completed because the flood plain elevation was determined through a study in 1996 which established the flood plain elevation at 160 feet at the south end of the site and 161 feet at the north end of the site. The accessway does see periodic flooding during the winter at this time. The applicant will be raising the grade of the accessway as shown on the grading plan (sheet 3) through a process of balanced cut and fill to maintain flood storage volumes. The grade will be raised approximately 2 to 3 feet higher than the current access way elevation. This will minni- iize the a nount of flooding tuat will 0"UT. via aJerag,~--, the accessway will flood once every 5 years at the proposed elevation. The elevation of the crossing at the railroad tracks is above the 100 year floodplain elevation. Bullet 6 There is no requirement for the applicant to alter the creep channel. The applicant is not arguing the existence of whether native migratory fish are or have been present in the waters and a determination by the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is not necessary. The existing Ash Creek Culvert provides adequate fish passage as demonstrated previously by the applicant through their consultant SWCA and their memorandum submitted December 5, 2005. BRIAN MGENER oral testimony Public Transportation See response to John Frewing's Issue #8 above. Access with adjoining parcels See response to Sue Beilke 18.520.2 and 18.370 above. Cause or increase clear and present danger The director has not found that the applicant is increasing an existing hazardous traffic condition, providing inadequate access for emergency vehicles or in any other way causing hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to public health, safety or REFUGE AT FA NO CREEK(SD 0002) PAGE 24 OF 40 general welfare. As such the director has not referred any building permit to the Planning Commission. The alternative accessway is not a required accessway however the applicant has an opportunity to provide it for the benefit of the residents and employees of the condominium units and for emergency vehicles. If the residents feel uncomfortable using the primary access due to standing water, they can take the alternate access instead. The need to use the alternative access will occur very infrequently. The fire department has reviewed the plans and have approved them deeming the alternate access acceptable based on their condition. #3 (bold section). The elevation of the alternative access is currently proposed above the 100-year floodplain as the area in question is higher. In addition, even if the area were for example a foot or two below the floodplain elevation, the access would still be passable. Not result in erasion, sedimentation, ground instability. The applicant is not proposing fences in the floodway. The walls proposed do not project above the accessway and will not create erosive conditions up-stream, downstream or on the opposite stream banks due to reflection. This accessway is located within an area of very slow velocities well below 3.5 feet per second which is the rate upon which erosion typically occurs. During large storm events which create flooding up to the accessway, the velocities will be approximately 2.0 feet per second in flood conditions. ADJUSTMENTS: An issue had been raised whether the adjustments by the applicants requested were properly justified. To summarize the findings contained in the Staff Report 1. This request asked for an adjustment to the width standard for a multi-family and commercial driveway, as airecteci by i.aaie 1 6.105.2. W1lil%11 `.sic44G9 611241 QR11uR6R^tcuRURy uevcRaayuRCUC vJRw uue.vrwRA three and 19 units should have a driveway with a pavement width of 24 feet, if two-way. This standard is the same for commercial pavement width for parking areas containing zero to 99 spaces. The proposal requests the pavement width be reduced to 222 feet. The applicant's proposed accessway is hampered by the proximity of Fanno Creek, Ash Creek and their associated 100-year floodplain and wetland areas. There are no adjacent developments where shared access with the subject site is possible. The subject site is surrounded by existing development, railroads and sensitive areas. The Development Code does not have access separation requirements for neighborhood routes. In any case the closest to the proposed parcel is approximately 67 feet to the west on the south side of forth Dakota. The proposed site plan shows that with minimal grading, and the placement of retaining walls, a minimum paved width of 22 feet along the majority of the main accessway can be provided. The plan shows the ability to widen the accessway to the required 24-foot width at the entrance to SW North Dakota Street, where it is most critical. The applicant is providing the maximum width for the accessway that is possible, given the wetland and floodplain constraints of the site. The applicant has also obtained approval for the proposed accessway width from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Therefore, the required adjustment is the minimum needed to provide adequate access. Based on the summary analysis of the Staff Report .findings provided above, the adjustment criteria for 18.705 (Access, Egress and Circulation) have been satisfied. 2. The applicant is also proposing a modification to the maximum dimensional requirements of 20 feet for the front yard building setback requirement of the MLLE-2 zoning district. The modification to the maximum setback is requested. The applicant cannot build a structure fronting 40 REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK( 8200 M) PAGE 25 OF SW North Dakota Street due to the existing drainageway location of Ash Creek. Ash Creek contains a riparian corridor and setback. The desired character of the area is to provide a high-quality mixed- use area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area (see next finding). The project provides a mixed use condominium development in a mixed use zone. The buildings front the access drive to best meet the "streetscape" characteristics desired. The project provides a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system by providing connections to SW Forth Dakota Street and SW Cascade Avenue. In addition, the Fanno Creep Cireenway adjacent to the west of the site contains a pedestrian/bicycle pathway for the enjoyment of the new residents and employees. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the desired character of the area as specified in the plan. The proposed modification is the minimum required to grant the applicable permits listed. The site's unusual characteristic along SW North Dakota Street require that a modification be granted in order to preserve and protect the natural resources located in this area. A building cannot be constructed in the drainageway. Based on the summary analysis of the Staff Deport findings provided above, the Adjustment criteria for 18.520.2 (Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Washington Square Center) have been satisfied. SENSlf rVE LANDS The project site is located in an area mapped in the Fanno Creep Watershed. What follows will summarize the findings related to the sensitive lands issues raised by the opponents: FLOODPLAIN • The subject site of the proposed project has been identified with 100-year floodpWn, drainageways slopes greater than 25%, and significant wetlands on Tigard's Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map. The proposed development will involve floodplain alterations that will allow construction of str"uc-cures intended i%1r hu ilaan habitation or, lands 'v`vithin the 100-year floodplain. • The base flood elevation for the subject site is shown to be 160 feet according to the Flood Insurance Rate :Maps of February 18. • The applicant has indicated that construction materials will be reviewed at time of building permit. In order to ensure that the proposed building materials will be resistant to flood damage, the applicant is required to provide information regarding the proposed building materials to a member of the Planning Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard's Building Official prior to building permits. • The applicant proposes to keep all of the buildings finished floor elevations above the 100- year flood plain elevation (160) by approximately 1.5 feet. Improvements such as utilities and paving in the 100-year flood plain will not be impacted by flood damage. Proper culvert sizing and placement ensure proper directional flow and limit erosion to those facilities. • All mentioned equipment is proposed to be elevated and located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. • The proposed water supply system has been designed to eliminate infiltration of floodwater REFUGE AT FA NO CREW ( 0 02) PAGE 26 OF 40 into the system. • The applicant has indicated that no structure or facility would be susceptible to flotation, collapse or lateral movement. Anchoring will be reviewed during building permit phase. The applicant has indicated that the proposed sanitary sewerage system has been designed to the specifications required by this criterion. • The only on-site water disposal system is the proposed Stormwater management facility which is a cartridge system. The system is located in an area subject to flooding, however, no impairment to them or contamination. The system works in a manner that should flood waters flood into the system the waters are likewise treated before released. Contamination is also minimized with a flap prohibiting inward migration of floodwaters. As a result, the facility is not a source of contamination that would affect floodwaters. The applicant has proposed the new residential structures to be designed with the lowest floor elevated at approximately 1.5 feet higher than the base flood elevation. No fully enclosed areas are proposed for the residential structures, including crawl spaces. The residential buildings are proposed to be slab on grade. According to the base flood elevation (160 feet) the proposed commercial buildings are partially located within the 100a-year floodplain. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements will be at the discretion of a member of the Planning Staff. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the General Provisions for Fooodplain Areas can be met if the applicant complies with the conditions below: CONDITIONS: ♦ Provide information guaranteeing that the proposed building materials are resistant to flood damage to a member of the Planning Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard's Building Official prior to building permits. d Submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements will be at the discretion of a member of the Planning Staff: WITHIN 100-year FLOODPLAIN According to the applicant's grading plan, a zero-rise cut and fill has been certified by a professional engineer. The same floodplain volume that exists will exist at the completion of construction to ensure that no increase in the flood elevation will occur as a result of this project. The applicant's site grading plan illustrates a zero-rise cut and fill that is certified by a professional engineer. The same floodplain volume that exists will exist at the completion of construction to ensure no increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain will occur. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK(S® 02) PAGE 27 F 40 There is an existing pedestrian/bicycle pathway on adjacent property to the west. No pedestrian/bicycle pathway is required on the subject site. The applicant has indicated that the necessary permits from the above agencies are in the process of being obtained and has introduced evidence of wetland delineation from DSL and service provider letter from CWS. Prior to site work, the applicant is required to provide copies of the permits obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the 100-Fear Floodplain standards can be me if the applicant complies with the condition below. CONDITION: Provide copies of required permits to work within the associated wetlands, from the US Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board., Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. STEEP SLOPS ® According to the applicant, the subject site has slopes that are greater than 25%. Therefore, the criterion of Section 18.775.070.0 "With steep slopes" applies. • The applicant's proposal to tie the existing sensitive slopes to the proposed grades is the minimum alteration possible to the slopes as a part of the balanced cut and fill activities in the floodplain. • Erosion control will be placed per the requirements of Clean Water Services to prohibit erosion and stream sedimentation.. Embankments will be placed using standard engineering design practices, which will be reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. • There are no steep slopes in the area of the proposed buildings. Irregardless, the placement of the proposed buildings has been sited and designed with no crawl spaces and is proposed to be slab on grade or have "piers". • The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that addresses the re-vegetation of all areas disturbed. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the Sensitive Lands standards have been .met. WITHIN DRAINAGEWAYS: o The development is only proposing alterations necessary to install improvements for the use proposed. a The applicant has provided a grading plan that illustrates erosion control measures that will be in-place after mass grading. Erosion control measures are reviewed by Clean Water Services and the City's Engineering Department to ensure no erosion, stream sedimentation or other adverse impacts affect the associated drainageway. A condition of approval has been imposed later in this report under 18.810 (Street and Utility RUFUGE AT FAQ MO C (S 00"0002) PAGE 28 Of 40 Improvement Standards). • The applicant's grading plan illustrates a zero-rise cut and fill that is certified by a professional engineer. The applicant's grading plan will result in zero balance cut and fill in the 100-year floodplain storage capacity. In addition, the applicant will be installing three additional 24-inch culverts in the access drive for large storm event overflow. As a result, the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. ® The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that addresses the re-vegetation of all areas disturbed. ® The applicant is not replacing the drainageway. The existing culverts will remain in place and additional culvers will be installed for large storm events. • The applicant has indicated that the necessary permits from the above agencies are in the process of being obtained and has since shown the necessary DSL permit (December 5, 2005 submission). The applicant has been conditioned above under the 100-year floodplain criteria to provide copies of the required permits. No dedication of land is required for this project to build a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. There is an existing pathway on the adjacent property to the west. CONCLUSION; Based on the analysis above, the drainageway standards have been met. WITHIN WETLANDS • The subject site contains areas designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan. Floodplain and-Wetland Map. The applicant is altering wetlands in three locations. The first two are not designated as significant on the mentioned Wetland Map as they are located east of the proposed access drive adjacent to Ash Creek. Ash Creek only contains a riparian setback designation and no wetland designations on-site. The applicant however is proposing an alteration to wetlands vegetative corridor shown on the snap on the Fanno Creek side of the access drive. The applicant has indicated that the alteration is being completed as allowed under 18.775.020.0 (2-4), which allows the removal of non-native vegetation and planting of native species. These alterations are exempt because they will be completed under the direction of the City, Division of State Lands, Clean Water Services and under 18.775.090.B.5.f of the Development Code. In summary, the applicant is altering two small wetland areas (0.02 and 0.01 acres) where necessary for the installation of the access drive and enhancing another 0.06 acres to mitigate the impacts. ® Section 18.775.020.0 only allows activities within significant wetlands under the direction of the City. The proposed project is a private development. None of alterations to the subject site have been under the direction of the City. Enhancements within significant wetland vegetative corridors are addressed under the direction of Clean Water Services and 18.775.090. • The applicant is required to improve all of the vegetative corridors except that which is north of proposed building #1. The area to the north is being improved by Clean Water REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK($DR2005-00002) PAGE 29 OF 40 Services. The applicant has indicated that the wetland alterations are the minimum necessary for the installation of the access drive. • The proposed drainage of the subject site will not impact the associated wetlands. The applicant has stated that the requirements of the project biologist, Clean Water Services, the Division of State Lands and Corps of Engineers will be followed to ensure that adverse impacts are avoided. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. • The applicant has indicated that erosion control measures in accordance with the erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County will be installed. All areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan demonstrating that all disturbed areas will be replanted. w The proposed project involves drainageways, steep slopes and 100-year flood plain, which have been addressed within the Staff Deport and found to meet the applicable criteria. • The applicant has been conditioned to provide the City of Tigard with documentation that the necessary permits from the required agencies have been obtained. • Tree Removal is addressed below under 18.790 (Tree Removal). CONCLUSION: The proposed development plan addresses these plan policies. The majority of the wetland area on the property will remain in its natural state. The site plan accommodates the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail as it has been constructed already on the west side of the creek. The Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map guides development throughout the City of Tigard and is implemented through the Development Code and Zoning Map. DEVELOEWNT ALONG FI NNO CREEK. -18.775.090 The standard width for the vegetated corridors for Ash Creek and Fanno Creek at the subject location is 50 feet. In this location the buffer is shown as 50 feet. The applicant has indicated that a delineation of the associated wetland and buffer has been completed. the applicant is required to provide a copy of the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. The - applicant has indicated that the associated vegetative corridor is in a marginal/degraded condition. According to the criterion, the corridor can be reduced to 50% of the standard width (50 feet). However, this standard does not apply according to section 18.775.090.B.5.g addressed below. The applicant has indicated that a wetland biologist was hired to address impacts and appropriate mitigation measures for the associated wetlands and vegetative corridor found on the subject property, The applicant has also stated that an application to Clean Water Services addressing the impacts and proposed mitigation was approved in April of 2005. The applicant has been conditioned within this section to provide the delineation of the associated wetlands and their buffers and the copy of the CW approval. (DSL and CWS approvals were provided on December 5, 2005) REFUGE AT F O CREEK(SD 2) PAGE 30 OF 40 • The applicant has proposed to encroach into the vegetative corridor of the wetlands associated with Fanno Creek in order to replace the existing driveway associated with the property with a paved access drive to the proposed development. According to the applicant, the access drive has been approved by Clean Water Services and has been addressed in this report tinder 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). The applicant has been conditioned to provide Clean Water Services approval. Therefore, the vegetative corridor widths/setbacks do not apply. • The applicant has stated the narrative that the proposed alterations within the established corridors are not designated as "good condition". In portions of the site, the 50-foot buffer is impacted where it is in a degraded condition. According to the above standard, provisions of Section 18.775.090.13 apply when, "Land for alterations or development are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Section 18.775.030.13.3." Therefore, the provisions of 18.775.090.13 apply which allow roadways and driveways within the established buffers under 18.775.090.B.5.g of the Sensitive Lands Chapter. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the Sensitive Lands standards will be met, if the applicant complies with the condition listed below: CONDITION: Provide a copy of the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. TREE REMOVAL.- 18,790 There are 28 trees on-site that are greater than 12-inches in diameter. The applicant's arborist has indicated that five of these trees are hazardous and need to be removed, leaving 23 trees viable for mitigation. Of the 23 trees remaining, the applicant will be preserving seven (30%) and removing 13 (70%). According to the mitigation requirements, retention between 25% and 501/o of the trees greater than 12 inches in caliper requires two thirds mitigation of the inches removed. According to the applicant, the project is removing 263 inches. Therefore, two thirds would equal 174 inches. The applicant has not indicated how mitigation will be satisfied. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a tree mitigation plan for 174 inches. The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees to remain on-site, either independently or for the entire site. CONCLUSION: The Tree Removal standards can be met if the applicant complies with the conditions below, the standard will be met. CONDITIONS: If trees are to be removed in sensitive areas according to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) in the Tigard Development Code, a tree removal permit must be obtained. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 174 inches. ♦ The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees to remain on-site, either REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK(0DR2005-00002) PAGE 31 OF 40 independently or for the entire site. a Prior to site work, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (1SA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan.. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester for approval with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. # A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be: o Visible. o Constructed of I I gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" OO.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. a Between, each post, securely attached to the chain-11ink fencing, Shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. o Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. o Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. + Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. + If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. ♦ Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall subunit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years REFUSE AT FAN CRP-EkG(S 5- 2) PAGE 32 OF 40 following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu of planting. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through final building inspection, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated.. CONCLUSION: As stated before, the findings of the Staff Report, some of which have been summarized above to provide an overview of the Sensitive Lands issues and the two adjustments granted, are adopted with slight modification by the Hearing Officer, This is not an easy site to develop and the applicant's proposal deals with all of the applicable requirements imposed by the Tigard City Code while minimizing the impacts on the protected areas. The aerial photos of the area clearly show that the attempt is consistent with the adjoining areas. The opponents basic issue is really with the MUE-2 zoning designation for this site, but the applicant meets the criteria established by the City and should be approved, with conditions, DECISION Based on all the foregoing findings and the findings of the STAFF REPORT and except as conditioned below, this application is approved in general conformance with the applicant's proposal, preliminary site plan and the plans and reports associated with this proposal. This approval. is granted subject to the requirements that the applicant, owner or subsequent developer (the "developer") shall comply with all applicable code provisions, laws and standards and the following conditions. These conditions shall be interpreted and implemented consistently with the Staff Report findings and the Findings contained in this decision. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SITE WORK: The applicant shall prepare a cower letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: REFUGE AT FANNO GREEK(SDR2005- Q2) PAGE 33 OF 40 1. Provide a copy of the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. 2. If trees are to be removed in sensitive areas according to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) in the Tigard Development Code, a tree removal permit must be obtained. 3. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 174 inches. 4. Provide drainage information and acknowledge in writing that it is understood that no encroachment is allowed into the significant wetland associated with this project. 5. Provide copies of required permits to work within the associated wetlands, from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. 6. Provide a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed Pacific Willows at the SW North Dakota Street frontage to be a minimum of 3 Y2 inch caliper. If Pacific Willows of that size prove to be impractical, the City may approve another comparable species. 7. Prior to site work, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection. Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester for approval with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. 9. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. 10. All tree protection devices shall be; + Visible. e Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. + Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. + Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. + Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. REFUGE AT FANNO CR EEK(SDR2005-0 02) PACE 34 OF 40 11. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu of planting. The applicant shall 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: KIM MCMICLLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 12. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the driveway approach and any other work in the public right-of=way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering .Department. NOTE: these plans are in additi on to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements, Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Fall and the City's web page (www.tigard- or. ov). 13. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, I,l,C, etc. Also specifythe si~sste -v' IUMI which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 14. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 15. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated, The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 16, The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 17. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of North Dakota REFUGE AT FAINNO CREE (S® 005-0 2) PAGE 35 OF 0 Street to increase the right-of-way to 29 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 13. The applicant shall submit an Engineer's Estimate acceptable to the City Engineer for half street improvements along their North Dakota Street frontage to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit. Prior to issuance of the Site Permit the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of half street improvements. 19. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit from CWS is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. 20. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 21. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." 23. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean. Water Act. 24. The applicant's plans shall ensure that landscaping, signage and utility installations at the proposed driveway be located and maintained to provide adequate visibility per the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25. Prior to issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval from the City Engineer for a future street extension plan that addresses the Collector extension included in the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan (TSP). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found.: 40 REFUGE AT F G CREW (SDR 005-00002) PAGE 36 OF 26. Provide and implement a plan showing the proposed trim work of the proposed buildings. 27. Provide construction drawings that show the proposed parapets to be constructed in order to screen the proposed roof mounted equipment. 28. Provide construction drawings that include elevations that show the proposed weather protection at the main entrances of all buildings. 29. Submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements will be at the discretion of a member of the Planning Staff. 30. Provide information guaranteeing that the proposed building materials are resistant to flood damage to a member of the Planning Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard's Building Official prior to building permits. 31. The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees to remain on-site, either independently or for the entire site. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 33. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through final building inspection, as he monitors the construction activities and progress, These reports should include any changes that occurred to the P-Z as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, longterm health and stability of the tree(s), ff the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. The applicant shall 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: KIM MC'IVIWLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is founds 36. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right- of-way (or public casement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK(SMOOS-00002) PAGE 31 OF 40 36. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the asabuilts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 37. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall pay the standard water quantity fees (fee amount will be the latest approved by CWS at the time it is paid). 38. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. 39. The applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification for the intersection of the driveway and North Dakota Street. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING OCCUPANCY: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 40. Provide documentation proving that the proposed shrubbery to be planted on site will be of a variety that will provide a three foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. 41. Provide a joint maintenance and access agreement for the individual buildings on the subject site. 42. Provide a lighting plan that shows proposed street trees to be a minimum of twenty feet from any proposed street light. 43. To ensure the proposed landscaping is completed, the applicant's landscaper shall provide a report certifying that the installed landscaping complies with the proposed plan and the landscaping requirement of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). A final inspection must be completed by a member of the Planning Department. 44. Provide a plan showing the construction of all standard and compact spaces and travel lanes to comply with the minimum requirements of Figure 18.765.1 in the Tigard Development Code. Construction and maintenance shall comply with approved plans. 45. Provide a plan showing the construction and the location of the required bicycle parking stalls within 50 feet of the main entrances. 45. Provide and implement a plan that shows the required bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0. of the Tigard Development Code. REFUGE AT FA NNO CREEK(SDR200 a) PAGE 38 OF 40 47. Provide and implement a plan showing a minimum of 13 bicycle parking stalls. 48. Allocate and assign five (S) percent of the total parking for carlvanpool parking. 49. Provide a plan showing the construction of wheel stops located within the proposed parking area in accordance with 18.765.040.J (Wheel Stops). 50. Provide a lighting plan demonstrating glare will not infringe on the residential homes to the west. 51. Provide a copy of the Franchise Hauler's Sign off letter for the method of waste collection. 52. To ensure erosion measures are installed prior to any on-site work, the applicant will be required to have the proposed erosion control measures inspected and signed off by a member of the engineering department. 53. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. 54. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Abborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Abborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Acl Dated this_ day of December 2005 J. 'Richard Forester City Tigard Hearing Officer Pro Tem NOTE: Only the decision and the condition q f approval are binding on the applicant as a result of this order. Other parts of the final order are explanatory, illustrative and/or descriptive. They may be requirements of local, state, or federal law, or requirements which reflect the intent of the REFUGE AT FANNO CRE EK(SOR200 2) PAGE 39 O 40 applicant, the city staff, or the Rearing Officer, but they are not binding on the applicant as a result of the final order unless included as a condition. APPEAL: This Decision of the Fearing Officer may be appealed by a party with standing to the Tigard City Council within 10 business days of the date the notice of decision is mailed as provided for in Chapter 13.390. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. R9FUGE AT FANNO !CREEK(5DR2005.00002) IMAGE 40 OF 40 Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: November 14 2005 Time: 7:00 PM E STAFF REPORT TO TSI RE R~ N G F F I ER' Cep( OF TIGARU QdmnrTZ UE '~ihent THE CITY OF TIGARbr, OR~GGN FOR (,~rnartuni 120 DAY S,= 1/24/2006 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: REFUGE AT FANNO.CREEK FILE NOS: Site Development Review D DR2005-00002 Sensitive Lands Review SL SLR2005-00017 Sensitive Lands Review SLR SLR2005-00018 Sensitive Lands Review SLR SLR2005-00019 Sensitive Lands Review SLR SLR2005-00020 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2005-00055 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2005-00056 APPLICANT: Spectrum Development OWNER: MBM Holding Company, LLC Attn: Peter Kusyk P.O. Box 120 P.O. Box 3440 Newberg, OR 97132-0120 Wilsonville, OR 97070 APPLICANT'S REP: SFA Design Group, LLC Attn: Matthew L. Spra ue gn9n SW Washincaffin 1mime Drive- Suite 3-in Portland, OR 97223 REQUEST: The applicant is requestingg Site Development Review approval to construct two commercial office buildings totaling 26,000 square feet and three buildings equaling nine residential units. The subject site has slopes greater than 25%, drainageways, wetlands and 100-year floodplain. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to the required access width from 24 feet to 22 feet and an adjustment to the maximum front yard setback standard in the Washington Square Regional Center to increase the setback from 20 feet to approximately 920 feet. LOCATION: 10225 SW North Dakota Street; WCTM 1S135BC, Tax Lot 1200. ZONE: MUE-2: Mixed Use Em to merit Districts. The MUE-2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and.light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed 'but are limited, and residential uses are permitted. which are compatible with employment character of the area. APPLICABLE REVIEW. CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.630, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780,1&790,18.795 and 18.810. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 1 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 SECTION I1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Land Use Applications will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the Cty and meets the approval standards as outlined in this report.. Therefore, Staff. recommends APPROVAL, suble'ct to the following recommended Conditions of Approval and:* in-clings: Vv tl in this staff'report' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SITE' WORK: The applicant s a prepare a cover letter an submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the. following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION,. ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Provide a copy of the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. 2. Provide information addressing the height of all buildings and the percentage of landscaping,on the site. 3. If trees are to be removed in sensitive areas according to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) in the Tigard Development Code, a tree removal permit must be obtained. 4. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 174 inches. 5. Provide drainage information and acknowledge:. in writing that it is understood that no encroachment is allowed into the cinnifirantwetland associated ;nrifh thicznrnior-t y..... C.. _J . allow. 6. Provide copies of required permits to work within the associated wetlands, from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. 7. Provide a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed Pacific Willows at the SW North Dakota Street frontage to be a minimum of 3 %2 inch caliper. 8. Prior to site work, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees. being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project mush be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. 9. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester for approval with notations as to when tree protection. devices will be either installed or removed throughout construction of the project. 10. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction- related activities shall not be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 2 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 1.1114/2005 L S 11. All tree protection. devices shall be: ♦ Visible. ♦ Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each post shall be no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each post shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. ♦ Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing. . Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. ♦ Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. g 12. Prior to commencing site.work, the' applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent Value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through the subdivision improvements and construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 (D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant. shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu 'of planting. The applicant shall 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: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 13. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the driveway.approach and any other work in the public right-of- wav_ Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineenng Department.*. NOTE. these plans are in. addition to any drawinggs required by the Building Division and should. only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform.to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). 14. The PFI permit plan submittal shall. include the exact legal name, address. and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated' as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity. is a corporation, limited partnership., LLC, etc.. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person.. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 15. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement - construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by. this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. ' 16. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated: The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 3 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING.11/14/2005 17. The applicant shall provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. 18. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of North Dakota Street to increase the. right-of-way to 29 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of--way centerline. The dedication document shall be on . City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 19. The applicant shall submit an Engineer's Estimate acceptable to the City Engineer for half: street improvements along their North Dakota Street frontage to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit. Prior to issuance of the Site Permit the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of half-street improvements. 20. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit from CWS is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. 21. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI~epartment, permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water oas a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to a roval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 22. The applicant shall provide an on-site water uality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards ?(adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00- Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 23.. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) rri+ Arntir nrv c+ The l~n shall nnnfnrrn fn fkem I'~rr.ctnn Drew n+inn ~nA Sedirnenf pert 111L ul avvil gs. pla ~ s ~ ll .vuvw LI w L_I v.3wI 1 I v i iuuI 1. CAI iu v uu I wI Ii Control Design and Planning Manual., February 2003 edition." 24. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal lean Water .Act. 25. The applicant's plans shall ensure that landscaping, signage and utility installations at the proposed driveway be located and maintained to provide adequate visibility per the l"raffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 26. Prior to issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval from the City Engineer for a future street extension plan that addresses the Collector extension included in. the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan (TSP). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUIWING PERMIT: The. applicant s a prepare a cover letter an submit it, p long wit any supporting documents and/or plans that address.the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 27. Provide and implement a plan showing the proposed trim work of the proposed buildings. 28. Provide construction drawings that show the proposed parapets to be constructed in .order to screen the proposed roof mounted equipment. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 4 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 29. Provide construction drawings that include elevations that show the proposed weather protection at the main entrances of all buildings. 30. Submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements. will be at the discretion of a member of the Planning Staff. :31. Provide information:. guaranteeing that the proposed building materials are resistant to flood damage to a member of the Planningg Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard 's Building Official prior to'building permits. 32. The applicant will need to record a deed restriction-for. all trees to. remain on-site, either independently or for the entire site. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer, shall sign a copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. 34. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through final building inspection, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project, Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be.done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final .certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable.and viable in their modified growing environment The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supportin documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINNEE G DIVISION, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 36. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 37. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as=built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG' format, if available; otherwise "DXF will be acceptable,. and 3) the as-built drawings shall be.' tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file .with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, reference to NAD 83 (91). 38. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall pay the standard water quantity fees (fee amount will be the latest approved,by CWS at the time it is paid). 39. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into'a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 5 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 40. The applicant's engineer shall provide final sight distance certification for the intersection of. the driveway and North Dakota Street. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TOA FINAL BUILDI:NG-OCCUPANCY: he applicant s ha prepare a cover letter an submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or .plans that address the followingg requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING. DIVISION, ATTN: MATHEW SCHEIDEGGER 503-639-4171, EXT 2437. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 41. Provide documentation proving that the proposed shrubbery to be planted on site will be of a variety that will provide a three foot high screen and a 90% ppacity within one year. 42. Provide a joint maintenance and access agreement for the individual buildings on the subject site. 43. Provide a lighting plan that shows proposed street trees to be a minimum of twenty feet from any proposed street light. 44. To ensure the proposed landscaping is completed, the applicant's landscaper shall provide a. report certifying that the installed landscaping complies with the proposed plan and the landscaping requirement of chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). A final inspection .must be completed by a member of the.Planning Department.. 45. Provide a plan showing the construction of all standard and compact spaces and travel lanes to comply with the minimum requirements of Figure 18.765.1 in the Tigard Development Code. Construction and maintenance shall comply with approved plans. 46 Provide a plan showing the construction and the location of the required hicycle parking stabs within 50 feet of the main entrances. 47. Provide and implement a plan that shows the required bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0. of the Tigard. Development Code. 48. Provide and implement a plan showing a minimum of 13 bicycle parking stalls. 49. Allocate -and assign five (5) percent of the total parking for car/vanpool parking. 50. Provide a plan showing the construction of wheel stops located within the proposed parking area in accordance with 18.765.040.J (Wheel Stops). 51. Provide a lighting plan demonstrating glare will not infringe on the residential homes to the west, 52. Provide a copy of the Franchise Hauler's Sign off letter for the method of waste collection. 53. To ensure erosion measures are installed prior to any on-site work, the applicant will be required to have the proposed erosion control measures inspected and signed off by a.member of the engineering department. 54. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks, bulldozers, etc.) the project arbonst and City Forester must be notified before any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, -along with any. additional tree protection measures. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SQR2005-00002) PAGE 6 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 55. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction activities. and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the. tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact. the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s).' If the reports are not submitted or received by the City. Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being. followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arbor ist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing,. determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction,,. and determine if any partof the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE. VALID FOR EIGHTEEN, (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE. HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION: SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Histor r Staff conducted a search of City records and found a previous land-use case for a 42 unit condominium development with site development review, sensitive lands review and an adjustment to the accessway width from 24 feet to 22 feet. This proposal was withdrawn. No other land-use cases exist. Vicinity Information Tl' su-5ject pproperty has frontage along SW North Dakota Street, between SW Greenburg Road and.SW Scho l's Ferry'Road. Site Information and Pro osal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct two commercial office buildings totaling 26,000 square .feet and three buildings providing nine residential units. The subject site has slopes .greater than 25%, drainageways, wetlands and 100-year floodplain. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to the required access width from 24 feet to 22 feet and an adjustment to the maximum front yard setback standard in the Washington Square Regional Center to increase the setback from 20 feet to approximately 920 feet. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) ..18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading. requirements) 18.780 Signs)) 18.794 Tree F~emoval) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 . D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 7 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 SECTION V. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICT Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description o t e Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the MUE-2: Mixed Use Employment District. Uses: Types.of uses. Section 18.520.030. Residential uses are a restricted use in the Mixed Use Employment District (MUE-2). According to Table 18.520.1 attached residential units are subject to the provisions of 18.630 Washington Square Region Center Design .Standards. Office uses. are permitted. outright within the MUE-2 zoning district. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.1 States that Development. standards in Commercial Zoning Districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD MUE=2 Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 362,855 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width None 272 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 0 ft [21] 900 ft. --Side facing street on corner & through lots [1] 0 ft [21] N/A - Side yard 0 ft [20] 160 ft. Rear yard 0 ft [26]. 7 ft. -Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street. - Minimum Building Height None N/A Maximum Height 60 ft ? Maximum Site Coverage [2] 85%o . ? Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% ? Minimum FAR 0.6 0.6 Minimum Residential Density [4][5][6] 25 units per acre 9-units Maximum Residential Density 50 units per acre 10-units [1] All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in Section 18.520.050.A. [2] Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742. [4] Uses operating before 7:00 AM and/or after 10:00 PM are conditional uses. [5] All permitted, limited and conditional uses must meet special development.standards in Section 18.520.050. B. [6] Residential units permitted by right, as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial development, on or above the second floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units/net acre. [20] All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in Sectionl8.520.050.C. [21] Multi-family residential, at 25 units/gross acre, allowed outright. Pre-existing detached. single-family dwellings are permitted outright. As demonstrated in the table above, the applicant's plans do. not comply with the dimensional standards of the MUE-2 zone. The applicant has not provided actual numbers for the proposed building heights, and has' not provided information *Showing that the minimum landscaping requirement has been satisfied. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide information addressing the. buildings height and the percentage of landscaping on the site. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Development Standards criteria have not been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition below, this section will be met. CONDITION: Provide information addressing the height of all buildings and the percentage of landscaping on the site. REFUGE AT FANNO.CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 8 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 1111412005 B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.630, 1p8.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. The .proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the. following sections. Variances and Adjustments (18.370): or Moo i ica ions to dimensional. and minimum density requirements for developments within the. Washington Square Regional Center that* include or abut designated. Water Resource overlay areas, the standards' of Section 18.630.020.F apply. . The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center and the applicant is requesting a modification to the front -yard maximum setback of 20 feet: Therefore, the standards of 18.630.020 apply and have been addressed below under 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards). Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). In all zonin districts where access and a ress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to. the width standard for a multi-family and commercial driveway, as directed by Table 18.705.2. which states that a multi-family development with between three and 19 units should have a driveway with a pavement width of 24 feet,_ if two-way. This standard is the same for commercial pavement width for parking areas containing zero to 99 spaces. The proposai requests the pavement width be reduced to 22 feet. The applicant's proposed accessway is hampered by the proximity of Fanno Creek, Ash Creek and their associated 100-year flood plain and wetland areas. It is not possible to share access; There are no adjacent developments where shared access with the subject site is possible. The property to the north is- developed with commercial buildings and associated parking lots. Property to the east is established with a railroad and its associated right-of--way. The applicant will be constructing a secondary emergency access under an existing railroad trestle via an existing easement to SW Cascade Avenue; however, the trestle is not of adequate width. (approximately 12 feet) to provide two way vehicular traffic on a regular basis. It. is not possible to share access to the west due to the existing wetlands and associated sensitive areas. Therefore, the access from SW North Dakota Street is the-only logical access point. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or- from another street; As mentioned above, the subject site is surrounded by existing 'development, railroads and sensitive areas. Therefore, any alternative access point would conflict with the existing and immediate inhibitors. The access separation requirements cannot be met; SW North Dakota is a neighborhood route. The Development. Code does not have access separation requirements for neighborhood routes. In any case the closest to the proposed parcel is approximately 67 feet to the west on the south side of North Dakota. The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 9 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The proposed site plan shows that with minimal grading,, and the placement of retaining walls, a minimum paved width of 22 feet along the majority of the main accessway can be provided. The plan shows the ability to widen the accessway to the required 24-foot width at the entrance to SW North Dakota Street, where it is most critical. The applicant is providing the maximum width for the accessway that is possible, given the wetland and floodplain constraints of the site. The applicant has also obtained approval for the proposed accessway width from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Therefore, the required adjustment is the minimum needed to provide adequate access. The approved access or.access approved with conditions will result in a safe access;. The proposed access width being modified will result in a width that is safe for vehicular traffic. At the sites entrance the width of. the access increases to 24 feet. As mentioned. above, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has approved the proposed access. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. Visual clearance has been addressed under 18.795 (Visual Clearance) and it is found to meet the requirements. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Adjustment criteria for 18.705 (Access, Egress and Circulation) have been satisfied. Washington Square Re zonal Center Design Standards {18.630) Design standards or public street improvements ann for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington. Square Regional Center. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Washington Square Regional Center, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient pedestrian' and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in new non single family residential uses are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and, public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Washington Square Regional Center within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Phasing of Development Standards: Projects may use the Site Development Review process (Chapter 18.360) to develop a site by phasing compliance with the development standards established in this Chapter. Such projects must demonstrate how future development of the site, . to the minimum development standards established in this Chapter, or greater, can be achieved at ultimate build out of the site. The Planning Director may waive or modify the, approval period (Section 18.360.030.0) and phased. development time schedule (Section 18.360.030.E.1) for projects approved under this section. If a time period greater than that specified in Section 18.360.030.0 is necessary, it must be requested at the time of original application with a detailed time line for completion. Phasing has not been proposed with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 10 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11,/14/2005 Density Requirements for Developments Includin or Abutting Riparian Setback. Notwithstanding the density requirements in Table 18.520.2, the-maximum residential density and mixed-use and nonresidential floor area ratio for' developments that include or abut Riparian Setbacks shall be no greater than 110 percent of the minimum residential, density and floor area ratios in all Mixed Use Zones, except when the following are met! 1. Wetlands within the development are expanded or enhanced in conformance with the Oregon Division of State Lands Wetlands Restoration and Enhancement Program, and if applicable; 2. Fish Habitat within the. development is enhanced in conformance with the Oreggon Division of State Lands Fish Habitat Enhancement Program, and if applicable; 3.. The overall flood storage capacity of the 100-year floodplain within the development is increased by 10 percent. If the enhancements described above are approved, or if enhancements are already, in existence, the maximum residential density standards shown in Table 18.520 and no maximum floor area ratio standards for mixed use and non-residential developments shall apply. The subject site includes a Riparian Setback area. Based upon the applicant's density calculations in Chapter 18.715, the proJ'ect does not exceed 110% of the minimum density. The minimum density. is nine units and 110% of the minimum is 9.9 units as a maximum. The proposed commercial floor area for the site has been proposed to be 6.0, which is the .minimum for the MUE-2 zone. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Washington Square Regional Center. The density. requirements shown in Table 18.520.2 are designed to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These requirements apply throughout the Washington Square Regional Center zoning districts, but the City recognizes that some sites are difficult to develop or redevelop in compliance with these requirements. The adjustment. process provides a mechanism by which, the minimum density . requirements may be reduced by up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the original requirement if the proposed development continues to meet the intended purpose of the requirement and findings are made that all approval criteria are met. Adjustment reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code. Approval criteria. Adjustment requests will be appproved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria a through d below, are met: a. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; b.. The proposal, will be consistent with the desired character of the area; C. If more than one "adj-ustment is being requested, the cumulative-affect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d. Any'impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent possible. No adjustment to the density requirements has been proposed. Therefore, this standard does not apply. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 11 OF 55 HEARINGS. OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Modifications to Dimensional. and Minimum Density Requirements for Developments That Include or Abut Designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian Setbacks. Notwithstanding the dimensional and minimum density requirements in Table 18.520.2, the minimum and maximum dimensional requirements and the minimum residential density and mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio for developments that include or abut Riparian Setbacks shall be subject to modification when modification is necessary to assure that environmental impacts are minimized. Modification reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code, while assuring potential environmental impacts are minimized. The applicant is proposing a modification to the maximum dimensional requirements of 20 feet for the front yard building setback requirement of the MUE-2 zoning district. Therefore, the following criteria apply. Modification requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that approval criteria a through d below, are met: Evidence is provided that the modification(s) are necessary in. order to secure approval under any of the following applicable regulations: Federal Endangered Species Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Section 404 or 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and Oregon Removal-Fill Law; The modification to the maximum setback is requested. The applicant cannot build a structure fronting SW North Dakota Street due to the existing drainageway location of Ash Creek. Ash Creek contains a riparian corridor and setback. The proposal will be consistent with the, desired character of th•e.area as specified in the Plan; According to the applicant, the desired character of the. area is to provide a high-quality mixed-use area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing ~+tranf~r~rv4tscape c to rc_4c h~nh -ni irrmana fnr fha reran feat nnvf fnr!inrnl Th rn.ia••# Ju to c eate n i ii i ~ ~ainfill~ aJ. a. v. aa. a..u ~va..v ivia ttaai1 iaJ. 1 n n v;--L,t provides a mixed use condominium development in a mixed use zone. The buildings front the access drive to best meet the "streetscape" characteristics desired. The project provides a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system by providing connections to SW North Dakota Street and SW Cascade Avenue. In addition, the Fanno Creek Greenway adjacent to the west of the site contains a pedestrian/bicycle pathway for the enjoyment of the new residents and employees. Therefore, the proposal is consistent.with the desired character of the area as specified in the plan. If more than one modification is being requested, the cumulative effect of the modifications results in a project that is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone, The overall purpose of the zone is to: 1.` Implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in. the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. 2. Permit mixed use development within the Regional Center at densities appropriate for an urban center. 3. Connect districts to each other and to the rest of the region by multi-modal transportation system; and provide a range of working, livin.9,. and shopping opportunities. 4. Provide improved multi-modal transportation links. Higher densities, variety of land uses, and enhanced environmental qualities to contribute to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth. 5. Provide new mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in established areas. As only a single modification is proposed an increase of approximately 900 feet), this item does not apply and the project is consistent with the overall purpose of the zone. The modification(s) proposed are the minimum required to grant the applicable permit(s) listed in criteria a. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 12 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The proposed modification is the. minimum required to grant the applicable permits listed. The site's unusual characteristic along SW North Dakota Street require that a modification be granted in order to preserve and protect the natural resources located in this area. A building cannot be constructed in the drainageway. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.. Section 18.630.040 requires a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC): The primary objective is to create a balanced, connected transportation system that distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets. The connectivity standards may be satisfied by either of two options: Design Option. a. Local street'spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals,of no more that 330 feet. Performance Option. a. Local street spacing shall occur, at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle triover public streets from a major building entrance to a collector ,or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public : right-of-way from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility ►s no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. Access to the subject site is provided by a private access drive. There are appro4nmately nine street intersections along SW North Dakota between SW Tiedeman and SW 124 Place to the west. The shortest vehicle trip from the main entrance of the proposed commercial buildings to SW Tiedeman will be approximately 1,700 feet. The straight line distance from the main entrance. of the proposed commercial buildings. to SW Tiedeman is approximately 1,600 feet. The shortest pedestrian trip to SW Greenburg Road, an arterial street, is approximately 1,500 feet, which is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. Therefore, the applicant meets the Performance. Option, Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along major and minor arterial streets. Build gs shall be located at public street intersections on major and minor arterial streets. Southwest North Dakota Street is classified as. a neighborhood route. Therefore, the subject site does not abut.a major or minor.arterial. Therefore; this standard does not apply. Building setbacks: The minimum and maximum building setback from public street rights-of-way shall be in accordance with Table 18.520.2. The maximum setbacks listed are for front yards and adjacent to public streets. North Dakota Street is the front yard of the project site and is also a public street. However, because of the sensitive lands which exist adjacent to SW North Dakota Street, no opportunity exists to site a . building within 20-feet of the right-of-way. The proposed buildings will be set back approximately 900 feet from SW North Dakota Street. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the maximum dimensional requirements of 20 feet for the front yard building setback requirement of the MUE-2 zoning district. The modification is necessary to assure that environmental impacts are minimized. Therefore, this standard has been met. Front yard setback design: For setbacks greater than 0 feet, landscaping, and arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided' on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 13 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encoura ed. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 8.520.040.8 and Table 18.520.2. The proposed buildings will be set back from the right-of-way of SW North Dakota Street for a distance of approximately 920 feet. As a result, the applicant's an demonstrates. that a six-foot-wide hard surface sidewalk will be provided from each building entry to the proposed accessway. No building abuts more than one street. The accessway as shown on the landscape plan demonstrates compliance with the L-2 standard described under 18.630.090.S.2. The frontage along SW North Dakota, that is not within a sensitive area has been shown to be screened with a combination of trees (Pacific .Willow) and shrubbery (Redosier Dogwood). The L-1 landscaping standard requires trees to be planted at a minimum of 3'12 inch caliper. The applicant has shown the Pacific Willows to be planted at a 2 inch minimum caliper." Therefore,.the applicant is required to provide a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed Pacific Willows to be a minimum of 3 Y2 inch caliper.. The sidewalks connecting the building entrances to the accessway will be constructed of scored concrete or modular pavers. . Walkway connection to building entrances: A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be "paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. . Building entrances at a corner adjacent to a public street intersection are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040.6 and Table 1.8.520.2. The applicant's plans demonstrate that the walkway connections between building' entrances and the accessway are six feet wide. The proposed walkways will be. paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. The walkway connections between the entrances for buildings three and four connect directly to their primary accessway however, to clearly define a pedestrian. environment, six foot wide, at grade concrete pathways will be designed connecting to the primary accessway. Under this standard, no walkway is required along the accessway. However, the applicant has shown a five foot wide walkway along.one side of the accessway, in nmordance with Table 18.705.2. Therefore,. this standard is satisfied. Parking location and landscape design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary streets) shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional 'classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, .parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side. and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 landscape standard, except where a side yard abuts a public. street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 landscape standard. There are no parking spaces proposed adjacent to a public'street as a result of the location of the on-site sensitive areas. The buildings and parking spaces are. setback from SW North Dakota Street approximately 900 feet and are located behind a five foot landscaped area consistent with the L-1 landscaping standard. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Ground floor windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall. area with windows, display areas or, doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The .ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area. and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% .of the ground floor window requirement may a met on an adjoining elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 14 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 There are no proposed buildings located within 10 feet of a public street. Therefore, this standard does not apply.. Building facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: (1) a variation in building materials; (2) a building off- set of at least 1-foot; (3) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (4) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system.. No building a ade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. None of. the proposed buildings face a public street. However, the applicant has provided plans that show the proposed buildings to extend no more than 50 feet without providing a variation of building materials, offsets or other design features that reflect the buildings structural system. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Weather protection: Weather protection for pedestrians such as awnings, canopies, an arcade, shall- be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along buildingg frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. The applicant has indicated that each of the proposed buildings will be constructed with a covered entrance. However, the applicant has not provided elevations. Therefore, staff cannot verify that this standard is satisfied. The applicant is required to provide construction drawings- that include elevations that show the proposed weather protection at the main entrances of all buildings. Building Materials: Plain concrete .block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation. material is not revealed for more than _ iee`L. The proposed buildings will consist of composition shingles (Arch. Series) as an exterior finish with vinyl windows, trim wrap posts, decorative braces, cultured stone veneer wainscote and post bases. The commercial buildin s will include a' combination of split face CMU and brick veneer. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Roofs and roof lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts.and false roofs are not permitted. No false fronts or roofs are associated with this development. The applicant has proposed that the roofs of the proposed buildings have been desiggned with respect to the structural system and architectural style. Therefore, this standard is.satisfied. Roof-mounted equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from- adjacent. public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are.exempt from this standard. According to the applicant, no. roof mounted equipment is proposed for the residential units. The proposed commercial buildings have been proposed to have roof mounted equipment that will be screened by the proposed parapets. However, the applicant has not provided elevations showing the proposed screen.. Therefore, the applicant is. required, to provide construction drawings that show the proposed parapets to be constructed in order to screen the proposed roof mounted equipment. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 15 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 Section 18.630.070 specifies additional requirements as related to signs.. In general for commercial developments in the MUC zone, the requirements for signs in commercial zones. as described in 18.780 shall be used. Height limits for freestanding signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs are not permitted to extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted. The applicant has not proposed any sgnage with this application. Signage will be covered under a separate process through the City. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 18.630,090 describes the landscapin and screening requirements applicable within the Washington Square Regional enter. For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within arking lots and along local collectors and local streets planting standards of Chapjer 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply: "In addition the L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials and where parking lots abut public streets. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feel between the pparking lot and. a street trees shall be planted at 3% inch caliper at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a ~-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within arking lots, and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. In addition, trees shall be provided at 'a minimum 2% inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. The landscape plan submitted by the applicant shows landscaped areas within the parking lots and along SW North Dakota Street comply with the planting standards of Chapter 18.745 except along. a small southern portion of SW North Dakota Street that has sensitive lands. Because the accessway is in excess of 100 feet in length, the applicant has proposed street trees to be planted along the entire length of the drive at 2Y2 caliper inches per tree at a spacing of 28 feet. The applicant has not indicated whether or not the proposed shrubbery to be planted on site will be of a variety that will provide a three foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide further information. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Washington Square Regional Center Design criteria have not been satisfied. CONDITIONS: Provide a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed Pacific Willows at the SW North Dakota Street frontage- to be a minimum of 3 Y2 inch caliper. Provide information indicating that the proposed shrubbery to be planted on site will be of a variety that will provide a three foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one year. • Provide construction drawings that include. elevations that show the proposed weather protection at the main entrances of all buildings. Access Egress and Circulation (18.705): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how, access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall. provide the applicant with detailed information about. this submission requirement. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing one entrance to the site. Access is reviewed for compliance below. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 16 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases. or contracts are placed on permanent.file with the City. The applicant has indicated that joint access is not required with this application. However, the proposed commercial and residential buildings are to be sold to individual owners and joint access will need to -be established for maintenance and access rights. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a joint access agreement for the individual buildings on the subject site. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18:705.0301 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 basis. The subject site is accessible from SW .North Dakota Street, which is a public street that will be maintained as a public street. Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair,- bicycle ramps, and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. No drivewav approach shall be less than- five feet from the side property line projected except in cul-6-sacs, without approval and written permission of the city. ' Tlie end slopes may encroach within the five foot restricted area. No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersection street right-of-way line. Commercial or service drives shall not be more than thirty feet in width and if located on the same lot frontage shall be sepparated by a minimum length of curb of thirty feet. Each residential driveway shall be not more than twenty-six feet in width including end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage spacing between such driveways shall be not less than thirty feet measured along the curb line. Joint access driveways shall conform to the appropriate width standard for commercial or residential type usage. The proposed driveway approach to the subject pproperty is shown to be ten feet from the east pproppert y line and greater than 30 feet from the intersection of SW North Dakota Street and Tiedeman Avenue. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and* egress.. Walkways shall provide convenient. connections- between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; . A. five-foot walkway has been proposed for the length of the proposed accessway, which connects to SW North Dakota Street. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT-(SDR2005-00002) PAGE 17 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access drivewa s or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall. 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 permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used.. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The applicant has proposed to construct a five foot wide walkway along. one side of the private. accessway. The proposed walkway is shown to be separated from vehicular movements by a six inch curb. The proposed walkway does cross the proposed accessway and stripping has been proposed to demarcate the pedestrian area. The walkway from the building entrances to the walkways on the accessway is a minimum of six feet in width, as required by 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards). All walkways are proposed to be designed in accordance with ADA standards. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be, lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant's plan shows the pedestrian walkways' from the subject building to be paved. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Inade uate or hazardous access. pp ica ions or building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and Tigard Police have been notified of the proposed development and have not indicated a hazard. The proposed driveway has. been designed to City standards. The Director has not determined that Planning Commission review is necessary for building permits. With regard to streets and street intersections, these issues are addressed under TDC Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). This criterion has been satisfied. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the 'backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Single-family and duplex dwellings are exempt from this requirement. The proposed accessway, will enable vehicles. to pull forward from the site onto SW North Dakota Street, a neighborhood-route. In addition the applicant is not requesting direct. individual access to a public street from the commercial or residential' units. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) ectin1B.7L1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,- Washington County, the City and. AASHTO. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc, dated May 19, 2005. In this report they addressed sight distance at the proposed access point onto North Dakota Street. A speed study was performed and the 85 percentile speed was found to be 37 mph, requiring a minimum intersection sight distance of 370 feet. According to the report, the sight distance to the west is-'more than adequate at this location.. The sight distance, to the east (westbound vehicles) from the proposed access is 277 feet. This does.not meet the standard REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 18 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 so the engineer then evaluated the stopping. distance and found it to be approximately 270 feet. The study determined that a vehicle at the proposed access would be visible to a westbound driver coming from the Tiederpan Avenue intersection, although the guardrail at the railroad track may partially obstruct the view. The report further concludes visibility would be clear from a distance of 270 feet from the proposed driveway if .there are no. landscaping or signage obstructions. Therefore, a westbound vehicle would have sufficient visibility to recognize a vehicle exiting the proposed development and be able to come to a safe stop. .The report recommends that landscaping, signage and utility installations at the proposed driveway be properly located and maintained to maintain adequate visibility. Staff concurs with this recommendation. The engineer shall provide a final sight distance certification for the access upon completion of the driveway approach and prior to final building inspection. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be. placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection: The, minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 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 project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The proposed -driveway is over 400 feet from the nearest collector or arterial intersection, thereby meeting this criterion. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the. minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 1.25 feet. North Dakota Street is classified as a Neihborhood Route (local street). The spacing between the two closest streets, SW 105' and SW 106 is approximately 260 feet. Therefore this criterion is satisfied. Minimum access requirements for residential use. e icu ar access an egress or singe : ami y, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and -multi-family residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Table 18.705.1 and Table 18.705.2; The applicant has proposed nine multi-family, units on the subject site. The minimum access requirement for nine units is one 30-foot accessway with 24 feet of pavement. The applicant has requested an adjustment to reduce the pavement width to 22 feet of pavement, which is addressed above under the adjustment section of this report. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Section 18.705.030.1.4 states that Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a circular, paved surface.having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet or a hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. The maximum cross slope.of a required turnaround is 5%. The applicant's plan shows a circular paved surface having a minimum turn radius greater, than 35 feet measured from the center point to the outside edge. The plan has been reviewed and approved by Tualatin Valley, Fire and Rescue. Therefore,' this standard is "satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 19 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with. 0-99 parking spaces. is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial. uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground. floor entrances; additional requirements. for. truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The applicant has shown a total of 90 parking stalls for the proposed commercial buildings which requires a 30-foot access drive with 24 feet of pavement. The applicant has applied for an adjustment to reduce the required pavement width to 22 feet, which is addressed under the :Adjustment criteria above: Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Cane-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates. only one-wax traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific ddriveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The proposed access drive is designed for two-way traffic. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for.. increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding.that the proposed access would: Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or . !`~::ca. h~~ra~eln,lle nna:~'s{:nrc {n mmBs{ tAlhie+k aasnlslrl n:src{e±1:{., t:-.~r .era-1 VGGJG IIGLGI biV GJ VV/IM/~VIIJ tV V/IIJL •WIII VII •iVG1u VV/IJ/LY LC G %.11 CAI Glib/ 141 V, cllL danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between . neighboring developments or land uses; The proposed access to the subject property is not considered hazardous or constitutes a clear and present danger to the public health. Final sight distance certification has been conditioned Therefore, 'no access restriction is required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above; the Access; Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a joint maintenance and access agreement for the' individual buildings on the subject site. Densit Com utations and Limitations: Chapter 18.715 implements the omprehensive 'Plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining parcel area after exclusion of sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of dwelling units that may be developed on a site. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 20 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The net development area is determined by subtracting from the gross area,, the land needed for public and private streets as well as areas for sensitive lands. The calculations are as follows: Gross lot area 362,724.1.2 square feet Sensitive Lands 301,662.20 square feet Public right-of-way 2,047.32 s ware feet DEVELOPABLE NET AREA: 59,014.6 square eet According to footnote' four of Table 18.520.2 (Commercial Zoning District) there is no minimum density requirement far mixed 'use projects. The maximum density for the subject site is based on 50 units per acre. Therefore, the maximum density for the subject site is 67 units. The applicant has proposed nine units. Therefore, this section is satisfied' FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Density Computations and Limitation standards have been met. Design Compatibility Standards (18.720) . Density transition: When a multi-family or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply: Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line.or three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line;. Building planes for multi-family dwellings within 50 feet of the common property line(s) and abutting public rights-of-way shall be-subject to the following standards: No building plane-that faces the common property line shall exceed 960 square feet within 30 feet or 1.400 square feet within 50 feet of the propertv.line; No building plane shall have a dimension greater than-40 feet in length or 35 feet in height; If more than one building plane faces .a property line and building planes align at a common distance from the line, the building planes shall be horizontally separated by at least 20 feet. For purposes of this standard, "common distance" shall be defined as within 12 feet; Building plane is defined as a surface that includes a building wall that extends from the ground to the top of each wall of a structure. Area is determined by multiplying the length of each wall by the height. The plane does not include roof area. When a structure along a wall juts out from the wall, or is off-set from an adjacent part less than four feet, the structure is considered part of the building plane of the wall behind it. If the structure protrudes more than four feet, it represents a separate building plane. If a building plane is at an angle in relation to the property line, the midpoint of the wall shall provide the point at which the plane and related distances are measured. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 18.720.1. The proposed buildings are not within 50-feet of the abutting property zoned (R-7) or abutting public right-of-ways. Therefore, these standards do not apply. Front facades: All primary ground-floor common entries or individual unit entries of street frontage units shall be oriented to :the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof pediments are encourages for structures, facing a street to create visual interest. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 21, OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/1412005 The project is not proposing any ground floor common entries or individual unit entries on a street frontage as no street frontage exists where common or individual unit entries can be provided. The only. street frontage is SW North Dakota Street. The North Dakota Street frontage area is impacted by wetlands, drainagewayys and floodplains except where the accessway connects to the public right-of-way. front elevations of the proposed residential units will have no building planes in excess of 500 square feet. Projecting features are included on all of the buildings; however, none of the structures face a street. .Main entrance: Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the street upon which the project. fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main entrance oriented to either street or at the corner. The primary structures are oriented with their main entrance facing the proposed accessway. There are.no opportunities to face the structures to a 'street or corner upon which the project fronts. The project meets the intent of this requirement by facing the main entrances of the buildings onto the proposed accessway. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Unit definition: Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay windows on the street-facing elevation, or by providing 'a roof gable or porch that faces the street. Ground-level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. The applicant' has proposed each of the residential units with the inclusion of a roof gable and a porch that faces the proposed accessway: The proposed porches are more than 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Roof lines: Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall be a minimum 4-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally. The applicant's plans indicated that roof line offsets are provided at intervals of 40 feet or less and the roof lines are broken horizontally with a four foot high break and vertically from the gutter by the large gable features. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure's street-facing elevation(s). . The applicant has proposed trim work for all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors on the front elevations. However, no elevations have been submitted to show the proposed trim work. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide and implement a plan showing the proposed trim work of the proposed buildings. Mechanical equipment: Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be- screened from ground-level view. Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design. The applicant's plan proposes roof mounted mechanical equipment for both commercial 'buildings. The proposed equipment is screened by the proposed parapet which is integrated with the exterior building design. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Parking: Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from the.street, parking must be provided: In a garage that is attached to the primary structure; In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; or In a parking area at te side or rear of the site. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 22 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 4 The proposed parking and loading areas are not located between the structures and the accessway upon which the units front. There are no alleys proposed and motor vehicle access is from the accessway. Two parking spaces are provided per unit within garages attached to the individual units. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Pedestrian Circulation: The on-site pedestrian. circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground- level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following: a.. Streets abutting the site; b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation. facilities; c. Parking areas; d. Shared open space and play areas; e. Abutting transit stops; and f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas. and viewpoints. There.shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200 linear feet of street frontage. The submitted plans show on-site pedestrian circulation from the primary entrances of the proposed commercial buildings and the associated parking areas, the common open space area south of building #5 and SW North Dakota Street. There is 232 lineal feet of street frontage on SW North Dakota Street. The sidewalk along the proposed accessway provides the necessary pedestrian connection to the street. The project has a narrow flagpole to SW Cascade Avenue. Pedestrian access is connected to this street via an'easement through the railroad right-of-way. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, The Design Compatibility Standards .have been met. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): Noise: For the purposes of `noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible emissions: Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park ~P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stacof other oint. source emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a 'property line: Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration: No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors: The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat: No direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding; which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted and; there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or constructing equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents: All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 23 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The proposed use is a mixed use project of office and residential which are outright permitted uses within the MUR-2 zoning district. There is no indication' within the application that these standards will not be met. However, there are single-family homes in close proximity to the subject site and glare from the proposed buildings has not been met. Ongoing efforts to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City ofTigard's Code Enforcement Officer. FINDING: Based on-the analysis above, the Environmental Performance Standards have not been met. However, if the applicant satisfies the condition below, this section will be met. CONDITION: Provide a lighting plan demonstrating glare will not infringe on the residential homes to the west. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant an his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance 'of al landscapinand screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as. to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, shall be replaced or repaired as necessary, and shall be kept free from ruse and debris. The applicant has indicated that the owners of the individual residential and commercial units will be jointly and severally _responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening, which will be addressed within the owners association. A copy of the CC&R's will be required to be submitted to the City later in this report under 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that: 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or-vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. As mentioned above, all common landscape maintenance will be controlled by the owners association. Therefore., this standard is satisfied. Installation re uirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All anc scaping`shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; 2. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z60, 1-1986, and any future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. The applicant has provided a landscape plan prepared by Perron Collaborative, which is a firm that specializes in landscape design. The applicant's plan has indicated that the proposed landscaping will be installed according to the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock: Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Certificate of Occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirement shave been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. The applicant has indicated that all landscaping will be installed. prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. To ensure the proposed landscaping is completed, a final inspection must be completed by a member of the Planning Department and a report according to condition. Section 18.745.030.E states that existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and the plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g. areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed. around individual trees). REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 24 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/200.5 The subject site is approximately eight acres of which are mostly sensitive lands that will not have any disturbance. Barrier fencing will be installed prior to commencement of site work to ensure the protection of existing vegetation. In addition, a tree removal plan has been submitted demonstrating protection measures for trees to be preserved to ensure proper protection for trees. Sensitive lands and tree protection is discussed in greater detail later in this report. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Care of landscaping along Public. ri hts-of-way. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance o street trees an an scaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights-of-way. unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. The applicant has proposed a fee in-lieu of improvement. to the site's frontage along SW North. Dakota Street. The owners association will ultimately be responsible for the care of the right-f-wayy that the subject site fronts. Property maintenance will be spelled out in the CC&R's 'which a copy wily be conditioned under 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) to be on.file with the City. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards or require an scaping.an screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. Existing vegetation has been addressed above. No condition of approval has been .imposed. Therefore, this criterion does.not apply. Hei ht restrictions abuttin ublic rights-of-way. No trees, shrubs or plantings more an 18 inches in height shall be planted m e public right-of-way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. The annlica.nt has indicated that no trees, shrubs or olantincis more than 18-inches in heiaht are proposed nor will be planted in, the' public right-of way on SW North Dakota Street. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity.(small, medium or large). The applicant has proposed street trees along the entire length of the proposed access drive in compliance with the spacing standards of 8.630 (Washington Square Regional Design Standards) which requires street trees to be planted at a spacing of 28 feet. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. No new. utility pole location shall be established closer than five feet to any existing street tree; The plans show no new utility poles are proposed on the subject site within five feet of existing trees. Tree pits shall be Iodated so as not to include utilities (e.g.; water and gas meters) in the tree well; The applicant's plans show that tree pits shall be located so as not to include utilities in the tree well. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. on-premises utilities (e.g., water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 25 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 There are no existing tree well areas on the site.. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards; The applicant has indicated that no trees. are proposed within 20 feet of a light standard as shown on the landscape plan. However, no on-site lighting is shown on. the submitted plans. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a lighting plan that shows the proposed lighting on the subject site. New light standards shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to'existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then.they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet; . There are no existing streettrees located on-site. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which, at full maturity, will not interfere with the lines; The applicant has chosen to pay the fee in-lieu of improvements to SW North Dakota Street. Street trees will be installed at a later date to this street when improvements occur. Therefore, no street trees will conflict with existing overhead lines on SW North Dakota Street. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from. the face of the curb. The applicant's landscape plan shows street trees along the proposed access drive no closer than three feet to the curb. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of. any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a non ermanent hard- surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; The applicant's landscape plan shows the proposed street trees along the proposed accessway to be located five feet from the proposed walkway. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. . Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be at least four by four feet to allow for air and water into the root area. The applicant has not proposed tree wells. Therefore, this standard does not apply. D. Pruning re uirements. Trees, as they grow,.shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet o clearance above .sidewalks and 13 feet above. local street, 15 feet above collector street, and 18 feet above arterial street roadway surfaces. Maintenance requirements .'willbe required under the CC&R's, which will be conditioned under 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. E. Cut and fill around existing trees. Existing trees may be used as street trees if no cu ing or-i ing . a es place within the drip-line of the tree unless an adjustment is approved by the Director by means of a Type I -procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18:370.020.C.4.a. The applicant is not proposing to. utilize existing trees as street trees. Therefore, this standard does not apply. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 26 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11!14!2005 e F..Replacement of street trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects or other construction s a . e replaced by the developer with those types of trees approved by the Director. The replacement trees shall be of a size and species similar to the trees. that are being removed unless lesser sized alternatives are approved by the Director. No street trees will be removed as a result of this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. G. Gran~tind of adiustments. Adjustments to the street tree requirements may be granTed by the Director by means of a Type I procedure, as regulated in Section 18:390.030, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.4.b. The applicant has not requested an adjustment to the landscaping requirements. Therefore, this standard does not apply. H. Location of trees near signalized intersections. The Director may allow trees closer to specified intersections Which are signal ize , provided the provisions of Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance, are satisfied. The nearest intersection is SW North Dakota Street and SW Tiedemen Avenue at 480 feet to the west. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Buffering .and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer.is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer. is required between a proposed office-use and existing office, use. Screening has been addressed under Chapter 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards) above. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and. loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Screening has been addressed under Chapter 18.630 (Washington, Square Regional Center Design Standards) above. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Screening Of Service Facilities: Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such.as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of asolid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed under Chapter 18.755. (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). REFUGE AT FANNO. CREEKSTAFF REPORT (SDR20D5-00002) PAGE 27 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Preparation for re-ve etation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading an construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and such storage may not be located where it woul cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved; and after completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut. and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. The applicant has indicated that topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction will be stared on-site and protected from erosion. The storage area shown on the grading plan is located where it.will. not cause sufocation of root systems of trees to be preserved. After completion . of construction activities, the topsoil may be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied'. Methods of re-ve etation. Acceptable methods- of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area;- Other re- vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be. approved by the approval authority; Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and the use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. The applicant has indicated that they will replant disturbed areas using acceptable methods as directed by the landscape architect. The landscape architect' will make the specific .recommendations for different plant materials in accordance with the approved landscape plans including the requirements above. Therefore, this standard is. satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. However, if the applicant complies with the conditions below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: Provide a lighting plan that shows proposed street trees to be a minimum of twenty feet from any proposed street light.. To ensure the proposed landscaping is completed, a final inspection must be completed by a member of the Planning Department. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755): Chapter 18.75 requires a new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review.and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and -compatibility. The applicant has chosen to address the "Franchised hauler review and sign=off" option to meet the above standard. According to the applicant's narrative, there is approximately 9,125 square feet of gross floor area. According to the. "Specific requirements" option, the applicant is required to provide a minimum storage area of ten square feet, plus four square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross floor-area (GFA). Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a total of 37 square feet of storage area for mixed solid waste and recyclables.. The applicant is proposing 120 square feet of waste storage area. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 28 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 Franchised hauler review method. Typical application o method:-This method is to be used when there are unique . conditions associated with the site, use or waste stream that make compliance with any of the other three methods infeasible. The objective of this method is to match a specific hauler program (e.g., types.of equipment; frequency.of collection) to the unique characteristic(s) off thhe site or development. The following constitute unique conditions: Use of either of the three other methods of compliance would interfere with the use of the proposed development by reducing the 'productive space of the proposed development, or make it impossible to comply with the minimum off-street parking requirements of the underlying zone; The subject site is constrained with associated wetlands and TM-year floodplain. Therefore, there is a very small amount of buildable land that the applicant has to work with. Whether or not it is impossible to meet one of the other three compliance methods is irrelevant to this project. Each of the other methods for waste storage and pick-up is required by the Director to have franchise hauler sign-off. Therefore, .if a productive method of service can be reached by the applicant and the franchise hauler, and sign-off from-the franchise hauler is obtained, this criterion is satisfied. Location Standards: To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space. requirements can be satisfied with a single location' or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent fo a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas. can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at-least the minimum. number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used-for storage. Storage areas shall be annro_nriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C,-design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct. pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement. on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The applicant has indicated that the residential units will store source-separated recyclables co- located with storage area for residual mixed solid waste within the garage of each unit. The commercial uses will store source-separated recyclables co-located with a storage area for residual solid waste within the storage area at the north end of the site. The indoor storage in the garages of the residential units will comply with Uniform Buildin Code requirements as well as the outdoor storage for the commercial element. The outdoor storage area at the north end of.the property is located in the side yard of the proposed project and is visible to enhance security for users. The storage area is located within the proposed parking area and is not part of the parking calculations. The* storage facility is proposed to be enclosed by a sight *obscuring six-foot wall.