Loading...
05/18/2009 - Packet IN " City of Tigard T 1 c n- Planning Commission — Agenda MEETING DATE: May 18, 2009, 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard —Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 70)p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:10 p.m. 5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2008-00001-TIGARD RETAIL CENTER REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, there will be surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans are being reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. The Planning Commission approved the Concept Plan at its December 1, 2008 meeting and will be addressing the Detailed Plan at its May 18, 2009 meeting. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street,west of SW 72"J Avenue within the Tigard Triangle. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map (WCTM) 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, WCTM 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101, and WCTM 2S101AB Tax Lot 01400. ZONE: C-G (PD) General Commercial District with Planned Development Overlay. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2009-00002/DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009-00002- DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS 8:10pm PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— MAY 18, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 2 REQUEST: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to amend the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 12.1.2.c),Transportation System Plan (Chapter 8, Figure 8-10),Tigard Development Code (Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards), and the Municipal Code (10.28.130—Motor Vehicle Parking). The proposed amendments will allow vehicle parking on SW Main and SW Burnham Streets and remove the requirement for bike lanes on collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. LOCATION: The Downtown Urban Renewal District. ZONES: CBD: Central Business District. ;and MUR-1: Mixed-Use High-Density Residential. The MUR-1 zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390,and 18.810;Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.2(c) and Goal 15;and Statewide Planning Goals 1, and 12. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:10 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 9:15p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MAY 18, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 2 II • i PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TIGARD COMMUNITY The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning M NEWSPAPEIS Commission on Monday May 18. 2009 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. 0805 SE Like Road,Porting,00 07222•PO Box 22109 Porllaaa OR 91280-2109 Phu:503-084-0380Fix:503-020-3433 The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in E-mail: legals@cammewsmers.com accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to depose and say that I am the Accounting afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community general circulation, published at Beaverton, Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment in the aforesaid county and state, as defined is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable City of Tigard criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing/Tigard Retail Center staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at TT11295 least seven(7)days prior to the hearing,and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. A copy of which is hereto annexed, was Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division published in the entire issue of said (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher)at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., newspaper for Tigard,Oregon 97223,by calling 503-639-4171,or py email to 1 garyp@tigard-or.gov. week in the following issue April 30, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR)2008-00001 O�k_ CUIAJ -TIGARD RETAIL CENTER- C (VI Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manaber) Subscribed and sworn to before me this April 30, 2009. 1'-rya. \x- NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My commission expires...410v DO Acct#10093001 City of Tigard ( 72•• - �.� f: OFFICIAL SEAL Attn: Patty Lunsford fJ .''rrre, SUZETTE I CURRAN O 13125 SW Hall Blvd I "': NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON O Tigard, OR 97223 COMMISSION NO.422662 ((() MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMBER 28,2011 (, Size: 2x2 Amount Due $292.25* 'Please remit to the address above. cu- ` � REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan(PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition,there will be surface parking,landscaping,lighting,access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans are being reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. The Planning Commission approved the Concept Plan at its December 1,2008 meeting and will be addressing the Detailed Plan at its May 18,2009 meeting. LOCATION:The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street,west of SW 72nd Avenue within the Tigard Triangle. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map(WCTM) 1 S 136CD,Tax Lot 04200,WCTM 2S 101 BA,Tax Lot 00101,and WCTM 2S 1 OI AB Tax Lot 01400. ZONE: C-G (PD) General Commercial District with Planned Development Overlay. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities,heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. (PD). The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1)To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu o strict rence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community L ,►pment Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by tarytng the housing styles through architectural accents,use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits,while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure(site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives, conceptual review,then detailed review)that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5)To consider an amount of development on a site,within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6)To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705,18.725, 18.745,18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. � .-� 1 VICINITY MAP 1 al PI)3M"..l� T--- liii l nREIL &V r ■ ' ir,\. ----E:-,R 1 ,r7 il__i_i_ r , 6, :11, 71-( f I ji 4' 1 ', t' II(Tl� ,- `_ s 1 t 1 , -�- _ _ �C �� �_ r`' -' Publish 04/30/2009. TT11295 1 ESTIMONY SIGN-IN SHE We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 minutes. If you are speaking on behalf of four or more persons, please state which group you're speaking on behalf of and you may request extra time. You will be limited to 20 minutes. Written comments are always appreciated by the Planning Commission to supplement oral testimony & are entered into the record. Please submit any written testimony to the Planning Commission Secretary(Doreen Laughlin). AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5.1 DATE: MAY 18, 2009 PAGE OF FILE NAME TIGARD RETAIL CENTER CASE NOS.: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR2008-00001 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME & ADDRESS — Please print clearly PROPONENT OF APPLICATION OPPONENT OF APPLICATION - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral)- - (Speaking Against)- Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code • Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code 1 Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code Name,Address,Zip Code I Name,Address,Zip Code J Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date:May 18,_2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE • PLANNING COMMISSION ■ FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD (Extension from 1/31/09) 120 DAYS = 6/15/2009 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2008-00001 APPLICANT/ APPLICANT'S OWNER: Eric Sporre REP: Brian Dickerson Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. PacLand 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Suite 300 6400 SE Lake Road,Suite 300 Portland,OR 97224 Portland, OR 97222 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant roperty with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, there will be surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans will be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. The Concept and Detailed Plans are being reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. On December 1, 2008, the Commission reviewed and approved the Concept Plan and provided the applicant with direction in developing the detailed plans. This staff report includes the findings for the Detailed Plan. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Road west of SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101; 2S101AB, Tax Lot 01400. ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. (PD)The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, white respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate TIGARD RETAII.CI N'I'I..R STAFF REPORT(SUR2101-0001) PAGE 1 OF 18 PLANNING(:OMIMIISSION I WAKING,llls l'.tll,l'sD PLAN 5/18/3)09 buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780,18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development does not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City, and substantially meets the Approval Standards as outlined in this report.Therefore,Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Detailed Plan subject to the Commission's review and approval of plan elements they directed the applicant to address at the Concept Review hearing and certain conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE/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, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide for parking lot canopy coverage of 50%. 2. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,)00 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet, or less. 3. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. 4. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28' apart. 5. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner. After such time, the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. 6. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale,include the tree protection requirements in the August 20, 2008 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. A note TIGARD RETAII.CI:N'IVR STAFF REPORT(SUB2OIA-(Nllxll) PAGE.2 01:18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2(X)9 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. 7. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $506 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 8. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the roject arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 9. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any su orting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING D b ARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 10. The applicant shall revise their plan set to incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W,except where sight distance may be compromised. 11. The applicant shall revise their plan set to show full pavement, curb and storm sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. 12. The applicant shall obtain all ODOT permits prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. All work within the ODOT ROW requires an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 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, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 13. Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, 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 building construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall 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 TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB2008-00001) PAGE.3 OF 18 PLANNING CON MISSION I TEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/21)09 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. 14. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter 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 decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 15. The applicant shall call for final inspection by the Current Planning Department to ensure that the project is built according to the applicable standards and approved plan set. 