- Based `on the analysis above, the location standards .have been met. Design Standards: The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards. and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior 'stora a areas shall be. enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in hei ht. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall: be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and.-containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the. type of materials accepted. As mentioned above, the applicant has proposed the outdoor storage area to be housed in a six-foot high.masonry wall with six-foot high gates. The franchise hauler has signed off on the location of the storage facility and. method of collection. Therefore, this section is satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 29 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 FINDING: Based on the . analysis above, the Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards have ;not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Provide a copy of the Franchise Hauler's Sign off letter for the method of waste collection. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location t vehicle par King: Off-street parking spaces for. single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parkingg lots for uses not listed above shall- be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial. uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the aces. in excess of the required first 40 spaces. up to a distance of 300 feet from tsphe primary site; The 40 parking spaces. which remain on the primary site must be available. for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. Based on the roposed office use, the total number of required parking stalls for the proposed buildings is 2.7/1;000 square feet: The proposed buildings are shown to be 26,000 square feet. Therefore, the minimum required parking for the site Is 70 stalls. According to the above standard, commercial uses must provide the first 40 parking stalls on site. The applicant's plans show a total of 90 parking stalls on-site to accommodate the commercial element. Parking for the residential units will be provided with garages. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. 4 Joint Parking: Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize 'o.intly the same pparking and loading spaces when. the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at Ln,5st. ac 1%srna ac ~ha reewehar rcf cr~hGwlf. w,~I.'K.v spaces ~VN~7t u~ uyc uo anc nyniucvYGIIVIG F,a~ni~~ requhud by me larger est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2 Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presente+~ to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use, 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. The commercial use requires 70 parking stalls and the residential use requires .19 parking stalls including visitor parking. None of the parking spaces for the residential use are accommodated within the unit's garages and t e remaining ten spaces are located in the parking area. Because most residents will be working during the day, there will be an opportunity to share the outdoor residential parking spaces with the commercial uses where demand is generally during the day. As such and, as shown on the plans, joint parking is .proposed for this site even though it is not required to meet the minimum parking requirements for either use. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects,. the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following. formula. 11. Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the. minimum. vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2).Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage, of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle, parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. The proposed project is a mixed use project, however, 100% of the parking required for each use is proposed on the site. Therefore, this standard.is satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 30 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with. more than. 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15 /0 of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development.. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. The multi-family portion of the.development has nine units requiring a minimum of 15.5 parking stalls. The minimum parking is provided inside the gatages of. the units and in the parking area. Each unit will have 1.75 parking stalls for a total of 15.75 or 16. The.applicant is required to provide guest parking of. an additional 15% of the 15.75 required spaces. This would equal three guest spaces when rounded up. The applicant is providing the required guest parking (3 stalls) including-two. handicapped spots.. This parking is located at the southern end of.the site. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Preferential Long-Term Carpool/Vanpool Parking: Parking lots . providing in excess of .20 . long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential longterm carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site.. At least 5% 'of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking. spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool ;spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040 and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. The applicant has not. indicated that carpool/vanpool spaces will be provided. According to the standard, the applicant is required to dedicate 5 percent of the total parking to car/vanpool parking. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The subject site is required to provide. a minimum of 70 parking stalls. According to ADA standards, parking lots with.51 to .75 parking stalls must provide 3 ADA accessible stalls that are 9 feet wide with an 8-foot access aisle. The applicant's plans show four (4) ADA . accessible parking stalls that are 9 feet in width with an 8-foot access aisle. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of :Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barners:or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved. with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or. more parking spaces. shall be served by a .service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within 'a street or other public. right-of-way will be required. The access drive has been addressed previously in this report under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 31 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or.. other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which wily prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pedestrian access has been discussed. previously in this report under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences., any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all .parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to. show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans submitted show the associated parking stalls to be clearly marked with striping. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking' spaces along the boundaries of . a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stopp.at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height, of the wheel. stop.. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant has indicated that wheel" stops will be placed as necessary and in accordance with the standard. The applicant is therefore, required to provide a plan showing wheel stops located within the proposed parking area, in accordance with 18.765..040.J (Wheel Stops). Space and Aisle Dimensions: Srsrfirsrt'42 7rVz nAn KI c4-nfec fhnf• '16ava=arsf -n~- r"r%Asf;^A frcw ! ~cvalvll Iv.I . All 11L"L NN. a.w NL ua 111%0unlcu IVI A11VIWU IJQ111I11U 111 I-I,A Ures 18.765.1 arid 18.765.2 the minimum. dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic,'or allowing access from both. ends, shall be 24 feet in width. The applicant's plans and 'narrative indicate that standard spaces will meet the minimum required dimensions of 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet. The associated travel lane is shown to be 24 feet in width. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. .Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street: When the bicycle parking area is not visible-from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle .parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an' outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs. -to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for Parking. on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The applicant has indicated. that bicycle. parking is within. 50 feet of the primary .entrances to the proposed commercial buildings. However, it is. unclear where the main entrances to the buildings are. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a plan showing the main entrances to the proposed commercial buildings and the location of the required bicycle parking stalls within 50 feet of the entrances. . REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 32 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.76 050.c The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without.undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored o the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access .aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced materia i.e.,, pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. The applicant has not provided a detail of the bike rack to be used; therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan that shows the required bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C (Design Requirements) of the Tigard Development Code. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces. for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765'.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has calculated the minimum bicycle parking based off of 26,000 square feet of building area. According to Table 18.765.2 the minimum bicycle parking for an office use is calculated' as 0.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a plan showing a minimum of 13 bicycle parking stalls. Off-Street Loading Spaces'..' industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute .material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading, and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for bui dings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed offce buildings will be greater than 10,000 square feet (13,000 square feet a piece). Therefore, off-street loading space is required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off street parking and loading standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met: CONDITIONS: Allocate and assign 5 percent of the total parking for car/vanpool parking. Provide a plan showing, the construction of wheel stops located within the proposed parking area in accordance with 18.765.040.J (Wheel Stops). Provide a plan showing the construction . of all standard and compact spaces. and travel lanes to comply.with the minimum requirements of igure 18.765.1 in the Tigard Development Code. Construction and maintenance shall comply with approved plans. Provide a plan showing the construction and the location of the required bicycle parking stalls within.50 feet of the main entrances. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 33 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Provide and implement a plan that shows the required bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0. of the Tigard Development Code. Provide and implement a plan showing a minimum of 13. bicycle parking stalls. Sensitive Lands (18.775): Juiss ictionetlandsandform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "WWetland and Streams Corridors Map", do not require a sensitive lands permit. The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater . or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. The subject site of the proposed project has been identified with 100-year floodplain, 11 drainageways slopes greater than 25%, and significant wetlands on Tigard's Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map. Therefore, the following sections apply Sensitive lands permits issued by the Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type MA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in. the 100-year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage r egi.iir ing recon,)LI MAion provided no UCVGIo-FI1lent occurs in the floodwa , a. Structures intended for human habitation; and e. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. The applicant has indicated that the. proposed development will involve floodplain alterations that will allow construction of structures intended for human habitation on lands within the 100 ear floodplain. Therefore, the applicant has applied for a Type III procedure in which the City's Hearings Officer makes a fins decision. Special flood hazard: The areas of special flood hazard identified b the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood.Insurance Study of the City of Tigardeffective February 18, 2005, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective February 18,'2005, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This Flood Insurance Study is on file at the Tigard Civic Center. The project site is located in an area mapped in the Fanno Creek Watershed. Base flood elevation data: When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section 18:775.040.6 above, the Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a. federal, state or other source, in order to. administer Sections 18.775.040.M and 18.775.040.N below). The base flood elevation for the su.In, ot site is shown to be 160 feet according to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps of February 2005. The subject property at the lowest point of construction is 158 feet. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 34 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Test of reasonableness: Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of . historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. Base flood elevation data is available and has been established at 160 feet by the Fema Flood Insurance Maps. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Resistant to flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. The applicant has indicated that construction materials will be reviewed at.time of building permit. In order to ensure that the proposed building materials will be resistant to flood damage, the applicant is required to provide information regardingg the proposed building materials to 'a member of the Planning Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard's Building Official prior to building permits. Minimize flood damage: All new construction and substantial improvements., including manufactured. homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. The applicant proposes to keep all of the buildings finished floor elevations above the 100- year flood plain elevation (160) by approximately f.5 feet. Improvements such as utilities and paving in the 100-year flood plain will not be-impacted by flood damage. Proper culvert sizing and placement ensure proper directional flow and limit erosion to those facilities. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Equipment protection: . Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. All mentioned equipment is proposed to be elevated and located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Water Supply Systems: All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. The pproposed water supply system has been designed to eliminate infiltration of floodwater into system. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. Anchoring: All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. The applicant has indicated that no structure or facility would be susceptible to flotation, collapse or lateral movement. Anchoring will be reviewed during building permit phase. Therefore, this standard- is satisfied. Sanitary sewerage systems: 'New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into he systems and discharge from the systems into floodwater. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 35 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The applicant has indicated that the proposed sanitary sewerage system has been designed to the specifications required by this criterion. Sanitary sewer is addressed later in this report under 8.810 (Street and Ufility Improvement Standards). Therefore, this standard is satisfied. On-site water disposal systems: On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. The only on-site water disposal system is the proposed Stormwater managqement facility which is a cartridge system. The system is located in an area subject to flooding, however no impairment to them or contamination:. The system works in a manner that sould flood waters flood into the system the waters are likewise treated before released. Contamination is also minimized with a flap prohibiting inward migration of floodwaters. As a result, the facility,is not a source of contamination that would affect floodwaters. Therefore, this criterion is meta. Residential Construction: 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation; 2. Fully enclosed .areas below the lowest. floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls, by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; b. The bottom .of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade: and c.. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit tthe automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 3. Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of.over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. The applicant has proposed the new residential structures to be designed with the lowest floor elevated at approximately 1.5 feet higher than the base flood elevation. No fully enclosed areas are proposed for the residential structures, including crawl spaces. The residential buildings are proposed to be slab on grade.. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Nonresidential Construction: New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall . either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level, of the base flood elevation, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be flood-proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professionally rofessional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Building Official as set forth in Section 18.775.030.E.2; and 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood-proofed, must''meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in Section 18.775:040:1_2 Applicants flood-proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that, flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the flood-proofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 36 OF' 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 The applicant has not addressed' nonresidential construction within the 100-year floodplain. However, according to the base flood elevation (160 feet) the proposed commercial buildings are partially located within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements will be at the discretion of a member of the Planning Staff. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Provisions for Floodplain Areas have not been met. If the applicant complies with the. conditions below, this section will be satisfied. CONDITIONS: • Provide information guaranteeing that the proposed building materials are resistant to flood damage to a member of the Planning Department Staff for analysis and approval from Tigard's Building Official prior to building permits. . • Submit additional information that satisfies Section 18.775.040.M (Nonresidential Construction). Satisfaction of the requirements will be at the discretion -of a member of the Planning Staff. Within the 100-year floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot.rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill,. new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; According to the applicant's grading plan, a zero-rise cut and fill has been certified by. a professional, engineer. The same floodplain volume that exists will exist at the completion of construction, to ensure that no increase in the flood elevation will occur as.a result of this project. Therefore, this. standard is satisfied. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except- that . alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as.defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code -shat be allowed. in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; The subject site is within the MUE-2 zone, which is a commercial zone. Therefore, this standard' is satisfied. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; The applicant's site grading plan illustrates a zero-rise cut and fill that is certified by a professional engineer. The same flood plain volume that exists will exist at the completion of construction to ensure no increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain will occur. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 37 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14(2005 There is an existing pedestrian/bicycle pathway on adjacent property to the west. No pedestrian/bicycle pathway is required on the subject. site. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; No bike path is associated with this report. Therefore, this standard does not apply. . The. necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant has indicated that the necessary permits from the above agencies are in the process of being obtained. Prior to site work, the applicant is required to provide copies of the permits obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. Where land form'alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodpl_ain, the City shall, require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and ..ad acent to the floodplain- in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area s-hall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. No dedication of land is required for this project to build a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. There is an existing pathway on the adjacent property to the west. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the 100-Year Flood plain' standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the Floodplain. standards will be met. C'l1R1lllTlC1A! Dr- irln nnnigmc r:f rnriieirgnr! nCJrr-ni+c Tn urnrlr tAri+hir +h~ occn.-+iof d e ;lam rr~o tr VVI YV/ 11V/v.l IVV1uV vu V#- W1 1V%J-K- V-3111LV LW VVV/1\ YYIkI1111 hill CAQ,; 'JUJ. YMIi lIG11l.IJ, 11V111 the US Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval. authority' shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an app ication request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: According to the applicant, the subject site has slopes that are greater than 25%. Therefore, the criterion of Section 18.775.070.C- "With steep slopes" has been addressed below. The extent and. nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; The applicant's proposal to . tie the existing sensitive slopes to the proposed grades is the -minimum alteration possible to the slopes as a part of the balanced cut and fill activities in the floodplain. Therefore, this criterion is met. The proposed land-form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground, instability, or other adverse on-.site and of-site effects or hazards to Fife or property; Erosion control will be placed per the requirements of Clean Water Services to prohibit erosion and stream sedimentation. Embankments will be placed using standard engineering design practices, which will be reviewed. by the City's Engineering Department. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK.STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE'38 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER'HEARING 11/14/2005 The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell , capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and There are no steep slopes in the area of the proposed buildings. Irregardless, the placement of the proposed buildings has been sited and designed with no crawl spaces and is proposed to be slab on grade or.have "piers". Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or . impervious surfaces will be replanted. to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter. 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that addresses the re-vegetation of all areas disturbed. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Sensitive Lands standards have been met. Within Drainacleways: The appropri"ate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent.greater than that required forthe use; The development is only proposing alterations necessary to install improvements for the use proposed. The. proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion stream .sedimentation, ground instability, or other- adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; The applicant has provided a grading plan that illustrates erosion control. measures that will be in-place after mass grading. Erosion control measures are reviewed by Clean Water Services and the City's Engineering Department. to ensure no erosion, stream sedimentation or other adverse impacts. affect the associated drainageway. A condition of approval has been imposed later in this report under 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The applicant's grading plan illustrates a zero-rise cut and fill that is certified by a professional engineer. The applicant's grading plan will result in zero balance cut and fill.in the 100-year floodplain storage capacity. In addition, the applicant will be installing three additional 24- inch culverts in the access drive for large storm event overflow.. As a result, the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. Therefore, this criterion is met. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces .will be replanted to prevent erosion. in accordance. with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that addresses the re-vegetation. of all areas disturbed. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. The drainsgeway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 39 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The applicant is not repplacing the drainageway. The existing culverts will remain in place and additional culvers will be installed for large storm events. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained. The applicant has indicated that the necessary permits from the above agencies are in the process of being obtained. The applicant has been conditioned above under the 100-year floodplain criteria to provide copies of the required permits. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land. area, within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. No dedication of land is required for this project to build a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway. There is an existing pathway on the adjacent property to the west. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the drainageway standards have been met. Within wetlands: The Director shill approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following. criteria have been satisfied: The 'proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodvlain and Wetland !!A^re rarer 1- 'taff4l-.'n the •venc+, f'~esa c-r r rd c-00 - +^~l't ht,^ ~J va.u EI'E"^!t 33.11 !lam ~'=.A IVIC1N Ilvl I's wyoul l■ the 'ra..~y~u~a~v wlliaavl caLU%J1lallcu VVI (able VCaJ.CLQtIVC Corridor Widths" and Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards", for such a wetland; The subject site contains areas designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map. The applicant is altering wetlands in three locations. The first two are not designated as significant on the mentioned Wetland Map as they are located east of the proposed access drive adjacent to Ash Creek. Ash Creek only contains a riparian setback designation and no wetland designations on-site. The applicant however. is proposing an alteration to wetlands vegetative corridor shown 'on the map on the Fan no Creek side of the access drive. The applicant has indicated that the alteration is being completed as allowed under 18.775.020.0 (2-4), which allows the removal of non-native vegetation and planting of native species. These alterations are exempt because they will be completed under the direction of the City, Division of State Lands, Clean Water Services and under 18.775.090.B.5.f of the Development Code. In summary, the applicant is altering two small wetland areas (0.02 and 0.01 acres) where necessary for the installation of the access drive and enhancing another 0.06 acres to mitigate the impacts. FINDING: Section 18.775.020.C only allows activities within significant wetlands under the direction of the City. The proposed project is a private. development. None of alterations to the subject site have been under the direction of the City. Enhancements within significant wetland vegetative corridors are addressed under the direction of Clean Water Services and 18.775.090 below. The extent and nature. of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 40 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The applicant is required to improve all of the vegetative corridors except that which is north of proposed building #1. The area to the north is being improved by Clean Water Services. The applicant has indicated that the wetland alterations are the minimum necessary for the installation of the access drive. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have. been mitigated; The proposed drainage of the subject site will not impact the associated wetlands. The applicant has stated that the requirements of the project biologist, Clean Water Services, the Division of State Lands.and Corps of Engineers will be .followed to ensure that adverse impacts are avoided. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Where natural' : vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the.Su.rface Water Management program of Washington. County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and screening. The applicant has indicated that erosion control measures, in accordance with the erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County will be installed. All areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan demonstrating that all disturbed' areas will be replanted. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met;. The proposed project involves drainageways,. steep slopes and 100-year flood plain, which have been addressed within this staff report and found to meet the applicable criteria. The necessary U.S. Corp of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of Sate Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained. The-applicant has been conditioned to provide the City of Tigard with documentation that the necessary permits from the required agencies have been obtained. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal shall be met; Tree Removal is addressed below under 18.790 (Tree Removal). Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. The proposed development plan addresses these plan policies. The majority of the wetland area on. the property will remain in its natural state, . The site plan accommodates the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail as it has been constructed already on the west side of the creek. The Comprehensive. Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map guides development throughout the City of Tigard and is implemented through the Development Code and Zoning Map. -Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Special Provisions for Development Along. Fanno Creek 18.775.090: In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030 pertaining to wetlands , all wetlands classified as significant on form City of Tigar "Wetlands anc Creams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 41 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 1111412005 In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0030) pertaining to riparian corridors a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area, measured horizontally rom and parallel to the top of the bank, is established for the Tualatin River,. Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek. . The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River is 75. feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design. and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map") is located within the 75-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. The subject site is not located along the Tualatin River. According to Clean Water Services, the standard width for the vegetated corridors for Ash Creek and Fanno Creek at the subject location is 50 feet. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The standard width for "good condition vegetated, corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of. a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and. Streams Corridors Map"). is located within the 50 foot setback area, the, vegetated corridor. is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. The standard width for the vegetated corridors for Ash Creek and Fanno Creek at the subject location is 50 feet. In this location the buffer is shown as 50 feet. The applicant has indicated that a delineation of the associated wetland and buffer has been completed. However, no copy of the delineation or a copy of the study prepared by the wetland scientist/hydrologist has been 'provi'ded. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a copy of the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. The minimum width for "marginal. or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50% of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. The minimum width for "marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50% of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; or modified. in accordance with Section 18.775.130: The applicant has indicated that the associated vegetative corridor is in a mar inal/degraded condition. According to the criterion, the corridor can be reduced to 50% of the standard width (50 feet). However, this standard does not apply according to section 18.775.090.B.5.g addressed below. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the Natural Resource Assessment guidelines contained in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards".. The applicant has indicated that a wetland biologist was hired to address impacts and appropriate mitigation measures for the associated wetlands and vegetative corridor found on the subject property. The applicant has also stated that an application to Clean Water Services addressing the impacts and proposed mitigation wa=neation ved in April of. 2005. The applicant has been conditioned within this section to provide of the associated wetlands and their buffers and the copy of the CWS approval. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 42 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies to all development proposed on property located within or partially within the vegetated corridors, except as allowed below: a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive. area, as approved by the City per Section 18.775.070 and by CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary sewer, water, phone, gas, cable, etc.),. if approved by the City and: CWS; c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Construction. Standards"; d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor, as approved by the City and CWS; e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction; f. Enhancement of the vegetated corridor for water quality or quantity benefits,. fish, or wildlife habitat, as approved by the CitX and CWS; g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or.replace existing structures, roadways; driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other developments provided they are consistent- with City and CWS regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area than allowed by the CWS. "Design and Construction Standards. The applicant ' has proposed to encroach into the vegetative corridor 'of the wetlands associated with Fanno Creek in order to replace the existing driveway associated with the property with a paved access drive to the proposed development. According to the applicant, the access drive has been approved by Clean Water Services and has been addressed in this report under 18.705 (Access Egress and C,irculation). The applicant has been conditioned to provide Clean Water Services approval.. Therefore, the vegetative corridor widths/setbacks do not apply. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goal 5 safe harbor setback or vegetated corridor areas established. for the Tualatin River, _Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other, federal, state, or regional agencies, are. not subject to the provisions of Section 1F3.775.190.i3, except where the: a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within a good 'condition vegetated corridor, as. defined in Sections 18.775.090.8.1 and 18.775.090.B.2; b: Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined in Section 18.775.090.B.3. The applicant has stated the narrative that the proposed alterations within. the established corridors are not.designated as "good condition". In portions of the site, the 50-foot buffer is impacted where it is in a degraded condition. According to the above standard, provisions of Section 18.775.090.1 apply when, "Land for alterations or development are. located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated. corridor, as defined- in Section 18.775.030.B.3." Therefore, . the provisions of 18.775.090:13 apply which allow roadways and driveways within the established buffers under 18.775.090.13 .5.g of the Sensitive Lands Chapter. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Sensitive Lands standards will be met, if the applicant complies with the condition listed below: CONDITION: Provide a copy of :the wetland delineation and the hydrologist's report that addresses the condition of the wetland buffer of Fanno Creek. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 43 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Signs 18.780 Chanter 130.D lists the type of allowable signs. and sign area permitted in the Wi Zoning District. No signs are proposed in conjunction with this development.. Any future signage will be subject to the sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780.. There has-been a proliferation of sign violations from new, subdivisions.. In accordance with a new policy adopted' by the Directors Designee, all new subdivisions must enter into a sign compliance agreement to facilitate a more expeditious court process for citations. FINDING: To ensure compliance and enforcement of sign violations, a sign. compliance agreement will. be required.. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, .the' developer shall sign a. copy of the City's sign compliance agreement. Tree Removal MUM: tree plan oche planting, removal and -protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification, of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal. over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and.after- construction.. There are 28 trees on-site that are greater than 12-inches in diameter. The applicant's arborist has indicated that five of these trees are hazardous and need to be removed, leaving 23 trees viable for mitigation. * Of the 23 trees remaining, the applicant will be preserving seven (30%) and removing 13 (70%). According to the 'mitigation requirements, retention between 25% and 50% of the trees greater than 12 inches in caliper requires two thirds mitigation of the inches removed. According to the applicant, the project is removing 263 inches. Therefore, two thirds would equal 174 inches. The applicant has not indicated how mitigation will _be satisfied. Therefore, the applicant. is required to provide a tree mitigation pionfnr 174.inyhec Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only. for the reasons set out in. a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030-, or asa condition of approval for a conditional use, and. shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected ' by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with. this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed. restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. The applicant will. need to record. a deed restriction for. all trees to remain on-site, either independently or for the entire site. FINDING Based on the analysis above, the Tree Removal standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions below, the standard will be met. CONDITIONS: If trees are to be removed in sensitive areas according to Chapter. 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) in the Tigard Development Code, a tree removal permit must be obtained. Provide a tree mitigation plan for 174 inches. The applicant will need to record a deed restriction for all trees.to remain on-site, either independently or for the entire site. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 44 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/1412005. Prior to site work, a Tree Protection Plan shall be included with the proposed construction drawings conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines for review and approval by the City Forester. All tree protection devices, along with their details and specifications, shall be shown on the Tree. Protection Plan. This plan shall also include the building footprints shown in relation to the trees being preserved. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this roject must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 1500 of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected.. Prior -to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed construction schedule to the City Forester for approval with notations as to when tree protection devices will be either installed, or removed throughout construction of the project. A note shall be placed on the final set of plans indicating that equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction-related' activities shall not. be located inside of any tree protection zone or outside of the limits of disturbance where other trees are being protected. All tree protection devices shall be: o Visible. o Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. steel posts. Each ost shall be no Tess than four feet high from the top of grade. Each past shall be driven into the ground. to a depth of no less than two and a half feet below grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet. o Between, each post, securely att ached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a sign mdlcating that the area. behind the fencing is protected and no construction activity, including material storage, may occur behind the fencing.- o Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to.- clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. o Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Arborist shall submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all. remaining trees on the site are. healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equipment (trucks,. bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notified before. any entry occurs. Before entering the TPZ, the project arborist' and City Forester shall determine the method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures. • Prior to tornmencing site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the equivalent value of mitigation required. If additional trees are preserved through .the subdivision improvements and - construction of houses, and are properly protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other protected trees on site, the amount of the cash assurance may be correspondingly reduced. Any. trees planted on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060 D) will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following final plat approval. After such time, the applicant shall pay the remaining value of the cash assurance as a fee in-lieu of planting. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 45 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 ♦ Prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the commercial buildings, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through final building inspection, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location ofthe tree protection fencing. -If the amount of. TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the: reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the Ci can stop work on the pro11'ect until an inspection can be done by the Cityorester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter its. 795 requires that clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in.this area shall be visually clear between three_(3) and eight (8) feet in height(trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. \/ic: 1-! e4nnrnnnn ~c nt tk._ cifne at-race drivinuinv zr.,i#hSW klnr+k nL-r-.tn Street A,- +k- V /-Util -i-GI GI I-- IV cat t1 IV vlavv u-,--VV -111-11-Y 11 I11 l V v IF 1 V-I U I VGI\tJtG As ..11V VY11 of l tl ie plans, the visual clearance is maintained with . the design of the access. The clear vision triangles are shown and nothing exists within the triangles now or is proposed that would limit visual clearance.. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS .Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The following sections are discussed elsewhere in this report and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section" 18.360'.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.4. (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.8 (100-year. floodplain) 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090 (Drainage) and 18.360.090:14 (Provision for the Disabled). Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate. light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 46 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The existing topography on the site where the buildings will be located has very gentle slopes (1%-7%). According to the Soil Survey of Washington County, the subject site consists of Aloha Sandy Loam. The Aloha series is rnainly.used for orchards, irrigated vegetable crops, irrigated berries, small grain, and etc. The study gives no indications 'of slumping or sliding. Drainage is addressed later in this report under Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). The.subject building will be approximately 114 feet from the nearest building to the north, thus providing adequate light,. air circulation, and fire-fighting access. The buildings have been oriented with a northwest/southwest axis on gentle slopes downward in the southwest direction. As a result the building orientations provide excellent air circulation potential and direct sunlight in the morning and/or evening. Most of the buildings receive sunlight throughout the day; however,. maintain a shaded or sunny area in front or in back of the unit which is essential during hot summer days and pleasant during the cooler months. Tree retention and mitigation is discussed earlier in this report under 18.790 (Tree Removal). Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Privacy and noise: multi-family or group living uses: Structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in Subsection 6.a below; the buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise; On-site uses. which create. noise, light, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses; and buffers shall be placed on the site as necessary. to.mitigate noise, light or glare from off-site sources. The proposed residential units are designed in a townhouse style with three floors. Each unit as shown has a private outdoor area which is screened from ad1oining units with a wall style side railing. The nearest adjoining. residential property is west of the site and is more than 300 feet away. The proposed distance is more than adequate to protect any private areas located on those properties. The-site is bound on the north by an industrial use which has no private areas that need protection. The railroad is located along the sites eastern boundary and likewise has no private space needing protection. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Private outdoor area: multi-family use: Private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of four feet; and. balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit; and required open space may.include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center or covered picnic area. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the users of the space. The applicant has indicated that each unit of the nine units will have a patio with a minimum width dimension of at least four feet. The. patios proposed provide more than 72 square feet of surface area exceeding the minimum of 48 square feet. The balconies proposed for the units will be for the sole purpose of the units. Private outdoor space is addressed in the following standard. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Shared outdoor recreation' areas: multi-family use: In addition to the requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the following amounts: Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: It may be all outdoor space; or It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court, and indoor recreation room; or it may be all.public or common space; or It may be part common space land part private; for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; and where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime prevention and safety; REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 47 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The applicant has indicated that the proposed residential units will contain three or more bedrooms. As a result, the applicant is required to provide 2,700 square feet of usable outdoor recreation space. The applicant is utilizing both common (shared) and private space to meet this requirement. The common open space area is located south of building #5. This usable outdoor space, totals 562 square feet. The majority of the usable outdoor recreation space is located on the private decks and patios of the units, which averages 294 square feet per unit. Therefore,, the otal of both common and private usable outdoor recreation space provided on the project site is 3,208 square feet for an average of 356 square feet per unit. This criterion is satisfied. The project proposes private outdoor areas that are clearly defined by trellises and landscaping. therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: ♦ Windows shall. be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; ♦ Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by' others; ♦ Mail. boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; ♦ The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and ♦ Light fixtures shall be provided- in areas having. heaver pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height to that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows are provided in all of the proposed units. The windows will be facing both the outer perimeter of the project and the interior-of the project. No common interior laundry area has been proposed. Mail boxes will be located in lighted areas having vehicular and pedestrian +rn r+ ti+ nrrtnrncpr+ hl liiriinric EArili hnw a sav±orinr linh+ fiv+i Irng onri nl I+r4^-r lir,h+;-ril --ill h 1I QI IIII• IIIiI-i./I Vtaw,. .1 ►JU11V111yV Y1111 . - - V/tV1 IVI IIyI II 11-1 VV L,11 IV WI k%AWV4 II UI ILII II~. WWI II /J~r provided. This standard has been satisfied. Public transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is .adjacent to or within 500 feet of existing or proposed transit route; The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: The location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and .Tri-Met review: Bus stop shelters; Turnouts for buses; and Connecting paths to the shelters. The project is not adjacent to or within 500 feet of an existing or proposed transit route. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the' underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g, Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: The proposed project complies with all of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone except for those provisions modified under 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be fully met. CONDITION: Submit a detailed lighting plan to the Tigard Police Department and Planning Division for review and approval. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 48 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 D. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS (118.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards or the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion. of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved. in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a Neighborhood Route to have a 58 right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, • sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW North Dakota Street, which is classified as a Neighborhood Route on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 20 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate. the additional ROW to provide for 29 feet from centerline. . SW North Dakota Street is currently partially paved. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements. The applicant has requested that they.. pay a fee in-lieu of constructing the improvements. The applicant has pointed out that in order. to improve North Dakota Street to the ultimate design standard extensive work would be required beyond the limits of the site frontage. The_ City Engineer has agreed to accept the fee in-lieu of half-street improvements with these funds being placed in a dedicated account for future improvements aiong this section of North Dakota Street. The applicant's engineer shall provide an Engineers Estimate for the half-street improvement for review and approval by the City engineering staff. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed.land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or.temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. The applicant has stated that there are no existing streets that stub into this site and that because of the above-grade railroad crossing, two creeks and wetland areas on the site a road connection is not feasible or desired by the City. While the City acknowledges the many constraints that are present. on this site it does no relieve the applicant of having to .respond to .the City's Transportation System Plan (TST, which indicates a future Collector extension in this area. The horizontal alignment for this col ector extension has not been fixed and its route is somewhat flexible. An additional option for submittal to the City Engineer is the discussion of the expected life of this development versus the expected timeline for development of such a connection. The applicant shall provide, a proposed future alignment, addressing the TSP, for the City Engineer's review and approval. Approval from the City Engineer must be received prior to issuance of permits. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 49 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 . Street Aliggnment and Connections: Section 18.810'.030.H.1 states that 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, ease 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. Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that 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 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% 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. The applicant shall include -discussion of the code section with their submittal to the City Engineer for review and approval. Approval by the City Engineer must be received prior to issuance of permits. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that 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. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other hndiec of water or, prQ_oYi_qtinn development nr- For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access.. The proposal includes an access drive. No public or private streets are proposed with this development. Therefore, no blocks will be created. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that. bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. As mentioned above, no blocks are created'with this development. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth. from.being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times'the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The proposal is for a mixed use project within a commercial zone. Therefore, no lots are created as a result of this project. Lot Frontage:. Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies, which requires a parcel to either have a minimum 15-foot frontage.or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 50 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 The subject site has approximately 226 feet. of frontage on to SW.North Dakota Street. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Sidewalks:. Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant has indicated that the fee in-lieu of half-street improvements along their North Dakota Street frontage will include public sidewalk, thereby meeting this criterion. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers ReVred: Section 18.810.0MA requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer. systems shall include consideration of additional development within the. area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's plans indicate a private sewer system to serve the entire site as if will remain under one ownership. The private sewer will connect to the CWS main that runs east-west across the site. The applicant shall submit plans to'CWS for review and approval. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage:. Section 18.810.100:C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the - development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). This site is impacted by both Ash and Fanno Creeks. Fanno Creek runs the length of the development, north to south. Ash Creek crosses the site in an east-west direction. The runoff from upstream drainage areas is accommodated by theses creeks. The applicant has not proposed any' changes to the creeks that will impact the accommodation of upstream drainage. Effect on .Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water- Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 51 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan.. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting. in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention including sheet flow. The applicant has stated that in accordance with the 'Fanno Creek Sub-basin Study, conducted by the City and CWS, a development adjacent to Fanno Creek may be allowed to discharge directly into the creek without detention. The applicant will instead pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site detention system. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining Proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. The applicant's fee in-lieu of constructing half-street improvements will include funds for bicycle land striping, thereby meeting this criterion. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited . to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection. boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service -facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: Tha rim-unairrmar shall mnlre all necessarir «rrµeAnevrx;er;t~ `i-i#h the serer, -+114.1 4-- I.M vvvv.J •W i.■ i..4 .0 1 7.. Mt...t tV provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of ail surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section - 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but. not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW North Dakota Street. The applicant indicates they' will not be served from those lines, but those along the railroad ROW. In this case, the applicant is not required to underground or pay the fee in-lieu for the lines along North Dakota Street. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEIVIENTSTANDARDS: REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 52 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Traffic ~Stud r Findin s: ra I mac Analysis was prepared for this development by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated May 1p9, 2005. Among their findings are the following: 1) The crash data history does not indicate safety problems or deficiencies along SW North Dakota Street in the project vicinity. 2) The proposed project will generate approximately 340 trip ends on a typical weekday, including 45 trip ends during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 3) Under 2006 total traffic conditions the critical northbound approach at the SW North Dakota Street/site driveway intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 4) Intersection sight distance to the west meets the 370 feet required. 5) Intersection sight distance to the east is 277, feet, which does not meet the minimum sight distance requirement. The stopping site distance has been calculated to be approximately 270 feet.. A vehicle at the site driveway would be visible to a westbound driver at a distance of approximately 270 feet from the driveway. As such, a westbound vehicle would. have sufficient visibility to recognize a vehicle exiting the driveway to come to a safe stop. The engineer has recommended the following: 1) Landscaping, signsge and utility installation at the site access driveway should be properly located and maintained in order to provide adequate visibility. Public Water S stem: TI he City ofigar provides service in this.area. The applicant's plans shall reflect all requirements of the Water Department for line size, material and easements. Storm Water Quality: Th"City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management .(SWM) regulations established. by Clean Water Services. CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent-of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and 'method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit. a maintenance plan for the facility that' must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The pro p osed unit from. Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another.company that demonstrates they can. meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. Gradin and Erosion Control: esign an Construction Standards also regulate eros.ion_ 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. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 53 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11(14(2005 The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)'erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more, acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to' construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. An NPDES 1.200-C permit is required for this development. Site Permit Re ug ired: The app ica t is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm,- etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat. Address Assiarments: The it of Tigard5s-responsible for assi ningg addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary ?USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This The shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This'information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. The developer will also be required to provide signage at the entrance of each shared flag lot driveway or private street that lists the addresses that are served by the given driveway or street. This will assist emergency services personnel to more easily find a particular home. E. IMPACT STUDY 18.390) Section 18.3fi0.09t~states, The Director shall make a finding with respect to: each of the following criteria when approvi,ng, approving with conditions or denying an application:." Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to .quantify the effect of development on public .facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where. the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts. on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development.: Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the. Collector and Arterial Street system. The applicant. will be required to pay TIF s' of approximately $126,193 based on.the use proposed. REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE 54 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11/14/2005 Based on the estimate that total T_IF fees. cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $126,193 divided by .32) The difference between the T1F paid, and the full $394,353 ($1,26,M' impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the collector and arterial street system. The. unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $268,160. The applicant will be required to dedicate 1,971 square feet of right-of-way along SW North Dakota Street to meet current transportation system standards. The cost of the improvements is expected to be $73,365 (1,971square feet x $15.00 per square foot for dedication and 219 feet x $200.00 for'/2 street improvements) thus; as the required exactions are less than the value of the unmitigated impact, the exaction is roughly proportionate to the level of impact generated from this development. Therefore, the rough proportionality test has been satisfied. SECTION VI: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Forester has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: Landscape/mitigation plan not included in set of plans. The City of Tigard. Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and. has offered the following comments: The Transportation System Plan identified_the SW Nimbus Ave/Greenburg connection road as a planned collector. The potential route could involve this parcel. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: No public water lines in parking lots or private streets. Either master meter the site or run private water lines to each building. The City of Tigard Building Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the fr%IIn%Arinn comments: An accessible route is required to connect all buildings to each other and to connect the buildings to public transportation. SECTION VI1. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered comments, which can be found in the land-use file at the Permit Center next to City Hall. Division of State Lands has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Wetland delineation (WD03-0565) has been approved for this. site. - November.7 2005 R PA ' ath ei egger DATE AssociatTenn, r November 7, 2005 AP O Icha ' Bewersdorff DATE Plannin Manager I kurpln\mathew\sdr\SDR2003-00002.dec.doc.dot REFUGE AT FANNO CREEK STAFF REPORT (SDR2005-00002) PAGE.55 OF 55 HEARINGS OFFICER HEARING 11114/2005 - C3 m sDR2005-00002 02005-00011 SLR2005-00018 SLR2005-00010 SLR2005-0002 . VAR2005-00055 VAR2005-00056 REFUGE AT FANNQ CREEK 0 Q M Y DRa FERR p~~pffD w r^ F~pF7.f" £ 3 g1 AC 1 `4V 6 91 WINDSO T 2~ 5~a ~r eueRtt ~L - a • 1..... a ti eerra po WINDSOR Pt NEVA ST a v "flgwd Area Map 1 M N O o 400 600 Feet 0 2D0 1-=411 feat ST. NORTH 4afTirt, . Oeatlan only Information on this map is for general I and F- should ba JariEiad with the Development Services Division. pp 13125 SW Hail 131vd ' ° Tigard, OR 97223 T (503) 539.4171 0pJ1www-ci.tigard.or,us ' Plot date: Oct'7,. 2005; C:MagiclMAG4G03.APR a Community Development f • CITY OF ilOARO SE9 ] ' A lb7 63b2 \ \ ' it w. + \ o+ I~a~k 1 - off" °~a~ s K \ a 'et o jar i -l" LOT 12 4 it \\n~~ i ZVI' a. n l - _ ~ i L e TAX LOT M o 9 (ITY OF TIQm RD A MR200S-00002MR200S-00017, 18; 19 & 20/ "R200S-000SS & S6 (Map is not to scale) REFUGE AT FANNQ CREEK