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 DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 16. OR 99W: The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72nd Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. 17. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. 18. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. 19. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. 20. The applicant shall complete all public improvements prior to occupancy. THIS DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB2(X)8-18X101) PAGE.4 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History PDR94-00019 approved a general retail center providing between 300,000 and 320,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, but expired. In 1998, the Tigard City Council approved the Tri-County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004). Grading, filling, and wetland mitigation occurred on the subject site, even though the retail development was not built. Subsequently, PD2000-00001 approved a phased commercial shopping center development with 297,179 square feet of building area including an anchor building at 223,461 square feet,which has also expired. On October 6, 2008, at the Community Development Director's request, the Commission recommended the Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant Habitat Areas Map associated with CPA98-00002 regarding the subject property. On November 25, 2008, the Council approved the amendment. On December 1, 2009 the Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with direction for the applicant to proceed to the Detailed Plan. (See applicant's response below under the Planned Development section of this staff report,page 6). Vicinity Information: The subject 18.16-acre property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street, west of SW 72nd Avenue, and east of Hwy 217 in the Tigard Triangle. The subject site, zoned primarily C-G (PD) with a 0.45 acre parcel in the southeast corner zoned MUE, is surrounded on the north, west and east by C-G(PD) zoned land, and on the southeast by land zoned MUE. A 10.42-acre significant wetland associated with Red Rock Creek is located adjacent to the site on the west which buffers Hwy 217. Vacant developable land exists to the east fronting on SW 72 ,which was once a part of the previous approvals on the subject site. The area to the southeast, zoned MUE, is a neighborhood in transition where a number of residences have converted to commercial uses. Proposal Description The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, surface parking,landscaping,lighting,access and utility infrastructure improvements are proposed. SECTION IV. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. The City provided notice to neighbors within 500 feet and the site was posted with a notice. Staff received several written comments from neighbors regarding this application. Kevin Lubby, a property owner to the southeast on SW Hermosa, attended the December 1"Commission meeting and testified that he was concerned about visual screening between the proposed loading dock and his business. The Commission requested the applicant to address his concerns in the detailed plan. RESPONSE: The applicant's response memorandum states that the landscape plan has been revised to incorporate additional large scale evergreen plantings along SW Hermoso Way and along the existing residence at the southeast corner of the site. These plantings include 28 Western Red Cedars, 10 Hogan Cedars and 15 Deodar Cedar in addition to the deciduous trees proposed at the southeast corner of the property to provide a dense evergreen screen. Refer to revised landscape plan L-la for additional information. Specht Development commented that their land use approval for a 70,000 square foot office building (SDR2007- 00003) required them to build the signal at SW 68th and Dartmouth. Specht Development suggests that the City instead require the first project to actually develop (Target,most likely) be responsible for building the signal. RESPONSE: There is an approved LID that will be responsible for the infrastructure that will support the signal installation. The signal is required to be installed as a condition of approval of SDR2007-00003. However, if the Tigard Retail development is requesting occupancy prior to an occupancy request for SDR2007-00003, then Tigard Retail shall coordinate with the LID and install the signal. The LID is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2010- 2011. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB2(X18-00001) PAGE 5 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Carol Getgen commented that the traffic at 72"d and Dartmouth is bad now and worries that increased traffic with the proposed Target will make it worse. RESPONSE: The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008, November 2008, and January 2009) and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to identify off-site traffic impacts . The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72"`'and Hwy 99W. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 Planned Developments) 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.705* Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745* Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 ixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765* Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780* Signs) 18.790 ree Removal) 18.795* ision Clearance) 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements) 18.390 Decision Making Procedures,Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilized as guidelines, and stria compliance is not necessary where a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters. These chapters are,therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions to Development Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupations) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) 18.785 (Temporary Uses) 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities) TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF F REPORT(SUB2(X/8-00001) I'AGE 6 OFF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DI'TAII.ED PLAN 5/18/2009 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicant submitted for concurrent review of both the Concept and Detailed plan. On December 1, 2008, the Planning Commission approved the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001 with direction to the applicant for approval of the Detailed Plan. The findings for the Concept plan approval are not included below but are included by reference (Concept Plan Approval, PDR2008-00001, dated November 20, 2008). The applicant's narrative and plan set (Tigard Ret il{Center, Land Use Permit Application for Planned Development, August 29, 2008) demonstrates substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code without appealing to the discretion of the Commission or requesting any variances or adjustments. As such, the findings in the applicant's narrative are also adopted by reference with the exception of those chapters and standards below, for which staff has recommended conditions of approval. 18.350 — (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) In a Memorandum dated April 10, 2009, the applicant submitted a response to the Commission's nine issues on approval of the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001. A summary of the applicant's responses, followed by staff comment, is included below after each listed issue. The Applicant's full responses can be found m the Memorandum, on which PacTrust intends to elaborate at the May 18t Commission meeting. 1. Adequate screening for the SW Hermoso neighborhood Applicant Response: Fifty-three additional cedars have been proposed to the southeast corner of the site to further screen the loading dock area of the development from the Hermoso neighborhood (revised landscape plan,L-1a). Staff Response: The additional proposed evergreen landscaping distributed across the slope between SW Hermoso and the proposed Target store's loading area appears to adequately address the concern expressed by Mr. Luby. The City Arborist has reviewed the revised screening plan for SW Hermoso and found it to be satisfactory. 2. Further conversation with City Arborist. Applicant's Response: PacTrust and the project Landscape Architect have met on multiple occasions to discuss the project with the City Arborist since the December 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting including our presentation to the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The proposed landscape plans were revised to address several of the City Arborist's comments with regard to the tree canopy and the number of trees provided within the interior parking lot area. Included with this revised submittal package are copies of a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan to help clarify the trees on site that are proposed for removal with this development application. The project Landscape Architect, Beighley and Associates, will also be at the May 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to present the revised landscape plans and to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. Staff Response: The City Arborist has met with the applicant on several occasions and resolved a majority of the tree and landscaping items. Those items left to be resolved include ensuring consistency between the tree inventory and protection specifications in the arborist's report with the site plan drawings. Also, there is a difference of opinion on the feasibility of the proposed interior parking lot trees to provide substantial canopy in the long term(see below). 3. Further discussion regariing the parking lot and the plantings within the parking lot, both with the respect to the number and overall canopy, width to the soil vault,and the viability of the trees to ptvduce the canopy. Applicant Response:The Landscape plan has been revised to add an additional 30 trees to the interior parking lot areas. As shown on the revised landscape plan,L-1b, this will provide 1 tree for every 4 parking stalls within the interior of the parking lot versus the code requirement of 1 tree for every 7 parking stalls. The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18,2009 hearing to discuss long term viability of the trees within the parking lot areas and their ability to produce canopy. TIGARD RE'T'AIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SU132t )8-0001) PAGE 7 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DIi 1':\ll.EID PLAN 5/18/a)09 Staff Response: The applicant has investigated the feasibility of incorporating larger soil volumes to support growth to maturity of the proposed parking lot trees in order to provide greater canopy. They note that larger soil volumes would mean fewer parking spaces, which would be unacceptable to Target. They are concerned with durability and maintenance associated with alternative construction techniques that would allow for sufficient soil while retaining adequate parking spaces. PacTrust points to their experience in providing and maintaining successful parking lot landscaping in their other Tigard and Metro area properties. The Architectural Graphic Standards outline the projected tree canopy growth based on soil volume. According to these standards, the projected canopy growth in the interior landscape islands will be approximately 15 feet in diameter. The applicant projects the canopy spread of the interior parking lot trees to be 40 feet in diameter. While the applicant and City Arborist differ on their expectations of future parking lot tree canopy,the applicant responded to the City's concerns by increasing the number and spacing of parking lot trees in their revised submittal. The City Arborist has continued to request that the applicant provide more soil volume for the proposed parking lot trees in order to improve their long term viability and growth based on the above standards. However, the applicant has determined that increasing the soil volume available to the interior trees is infeasible for two reasons. First, increasing the size of the landscape islands will reduce parking below what has been deemed marketable by the applicant. Second, treating the soil beneath the paved surface in a manner that will allow for healthy root growth underneath the parking lot has been deemed cost prohibitive by the applicant. A third option was suggested which involves installing permeable pavers within the limits of the parking stalls surrounding the trees. The City Arborist indicated this option can improve the tree rooting environment, support long term tree growth, and help minimize costs. The applicant contends that the site soils are not conducive to permeable pavers. An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50% canopy shading as a standard for parking lots. American Forests recommends a 40% citywide canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan has determined that 40% citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). If averaged over the whole site, including the revised landscaping proposed by the developer in their Memorandum and the non-buildable open space areas,40%canopy coverage would be expected. This is an area for Planning Commission deliberation. New tree code standards will likely emphasize canopy cover rather than individual trees. If the Commission determines that adequate canopy cover will result from the applicant's proposal, the Commission should accept the applicant's findings. If not, the Commission can approve the use of permeable surface,additional soil volume,or other acceptable means. 4. Further discussion on LID[low impact development]green building practices,LEED practices for both the site and the building. Applicant Response: The applicant submitted revised elevations and information on a potential system to incorporate solar arrays into the building architecture as part of the awnings along the south side of the building. They have engaged the Energy Trust of Oregon to help analyze energy conservation systems as well as other available technologies. Categories within the LEED rating system that the site would potentially be eligible for include restoring habitat, reducing heat island effect associated with roofs, construction activity pollution prevention, public transportation access and alternative transportation. Target has also continued with their efforts to develop the design and proposed sustainable features that they would incorporate into their building. A Design Intent Memorandum from Target's Senior Project Architect dated April 9,2009 is included. Staff Response: As shown in the Planning Commission minutes, the Commission is interested in a cost/benefit analysis addressing the issue of pervious paving materials, use of a green roof, and use of solar energy for both the site plan and building and the rationale for including them, or not. The applicant has included Solar Concept Sketches incorporating solar panels in the awnings of the two retail shop buildings. However, the applicant believes there is more energy cost savings in conservation methods through energy efficient lighting, low-E glazing and reflective roofing than would otherwise be off-set by the use of solar power. The applicant included additional materials TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SU62(N18-00000) PAGE S OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 that showed which aspects of the project would be creditable under LEED and what sustainable initiatives were already being incorporated by Target. The applicant intends to share the results of the Energy Trust analysis with the Commission and may provide additional responses to this item at the upcoming Commission meeting. 5. Address further dircwssion on police department concerns. Applicant Response: The applicant met with Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department (TPD) who commented that the Department's chief concern was the lack of defensible space on the store's south and west perimeters.TPD supports using the proposed plaza space on the north side as an alternative route between SW Hermosa and SW Dartmouth. Staff Response: Staff supports the inclusion of the proposed path along the wetlands as provided for in the Tigard Development standards for connectivity and the planned development standards for open space recreation. Additional pedestrian scale lighting may improve the safety of the trail. Monitoring trail use can provide information on whether the level of use of the trail will itself improve safety in the area, which is currently frequented by transients (as reported by the police). Monitoring trail use by both Target (remote cameras) and the City Police Department (potentially, quad patrol) would help determine if other techniques would need to be incorporated to enhance defensible space on the south and west sides of the proposed Target store. The Tigard Police, Planning Division, and the applicant will discuss the issue further to substantively address the potential conflict between public safety and access and enjoyment of the natural area. 6. Take a look at the front facade of the Target store to see if there's a way to bring the right side of it down to more pedestrian scale. Applicant Response: As shown on the revised landscape plan, L-la, a planter island has been added to the northwest corner of the building along with a trellis to effectively wrap the building with landscaping materials that tie into the pedestrian plaza and landscape elements that occur along the entire north elevation. Staff Response: Staff finds the revised landscape plan, L-1a, is consistent with the original plan set (PC-1.0) with no apparent changes to the plan. No revised elevations drawings were submitted with which to gauge the effectiveness of the proposed trellis and additional landscape island with respect to the pedestrian scale. 7. Address willingness to put in bus shelter should one be deemed appropriate at some fixture date. Applicant Response: PacTrust contacted Ben Baldwin with TriMet to discuss the project, bus service along Dartmouth and the potential desire to provide a bus shelter for the site. As noted in the email correspondence from Mr. Baldwin that is included with this memorandum,TriMet does not currently plan to change line in this area, or add a line to service to this area along Dartmouth. However, PacTrust will continue to stay in contact with TriMet as the project develops and would remain open to the concept of providing a bus shelter for the property. Staff Response: Staff supports the efforts and willingness of Pactrust to incorporate transit facilities into the project. 8. Meet with the Tree Board. Applicant Response: PacTrust met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. Tree canopy and long term viability with respect to soil volumes for parking lot trees were discussed. The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18, 2009 hearing to discuss the minimum standards that have been developed by PacTrust for parking lot landscaping installation and maintenance based on their experience. Staff Response: The applicant met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The Tree Board was generally positive about the overall site plan, but inquired about the possibility of improving soil conditions for the Interior parking lot trees with permeable pavers, under pavement treatments, and bioswales. The applicant has investigated these options and determined that they are infeasible. 9. Check to see if there are any incentives for energy aspects for the building TIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB2 0K-OO XII) PAGE 9 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I-II ARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Applicant Response: PacTrust has a meeting scheduled with the Energy Trust in April to review some of the energy conservation measures that they have already proposed for the building such as Low-E glaring with our expansive glass line, TPO roofing materials and lighting systems. We will also be discussing other energy conservation measures that they would suggest for the building as well as some of the incentive programs that may be available and how they might apply to our project. Staff Response:The applicant may provide further information at the May 18`h Planning Commission meeting. 18.520— COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable commercial zoning district standards. 18.620—(TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section.These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Where the parking lot is not located behind the retail pad buildings (approximately 280 lineal feet), the setback between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth St. exceeds five feet due to the width of the wetland and associated buffer area. The wetland buffer area is being enhanced per Clean Water Services requirements. The applicant's Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1 a) shows Red Sunset Maples spaced approximately 28 feet apart,consistent with this standard. However, the size specified in the Plant Materials Listing is 2 '/z inch caliper rather than the required 3 1/2 inches. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot consistent with the L-1 standards. 2. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 2-'/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. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. According to the Landscape Rendering Plan (Sheet L-1d) and the Plant Materials Listing (Sheet L-2), the applicant has specified Crimson Sentry Maple (2 inch caliper) and Red Sunset Maple (2 1/2 inch caliper) for the parking lot field; Greenspire Linden (2 inch caliper), Kwanzan Cherry (no caliper specified), and Autumn Purple Ash (2 inch caliper) are specified street trees for SW Dartmouth, SW Hermoso, and the access drive, respectively. The sizes of these trees are not all consistent with the L-2 standard. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28' apart. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design standards, with the exception of Section 18.620.070 as reviewed above. Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design Standards. TIGARD RETAIL CENTERSTAFF REPORT(SUB31084101x11) PAGE 10 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28' apart. 18.705— (ACCESS AND EGRESS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Access and Egress standards. 18.725—(ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Environmental Performance standards. 18.745—(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Section 18.745.030.C: Installation Requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. The City Arborist is concerned that the parking lot trees on the interior of the parking lot have not been provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity. According to the Architectural Graphic Standards, the required soil volume per tree should be 1200 cubic feet. The applicant has determined that it is not feasible to provide the required soil volume. Instead, the applicant has proposed additional parking lot trees at a ratio of one tree for every four parking spaces. An ISA ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50% canopy shading as a standard for parking lots. American Forests recommends a 40% citywide canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan has determined that 40% citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). FINDING: As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Landscaping and Screening standards, with the exception of the Section 18.745.030.C.1 as reviewed above. CONDITION: • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide for parking lot canopy coverage of 50%. 18.755—(MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE): FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage standards. TIGARID MAIL CI?,N'1'ER STAFF RF,PORT(SVB2oos-In)o1) PAGE.11 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I IEARING,DI?TAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 18.7OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTSLD Guideline Chapter r imina Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, 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: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The applicant states that "the proposed Target provides 4 truck loading spaces in the loading dock. The smaller retail buildings are multi-tenant retail shop buildings with up to 9 tenants in each building. The tenants will lease blocks of the building with areas ranging from 1,200-sf to 1,800-sf. Some tenants may choose to lease multiple blocks of the building, but the maximum tenant space for these types of buildings typically does not exceed 5,000- sf. These smaller retail format merchant stores do not typically receive large quantities through large delivery trucks and do not require dedicated loading space. Based on this information, no dedicated loading space is needed or proposed for the smaller retail buildings." The two proposed 12,000 square foot retail buildings have not been provided with any loading spaces, as required. The applicant states that the expected size of the leased space would not create the need for such loading spaces. However, it would be possible for a single business to lease the entire space, where the size would warrant the required loading space. Therefore this standard is not met. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements with the exception of Section 18.765.080.A.1. To comply with this section, the applicant would either need to limit tenants to less than 10,000 square feet or provide a loading space for each of the 12,000 square foot pad buildings. CONDITION: • The applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,000 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet or less. 18.775—(SENSITIVE LANDS): FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sensitive Lands standards. 18.780—(SIGNS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sign standards. 18.790—(TREE REMOVAL : 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. The applicant submitted an arborist report and tree plan prepared by a certified arborist at Arbor Pro, Inc., dated August 20, 2008. The report includes a site plan,Tree Inventory Table, and provides guidelines for the removal and protection of existing trees on the site. The applicant states that the majority of trees proposed to be removed with this development are dead or in poor health and pose a potential safety hazard. TICARD RETAIL CENTER gm!,REPORT(SUB2008-00 )1) PAGE 12 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I TEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; The Arborist Report's Tree Inventory Table and site plan identify the size, species and location of all existing trees on the site. The site does not contain any trees designated as significant by the City. 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping,streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The applicant states that as shown in the Arborist Report, there are 19 trees on site that are alive and greater than 12" caliper. Of these, 13 will be retained (65%). In accordance with the mitigation requirements outlined above, 50% of the trees to be removed will be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D. Trees that are dead or a hazardous condition are not included in these calculations. The narrative refers to the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the proposed tree mitigation. However, the applicant's plan set includes a Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1). The applicant's Memorandum includes Landscape Concept Plans (Sheets L-1 a through L-1 d) and a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PC-5.0). None of these plans include the referenced mitigation plan. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; All trees to be removed have been identified in the Tree Inventory Table and on the Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PC-5.0). A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The arborist report defines standards and methods to protect trees during and after construction. However, the proposed tree protection measures have not been shown in the plan set. To ensure tree protection in the field during construction, the applicant will be required to incorporate the tree protection measures in the plan set. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised grading plan that shows which trees are to be removed/retained, and how retained trees will be protected. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated 8/20/08. The grading/tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the 8/20/08 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. 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 as a 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. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. 'IIGARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUR2008-(Xfl)I) PAGE 13 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2( 19 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal permit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: No trees within sensitive lands are proposed to be removed. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development does not comply with all of the applicable Tree Removal standards. Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tree Removal standards. CONDITIONS: • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with I8.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner. After such time, the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the August 20, 2008 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing,grading, and paving. 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. • Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code;and Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be TIGARD RETAII.CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB3108-0 NN)1) PAGE 14 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I TEARING,I)EI \1LE1)PLAN 5/18/3109 processed. • If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. • Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, 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 building construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall 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. • Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter 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 decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 18.795— (VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Visual Clearance Areas standards. 18.810—(STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets,sewers,and drainage. The applicant's narrative and plan set address the applicable standards of Section 18.810. In addition to the proposed site improvements and adjacent right-of-way improvements for SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way, the applicant has identified and proposed off-site improvements to SW 72nd Avenue and OR 99W. The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008, November 2008, and January 2009), and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to identify off-site traffic impacts. The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72"`' and Hwy 99W. The applicant has worked with the City and ODOT to satisfactorily address the impacts to streets and arterials in the vicinity of the proposed development. The City's Development Review Engineer has reviewed this information and provided the following comments and recommended conditions for the applicant's proposal: 1. OR 99W: The raised medians shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along its entirety, except where sight distance may be compromised. 2. OR 217 / SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: City Engineering staff concurs with the ODOT recommendation. 11GARD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT(SUB3X18d10001) PAGE 15 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I TEARING,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2(109 3. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: City Engineering staff concurs with ODOT recommendations with the additional requirement that the applicant construct the full pavement, curb and storm sewer improvements to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Street and Utility Improvement standards for the subject site. With respect to offsite improvements the applicant shall be subject to following ODOT recommended conditions of approval and additional City conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: • OR 99W: The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72nd Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11 ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements,U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. • OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. • SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. • ODOT Permits:The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. • The applicant shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W,except where sight distance may be compromised. • The applicant shall construct the full pavement, curb and storm sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. • All ODOT permits must be obtained prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. • All public improvements must be completed prior to occupancy. 18.390— DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUD : Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise im acts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or 'CIG:ARD RETAIL CENTER SCAM'REPORT(SUB:NM)84X1111) PAGE 16 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I TEARING,DI:'1':\1I.1?D PLAN 5/18/20W provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. As shown in the applicant's Preliminary Site Plan and narrative,the applicant specifically concurs with the required SW Hermoso Way dedication. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County figures, TIF's are expected to recapture 20 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed, the applicant is required to pay TIF's of approximately$916,810. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 20 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $4,584,050 ($916,810 divided by .20). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. Mitigation Value Assessment: Full Impact ($916,810=0.20) $4,584,050 Less TIF Assessment -916,810 Less SW Hermoso Way Dedication .($15 x 2,178 sq. ft.) -32,670 Less mitigated values for off-site transportation improvements (SW 72"d/Hwy 99W) _ -4,000,000 Estimate of unmitigated impacts -$365,430 TIF Credit $916,810 Total Net Estimate of unmitigated impacts $551,380 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Hermoso Way, a local street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet PC-1.0) and stated in the narrative. The applicant has proposed transportation improvements on SW Dartmouth, SW 72"d Avenue, and OR 99W to address the project's impact. For this project, the TIF is creditable to the off-site impact mitigation required oft the applicant for SW 72"d, an arterial. Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications, assessments, and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department commented that the side and rear of the proposed Target store should include design elements to increase natural surveillance to provide added safety to trail users. It was further suggested that utilization of the pedestrian plaza area on the north side of the building would better address the safety issues as an alternative to the pedestrian/bicycle connection between SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. The Tigard Public Works Department commented that they would support the proposed public sewer main segment entering the property via the westernmost driveway if the property is planned to be partitioned. The applicant plans to adjust the lot lines of the three existing lots to match the three separate buildings. The City Arborist commented on the proposed development finding that not all of the landscaping and screening, street tree, and tree plan requirements have been met. These standards are addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening and Tree Removal Chapters of this staff report. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Water District commented that the plans needed clarification and that fire lines cannot be tapped d ecdy foor domestic water for the buildings. These issues must be addressed with construction plan set review of by Portland General Electric commented on the subject proposal requesting a public utility easement on the south side of Dartmouth along the frontage of the subject property and the adjacent property to the east to provide underground power from the east side of SW 72nd Avenue at Dartmouth. TIG.UtD RETAIL CENTER STAFF REPORT'(SUB2008-00001) PAGE 17 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION I TEARING,t)EFA11i I)PLAN 5/18/2009 Oregon Department of Transportation provided additional comment on the subject proposal in a letter dated April 23, 2009 in which it made its final recommended conditions of approval to address off-site impacts to state highways: Recommended Local Conditions of Approval: 1. OR 99W;,dThe applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72 Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised jpncrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72 Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11 ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbour41 at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74 Avenue (see December 1 , 2008 letter for explanation). OlAOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72 Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. nd 2. OR 217/SW 72 Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. nd 3. SW 72 Avenge through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72 Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. 4. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. Oregon Department of State Lands was notified of wetlands located on the subject site but did not comment on the proposed development. Because the proposal does not further impact wetlands on the site, it is unlikely DSL would prioritize this application for review and comment. Clean Water Services issued a service provider letter dated August 1, 2008 (CWS File No. 08-00228) requiring enhancement of existing sensitive areas. Washington County commented that they have no objection to the proposed development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue commented that they can endorse the proposed development with conditions of approval relating to required fire flow, reflective hydrant markers, hydrant fire department connections, access and water supply during construction, an pro ' 'on of a Knox box. ti4%/ May 11, 2009 PREPARED B Gar Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner - May 11, 2009 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Be er orff DATE Planning Manager '1'IGARD RETAIL.CENTER STAFF F REPORT(SUB2008-1(X11)1) PAGE 18 OF 18 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING,DI;1':\II,I?D PLAN 5/18/2009 Agenda Item: 5.2 Hearing Date: May 18,2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE a PLANNING COMMISSION • FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS AMENDMENT CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2009-00002 Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2009-00002 PROPOSAL: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to amend the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 12.1.2.c), Transportation System Plan (Chapter 8, Figure 8- 10), Tigard Development Code (Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards), and the Municipal Code (10.28.130 — Motor Vehicle Parking). The proposed amendments will allow vehicle parking and remove the requirement for bike lanes on collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ZONES: CBD: Central Business District. The CBD zoning district is designed to provide a concentrated central business district, centered on the City's historic downtown, including a mix of civic, retail and office uses. Single-family attached housing, at a maximum density of 12 units/net acre, equivalent of the R-12 zoning district, and multi-family housing at a minimum density of 32 units/acre, equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, are permitted outright. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,utilities, facilities with drive-up windows,medical centers,major event entertainment and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. MUR: Mixed Use Residential Districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. A high density (MUR-1) and moderate density (MUR-2) designation is available within the MUR zoning district. C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single- family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of STAFF REPORT TO TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-(011)2/DCA20119-001102 PAGE 1 OF 6 DoWN'I'OWN co]Li iCI'OR STRI EF:C STAN DARDS conjunction with a commercial development. Heliports medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments in the G zoning district are i P ntended to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more-intensive commercial and industrial areas. LOCATION: Downtown Urban Renewal District. APPLICABLE RE VIE W CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.810; Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.2(c) and Goal 15;and Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 12. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor to amend the Tigard Development Code 18.810, Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.2, Transportation System Plan Chapter 8 and Municipal Code Title 10 as proposed with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposal is to amend the street standards for collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. There are four collectors within the downtown (Main,Burnham and Scoffins Streets and Ash Avenue - Exhibit A. The current standard for collector streets does not permit on-street parking and requires bicycle lanes on all collector streets within the city. The proposed amendments will allow on-street parking along collectors within the downtown. In addition,the construction of designated bicycle lanes may not be required for all collectors within the downtown. The requirement for separate bike lanes would be determined by the City Engineer. This proposal allows flexibility in downtown street design until permanent standards can be adopted and allows on-street parking,which already exists along Main Street. PROPOSED CHANGE S The proposed changes are as follows (Exhibit B): 1. Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards • Table 18.810.1,Figure 18.810.2.,and ; • Section 18.810.110 These changes will allow vehicle parking along collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District and allow bike lane requirements to be determined by the City Engineer for the same downtown collectors. 2. Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.1.2(c) - remove the requirement to construct bike lanes in accordance with the Bicycle Master Plan along collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. 3. Transportation System Plan Chapter 8 Motor Vehicles, Figure 8-10 (Arterial and Collector Sample Street Cross Sections) - the criteria within the chart regarding On Street Parking is being modified to allow exceptions. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 PAGE 2 OF 6 DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS 4. Tigard Municipal Code 10.28.130 - Remove the parking restriction for the north side of Burnham Street near the intersection with Hall Boulevard (Restriction #65). This is necessary because Burnham Street has been designed to allow parking in this area. All other Municipal Code parking restrictions on downtown collectors found in the Municipal Code will remain in effect. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; Forty-five day advance notice was provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on April 2, 2009, more than 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code (TCD) and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Statewide Planning Goal 1- Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and for changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Chapter 18.390. Notice has been published in the Tigard Times Newspaper prior to the public hearing. In addition a notice was posted on the City website. Statewide Planning Goal 12 - Transportation This goal outlines provisions to insure a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Transportation plans must consider all modes of transportation, meet local, regional, and state transportation needs and plan requirements, conserve energy, and facilitate the flow of goods and services. The proposed amendment will affect bicycle users by accommodating bicycle traffic in designated lanes or wider vehicle travel lanes. 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; There are no applicable Metro regulations under the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan addresses street design from a region-wide perspective. The collector streets affected by this amendment are not considered regionally significant;therefore,the regional street design standards do not apply. 4. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 PAGE 3 OF 6 DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Policy 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. Policy 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters, newsletters, the Internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. Policy 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and-staff regarding issues that concern them. The City has published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to TDC 18.390.050 for Type IV Procedures. In addition, a copy of the hearing notice was posted on the City website. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. With these public involvement provisions this application is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. TRANSPORTATION Goal 12.1 Transportation System Policy 2 (A) Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian,transit and other modes) by: The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize the multi-purpose nature of the street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, truck and auto use. The proposed collector street standards will still accommodate multiple modes of traffic. Sidewalks are provided for pedestrians. Bicycles lanes or wider vehicle travel lanes are required to accommodate bicyclists. Policy 2(C) Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities, and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. The policy requires bike lanes on all collectors consistent with the bicycle master plan. The Bicycle Master Plan (Figure 6-2) shows proposed bike lanes on Burnham Street, Scoffins Street, and Ash Avenue. Lanes are not shown on Main Street. As proposed, the amendment will allow streets to be designed with or without designated bike lanes within the downtown. Bicycles will still be accommodated by wider vehicle travel lanes STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 PAGE 4 OF 6 DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS where bike lanes were not provided (e.g. Burnham Street). In addition, some off-street bicycle circulation is currently provided by the Fanno Creek Trail that runs parallel to Burnham Street. SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS - DOWNTOWN Goal 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. Policy 1. The downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi-modal transportation services including auto, transit,bike, and pedestrian facilities. As proposed,the collector street standards will serve multiple modes of travel including autos,transit, bike,and pedestrians. The City is currently working on a circulation plan for the downtown that will improve connectivity and establish street standards for the downtown. In addition, the City is also undertaking a comprehensive review of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). The proposed amendments will allow flexible street standards for the downtown until more appropriate standards can be established. 5. Any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances. Code Section 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments: This section regulates amendments. It outlines the process for reviewing Development Code Text Amendments. The present amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Code Section 18.390 Decision-Making Procedures: This chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing applications. The amendment under consideration will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as detailed in the chapter. Code Section 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards: This section of the code provides standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The amendment modifies the collector standards to allow on-street parking in the downtown, but also eliminates the requirement for designated bicycle lanes. The removal of this requirement does not mean that bike lanes will not be provided, but provides options and flexibility for downtown street design. SECTION V. STAFF ANALYSIS The current Comprehensive Plan (Transportaion Chapter), TSP, and Development Code street standards address collectors on a city-wide basis. Little consideration was given on how collectors might function in different areas of the city. In this case, downtown collectors serve not only as connectors between arterials such as Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard;they also transport users to a destination- Downtown Tigard. In addition to conveying traffic through the area and connecting to regional public transit available at the Tigard Transit Center, downtown collectors should also accommodate those wishing to spend time within the downtown by providing public parking options on the streets. On-street parking will be essential as the downtown redevelops to its intended dense form. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 PAGE 5 OF 6 DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS Collector streets typically do not allow on-street parking due to the larger traffic volumes carried by collectors and the higher rates of speed which are permitted. In the downtown,the speeds will likely be lower than on a typical collector street and on-street parking also acts as a traffic calming device causing drivers to travel at lower speeds. Downtown streets are also likely to be designed differently and therefore, will function differently from other collectors within the city. The City is currently within Periodic Review and will be updating the TSP and Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a circulation plan is also being prepared for the downtown. As noted above this plan will improve connectivity and establish street standards for the downtown. The amendments being proposed with this application could be further altered, eliminated or replaced in the future. Until those plans are finalized, the proposed changes will allow some flexibility in the design of collectors within the downtown and accommodate existing on-street parking along Main Street. SECTION VI. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No Action - The code would remain unchanged. Parking will not be permitted on any collector in the City. Designated bicycle lanes will be required on all collector streets throughout the City. Alternate Actions - Apply the amendment to specific downtown collector streets. The public already parks along portions of Main Street, Burnham Street and Ash Avenue. Burnham Street has been redesigned to accommodate on-street parking. SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department,Engineering Division, Public Works Department, Long Range Planning Division, and the Current Planning Code Enforcement Officer were given copies of the proposed code amendment. Only Code Enforcement and Police responded with no objections. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Clean Water Services (CWS), Metro, ODOT Rail, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) were notified of the proposed amendment. No written comments were received from most agencies. CWS responded with no concerns or objections to the proposed amendments, but did note that any improvements to upgrade streets to the new designations would require Storm Water Connection Permit approval. • C .) May 11,2009 PREP BY: Cheryl Gaines DATE Associate Planner ` ,I May 11,2009 APPROVES I Y: Dick Bewers orf DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 PAGE 6 OF 6 DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS EXHIBIT A -eewe—r 416.. 111,111P niv---,,,,, Downtown Tigard ' ' Collector Streets IS I May 7, 2009 &F I City of Tigard Oregon •■\ .--,----\ Y. (1,,, ,,ittfr 04,cr ) Pl. \\,. r 4T . ti'c .2 . \d, . r..°. i\ City hint Collector Designation Urban Renewal District \ —I Railroad Park 0 I 250 500 1,000 / Feet I °' EXHIBIT B CPA2009-00002 & DCA2009-00002 COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS AMENDMENT May 11,2009 Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: 'Bold, Underline and Italic' —Text to be added Proposed code language is as follows: Chapter 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.030 Streets Figure 18.810.2 Collector Sample Cross Sections (Ord. 02-33) .5' 6-8' 5.5' 6'Bike 11' 11' 6'Bike 5.5' 6-8' 5' R/W 58'-62' 2 Lane 58'42'R/W 12'Median/ •5'6-8' 5.5' 6'Bike 11' Turn Lane 11' 6'Bike 5.5' 6-8' •5' R/W 70'-74' 3 Lane 70'-74'R/W .1111.11111F-Vf4""Ole-. t11114 12'Median/ '5: 6-8' . 5.5' 6'Bike, 11' 11' Turn Lane . 11' 11' 6'Bike. 5.5' 6-8' .6 R/W 92'-96' 5 Lane 92'46'R/W t'"Parking is allowed on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District Bike lane requirements on these same collectors shall be determined by the City Engineer. Table 18.810.1 Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics 3w a � � : w r 3 Type of Street w = ti o °" `� a _ o. w r G� w 40 00 4 o a3 Arterial 64'-128' Varies 2 -7(Refer to 12' N/A 6' (New Streets) 8' (Res.& Ind.Zones) 5' l2'(') TSP) 5'-6' (Existing Streets) 10' (Comm. Zones) Collector 58'-96' Varies 2 -5 (Refer to 11' N/A 6' (New Streets)-(1/ 6' (Res. & Ind.Zones) 5' 12'(I) TSP) g,(4) 5'-6' (Existing Streets) 8' (Comm.Zones) Neighborhood Route 50'-58' 28'-36' 2 10' 8' 5'-6' 5'-6'(2) 5' N/A Local: Industrial/Commercial 50' 36' 2 N/A 5'-6'(2) 5' N/A Local: Residential N/A • Under 1500 ADT 54'/50'(3) 32'/28'(3) 2 8' (both sides) N/A 5'-6'(2) 5' • Under 500 ADT 50'/46'(3) 28'/24'(3) 2 8' (one side) N/A • Under 200 ADT 46'/42'(3) 24'/20'3) 2 (No Parking) N/A Cul-de-sac bulbs in 50' 42' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial and radius Commercial zones _ Cul-de-sac bulbs in 47' 40' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Residential zones radius Alley: Residential 16' 16' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Alley: Business 20' 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Ord. 02-33) 'Medians required for 5 and 7 lane roadways. They are optional for 3 lane roadways. 2 Sidewalk widths for these streets shall be 5 ft with landscape strip; 6 ft if against curb(if permitted in accordance with 18.810.070.C). '"Skinny Street"roadway widths are permitted where cross section and review criteria are met. Refer to corresponding cross sections (Figures 18.810.3, 18.810.4 and 18.810.5) for details and conditions. 4 Parking is allowed on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. SBicycle lane requirements on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined by the City Engineer. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all Arterial and Collector routes and where identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined by the City Engineer. .(a) TRANSPORTATION a policy or implementation strategy specifically conflicts with the updated TSP, the specific policy or implementation strategy has been deleted. Section 1: Transportation System KEY FINDINGS • There are 22 intersections near or at capacity based on the 2001 Tigard Transportation System Plan. • There is no continuous bicycle network in Tigard. • There are significant gaps in the sidewalk system with few interconnected locations linking to schools,retail,parks,and transit. • Segments of Highway 217 and I-5 are over capacity and ORE 99W will continue to serve more through traffic in the future. • Future traffic models indicate ORE 99W and half of the signalized traffic intersections fail within 20 years assuming no improvements are made. • Travel time data on Highway 217 indicates that some of the slowest travel speed on the facility occurs in Tigard due to existing capacity issues and the need for interchange improvements. • In the development of the transportation system plan, seven goals were identified which were used as the guidelines for the development of the policies and implementation strategies. The goals were: livability,balanced transportation system,safety,performance,accessibility,goods movement, and coordination. GOAL: 12.1 Transportation System POLICIES: 1. Plan,design,and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: A. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. 12-2 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan IN CE) TRANSPORTATION B. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable "Encouraging pedestrian routes. C. Addressing issues of excessive pedestrian speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighbor- traffic program. The program by providing should address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that safe, secure, development incorporates traffic calming. and desirable 2. Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation pedestrian (including motor vehicle, bicycle,pedes- routes." trian, transit and other modes) by: A. The development of and implemen- tation of public street standards that recognize the multi-purpose nature of the street right-of-wav for utility, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, truck and auto use. B. Coordination with TriMet,and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide direct pedestrian accessibility. C. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master plan, with the exception of collectors within the downtown urban renewal district. All schools,parks,public facilities, and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. D. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools, parks, public facilities,and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk. E. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recre- ational trails. F. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. G. Tigard will participate in vehicle trip reduction strategies developed Comprehensive Plan I City of Tigard 12-3 DKS Associates • aik CITY OF TIGARD Transportation •4 .0. System Plan ,> Ili 5' 1 6' 16'Bike l 12' I 12' 16'Bike 1 6' I 5' I11' I R/W 60' 1 2 Lane 60'R/W a •4 •4 4 -11,E. ,'i ' - fit 12'-14'Medlap/ I1' 5' { 6' 16'Blkel 12'-13' l Turn Lane? 12'-13' 16'Bike1 6' 1 5' Ili I R/W 74' I 3*Lane 74'R/W ,4 •4 '4 / 44/ /, •`,_] 14'Median 11� 5' I 6' t6'Bike t 12' I 12' I Turn I aneyCI 12' I 12' 1 o'Bike I 6' I 5' I1 RAN 98' I 5*Lane 98'R/W a. - 4 / •/ \■ IP - �r �� Mi� 12'Median 1 6' I 6' 16'Bike 1 12' 1 12' I 12' 1 Turn lane I 12 I 12' 1 12' I Bike 6'1 6' 1 6' I1'I R/W 98' 1 7*Lane 122'R/W Criteria Vehicle Lane Widths: Truck Route= 12 ft. (minimum widths) Bus Route= 12 ft. 11 ft.(12 ft. Preferred) Collector 10-11 ft. On Street Parking: None(with few existing exceptions) Bicycle Lanes: New Construction=6 ft. (minimum widths) Reconstruction=5 to 6 ft. Sidewalks:(minimum width) 5-13 ft. Consider Curb Extensions on Ped Routes Landscape Strips: Required Medians: 5/7 Lane=Required 3 Lane=Optional Neighborhood Traffic Only Under Special Conditions: Management: Selected Measures Figure 8-10 *Note that,sidewalk widths above 6 ft.may require additional right-of-way. ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR Where appropriate,the mediaMane may not be provided resulting in 2,4 and SAMPLE STREET CROSS SECTIONS 6 lane cross sections. The removal of the center turn lane must consider both REQUIRED ROW WIDTH safety and pedestrian needs. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE terminus thereof; S.W. Genesis Loop, extending from the most southerly intersection thereof with S.W. 115th 49. Within the northerly half of S.W. Avenue easterly a distance of one hundred sixty- Walnut Place; also, within the southwest half of five feet; S.W. Walnut Place beginning at S.W. Pacific and, thence, extending a distance of one hundred 58. Along both sides of S.W. Durham Road seventy-five feet southeasterly along the curbline; between Hall Boulevard and Pacific Highway; 50. Within a portion of the right-of-way of 59. Repealed by Ord. 95-32; S.W. Hampton Street being all that portion thereof lying between S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. 66th 60. Within the west half of the right-of-way Avenue; of S.W. 92nd Avenue, beginning at the intersection thereof with the south right-of-way 51. Repealed by Ordinance 98-09; line of S.W. Durham Road; thence, extending southerly one thousand four hundred fifty feet; 52. Repealed by Ordinance 98-09; 61. Within the right-of-way of S.W. 92nd 53. Within the southeast half of the most Avenue, beginning at a point which lies one southerly end of S.W. Main Street, beginning at thousand four hundred fifty feet southerly of the the intersection of the southeast curblines of S.W. south right-of-way line of S.W. Durham Road; Pacific Highway and S.W. Main Street and thence, extending southerly one thousand one extending seventy-five feet along the Main Street hundred ninety feet; excepting therefrom the south curbline to a point; also, therein, beginning at a six hundred eighty feet of the west half thereof; point on the Main Street curbline which lies two hundred five feet from said intersecting curblines 62. Along the east side of S.W. 85th Avenue and extending thirty feet therealong to a point; from Durham Road to a point four hundred fifty feet south of the south curbline of Durham Road; 54. Within the westerly half of the right-of- way of 115th Avenue extending from the 63. On S.W. Varns Street from S.W. 72nd intersection with S.W. Gaarde Street northerly to Avenue to a point one hundred twenty-five feet the intersection of S.W. Fonner Street; west of the west curbline of 72nd Avenue; 55. Within the northwesterly right-of-way 64. On S.W. Watkins Avenue from S.W. of S.W. McKenzie Street from a point twenty feet Pacific Highway to a point seventy-five feet west southeasterly from the intersection of the of the west curbline of Pacific Highway; centerlines at S.W. McKenzie St., and S.W. Grant St., to a point ninety feet southeasterly of the centerline intersection; t :. _ . . . .. • . . _. 56. On the northwesterly half of S.W. Ash ... . . : . .. . .. • _ • _. . •_ Avenue beginning at the northeast right-of-way • et; line of S.W. Commercial Street and extending thence northeasterly one hundred thirty-eight feet. 66. On S.W. 69th Avenue from Pacific Highway to a point one hundred fifty feet north of 57. Within the curblines on each side of the north curbline of Pacific Highway, measured 10-28-9 SE Update: 10/04 Pacific Realty Associates PD2008-00001 Attn: N. Piven J t.r s■c. t" TIGARD RETAIL CENTER 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy., 00 Portland, OR 97224 Brian Dickerson PacLand 6400 SE Lake Road, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97222 " � 1 Kevin W. Lub K 7540 SW rmoso Way C:�� Tigar R 97223 t • ' NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2009-02 PC BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER APPROVING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT AND DETAILED PLANS FOR THE TIGARD RETAIL CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONCEPT PLAN ON DECEMBER 1, 2008 AND APPROVED THE DETAILED PLAN WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON MAY 18, 2009. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND PLAN SET (TIGARD RETAIL CENTER, LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AUGUST 29, 2008), THE APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 10, 2009, THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT THE MAY 18, 2009 HEARING (SHEET L-lb, REVISED 5-18-09, (Attachment 2) AND EXHIBITS A-D "OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS" (Attachment 3) AND THIS FINAL ORDER. (Includes a 212-Day Extension) 120 DAYS = 8/31/2009 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER CASE NO.: Planned Development Review(PDR) PDR2008-00001 "Detailed Plan Review" APPLICANT/ APPLICANT'S OWNER: Eric Sporre REP: Brian Dickerson Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. PacLand 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 300 6400 SE Lake Road, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 Portland, OR 97222 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a proposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail buildings. In addition, there will be surface parking, landscaping, lighting, access and utility infrastructure improvements. The Concept and Detailed Plans will be reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. The Concept and Detailed Plans are being reviewed separately by the Planning Commission with a separate decision on each plan at successive hearings. On December 1, 2008, the Commission reviewed and approved the Concept Plan and provided the applicant with direction in developing the detailed plans. This staff report includes the findings for the Detailed Plan. LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Dartluouth Road vest of SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 1S136CD, Tax Lot 04200, 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00101; 2S101AB, Tax Lot 01400. ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. 'l'IG.UU)RI:A'.ui, (PDR21K18-001KI1) PAGE I OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL,ORDI?R NO.2009-02 PC,DF.F\I].I:D PLAN 5/18/2109 ! 1 ` (PD)The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of stnct adherence to many of the rules of the 'Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space,innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning• 4) To preserve to vie greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; w5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, hich will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780,18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the proposed detailed plan meets the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code and that the proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Planning Commission, therefore, APPROVES the requested Land Use Application subject to the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S AMENDMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN ITALICS IN CONDITIONS 1,2, 11, 14, 17, 18& 19) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE/BUILDING PERMIT. The applicant shall pre are a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, E 24-34. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to issuance'of any site/building perms the•;&cant shall submit a nezised site plan and a statement demonstrating that the pn jat i as ,orates safey nvasures such as :.surzeillanre, enhanced lighting prominent signage and monitoring by store personnel to s the defensible space issues raised in the City cf Ti and Palk'Departne is arnvrent letter dated ay 15, 2009. 2. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees (as pnpasedat the May 18, 2009 PC Hearing Sheet L-1b, Reused 5-18- 09) will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide for parking lot canopy coverage of 30%. 3. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,000 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet, or less. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 2 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 f ' 4. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. 5. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit,the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/2 inch caliper. 6. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner.After such time,the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. 7. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the August 20, 2008 arbonst report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall- also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 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. 8. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title any party found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include but not be limited to, the following: replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. 9. Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the roject arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City.Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 10. If work is required within an established tree protection zone the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arbonst before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that that the requirements to the ENGINEERINGyDEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EX7 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 11. The applicant shall revise their plan set to incorporate landscaping (appropriate soil and stmt try spaced at the equizalere separation cf one tree ezery 28 feet) and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W, except where sight distance may be compromised. 12. The applicant shall revise their plan set to show full pavement, curb and storm sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two northbound lanes to Beveland Road. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 3 OF 19 PLANNING CX)MMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 13. The applicant shall obtain all ODOT permits prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. All work within the ODOT ROW requires an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit i alongwith any_supportin documents and/or plans that address the followi�ngyreguirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVION, ATTN: Gary 1'agenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arbonst has submitted written reports to the City Forester at least, once every two weeks (or by g a betz¢e'i the prcipa arbnrist and the City A rbnrist), from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing astallation, through building construction as he monitors the, construction activities And progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of an G'eertificates of Occupancy. The reports shall 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 Arbonst 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 he T1 Z's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop 'work on the pro ect until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arbonst. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if he fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 15. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy,the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter 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 decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 16. The applicant shall call for final inspection by the Current Planning Department to ensure that the project is built according to the applicable standards and approved plan set. 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 DEPARTMENT, ATTN: KIM MCMILLAN 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 17. OR 99W: Refer to 5/18/09 PC Hearing exhibits A-D "Off:Site Transportation I The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 9W/72nd I 7) The intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The a plicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11ftIanes on OR 9W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for expl-anation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. 18. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: (Refer to 5/18/09 PC Hearing exhibits A-D "CjfSite Transportation I ") The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp 100 ft to 50 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. (Contingent on suatssful adoption gf a local � 19. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: (Refer to 5/18/09 PC Hering exhibits A-D "CSite Transportation r ation Inotenrnts') The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue-from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes. The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 4 OF 19 PLANNING ODM IISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 20. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. 21. The applicant shall complete all public improvements prior to occupancy. THIS DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History PDR94-00019 approved a general retail center providing between 300,000 and 320,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, but expired. In 1998, the Tigard City Council approved the Tri County Shopping Center proposal (Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 98-0002/Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0002/Planned Development Review(PDR) 98-0001/Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) 98-0002/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 98-0004) Grading,tilling, and wetland mitigation occurred on the subject site, even though the retail Adjustment development was not built. Subsequently, PD2000-00001 approved a phased commercial shopping center development with 297,179 square feet of building area including an anchor building at 223,461 square feet,which has also expired. On October 6, 2008, at the Community Development Director's request,the Commission recommended the Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to correct the City's Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map and Significant Habitat Areas Map associated with CPA98-00002 regarding the subject property. On November 25, 2008, the Council approved the amendment. On December 1, 2009 the Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with direction for the applicant to proceed to the Detailed Plan. (See applicant's response below under the-Planned Development section of-this staff report,page 6). Vicinity Information: The subject 18.16-acre property is located south of SW Dartmouth Street, west of SW 72"d Avenue, and east of Hwy 217 in the Tigard Triangle. The subject site,zoned primarily GG (PD) with a 0.45 acre parcel in the southeast corner zoned MUE, is surrounded on the north, west and east by GG(PD) zoned land, and on the southeast by land zoned MUE. A 10.42-acre significant wetland associated with Red Rock Creek is located adjacent to the site on the west which buffers Hwy 217. Vacant developable land exists to the east fronting on SW 72 d,which was once a part of the previous approvals on the subject site. The area to the southeast, zoned MUE, is a neighborhood in transition where a number of residences have converted to commercial uses. Proposal Description The applicant is requesting_Planned Development Review approval for concurrent review of a Planned Development concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR2008-00001) for development of an 18.16-acre vacant property with a roposed 137,900 square foot Target retail building and two additional 12,000 square foot retail-buildings. In addition,surface parking,landscaping,lighting,access and utility infrastructure improvements are proposed. SECTION IV. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. The City provided notice to neighbors within 500 feet and the site was posted with a notice. Staff received several written comments from neighbors regarding this application. Kevin Lubby a property owner to the southeast on SW Hermosa,attended the December 1" Commission meeting and testified that he was concerned about visual screening between the proposed loading dock and his business. The Commission requested the applicant to address his concerns in the detailed plan. RESPONSE: The applicant's response memorandum states that the landscape plan has been revised to incorporate additional-large scale evergreen plantings along SW Hermoso Way and- long the existing residence at the southeast corner of the site. These plantings include 28 Western Red Cedars 10 Hogan Cedars and 15 Deodar Cedar in addition to the deciduous trees proposed at the southeast corner of'the property to provide a dense evergreen screen.Refer to revised landscape plan L-la for additional information. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 5 OF 19 PLANNING ODM IISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC;DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Specht Development commented that their land use approval for a 70,000 square foot office building_(SDR2007- 00003) required-them to build the signal at SW 68th and Dartmouth. Specht Development suggests that the City instead require the first project to actually develop (Target,most likel)) be responsible for building the signal. RESPONSE: There is an approved LID that will be responsible for the infrastructure that will support the signal installation. The signal is required to be installed as a condition of approval of SDR2007-00003. However, it the Tigard Retail development is requesting occupancy prior to an occupancy request for SDR2007-00003, then Tigard Retail shall coordinate with the LID and install the signal. The LID is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2010- 2011. Carol Getgen commented that the traffic at 72nd and Dartmouth is bad now and worries that increased traffic with the proposed Target will make it worse. RESPONSE: The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008 November 2008 and January 2009), and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOr I) to identify off-site traffic impacts. The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72nd and Hwy 99W. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The applicable review criteria are addressed in this report in the following order: 18.350 Planned Developments) 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.705* Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745* Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste &Recyclable Storage) 18.765" Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780* Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Vision Clearance) 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements) 18.390 Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) yr According to Section 18.350.100 gf the Planned Detelopment Chapter, these chapters are utilized as g idelirrs, and strict mvr iliarxe is not necessary where a dezelopnent prozides alternatize designs and nrtlxds that prop rite the purpose grthe PD Chapter. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of these Specific Development Standard Code Chapters. These chapters are,therefore,found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.710 (A cuss Residential Units) 18.720 (Design pnpatibil Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions to Deraripnrnt Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Horn Occupations) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Hare Regulations) 18.760 (Non adorn ii g Situations) 18.785 (Tenpora Uses) 18.798 (t r ess on mazication Faalities) TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 6 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 Pc DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The applicant submitted for concurrent review of both the Concept and Detailed plan. On December 1, 2008, the ni Planng Commission approved the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001 with direction to the applicant for approval of the Detailed Plan. The findings for the Concept plan approval are not included below but are included by((Concept Plan Approval, PDR2008-00001PdatedNovember 20, 2008). The applicant's narrative and plan set (Tigard Retail Center? Land Use Permit Application for Planned Development, August 29, 2008) demonstrates substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code without appealing to the discretion of the Commission or requesting any variances or adjustments. As such, the findings in the applicant's narrative are also adopted by reference with the exception of those chapters and standards below,for which staff has recommended conditions of approval. 18.350 - (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS In a Memorandum dated April 10, 2009, the applicant submitted a response to the Commission's nine issues on approval of the Concept Plan for PDR2008-00001. A summary of the applicant's responses, followed by staff comment, is included below after each listed issue. The Applicant's full responses can be found in the Memorandum, on which PacTrust intends to elaborate at the May 18`i' Commission meeting. 1. A ckquate scm'ening for the SW Hermso reign orhood Applicant Response: Fiftythree additional cedars have been proposed to the southeast corner of the site to further screen the loading dock area of the development from the Hermoso neighborhood (revised landscape plan,L-la). Staff Response: The additional proposed evergreen landscaping distributed across the slope between SW Hermoso and the proposed Target store's loading area appears to adequately address the concern expressed by Mr. Luby. The City Arborist has reviewed the revised screening plan for SW Hermoso and found it to be satisfactory. 2. Further cwnzersation zeith City A.rtiorist Applicant's Response: PacTrust and the project Landscape Architect have met on multiple occasions to discuss the project with the City Arborist since the December 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting including our presentation to the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The proposed landscape plans were revised to address several of the City Arborist's comments with regard to the tree canopy and the number of trees provided within the interior parking lot area.Included with this revised submittal ackage are copies of Preliminary Prenary Tree Preservation Plan to help clarify the trees on site that are proposed for removal with this development application. The project Landscape Architect, Beighley and Associates, will also be at the May 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to present the revised landscape plans and to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. Staff Response: The City Arborist has met with the applicant on several occasions and resolved a majority of the tree and landscaping items. Those items left to be resolved include ensuring consistency between the tree inventory and protection specifications in the arborist's report with the site plan drawings. Also, there is a difference of opinion on the feasibility of the proposed interior parking lot trees to provide substantial canopy in the long term(see below). 3. Further discussion mganling the parking lot and the plantings within the parking lot; loth with the repel-to the numer and ozerall canopy width to the soil zaud4 and the ziabrli y(f the tro3 to prod?uce the canopy Applicant Response: The Landscape plan has been revised to add an additional 30 trees to the interior parking lot areas. As shown on the revised landscape plan,L-lb,this will provide 1 tree for every 4 parking stalls within the interior of the parking lot versus the code requirement of 1 tree for every 7 parking stalls. The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18,2009 hearing to discuss long term viability of the trees within the parking lot areas and their ability to produce canopy. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 7 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Staff Response: The applicant has investigated the feasibility of incorporating larger soil volumes to support growth to maturity of the proposed parking lot trees in order to provide greater canopy. They note that larger soil volumes would mean fewer parking,spaces,,which would be unacceptable to Target. They are concerned with durability and maintenance associated with alternative construction techniques that would allow for sufficient soil while retaining adequate parking spaces. PacTrust points to their experience in providing and maintaining successful parking lot landscaping in their other Tigard and Metro area properties. The Architectural Graphic Standards outline the projected tree canopy growth based on soil volume. According to these standards, the projected canopy growth in the interior landscape islands will be approximately 15 feet in diameter. The applicant projects the canopy spread of the interior parking lot trees to be 40 feet in diameter. While the applicant and City Arborist differ on their expectations of future parking lot tree canopy,the applicant responded to the City's concerns by increasing the number and spacing of parking lot trees in their revised submittal The City Arborist has continued to request that the applicant provide more soil volume for the proposed parking lot trees in order to improve their long term viability and growth based on the above standards. However,the applicant has determined that increasing the soil volume available to the interior trees is infeasible for two reasons. First, increasing the size of the landscape islands will reduce parking below what has been deemed marketable by the applicant. Second, treating the soil beneath the paved surface in a manner that will allow for healthy root growth underneath the parking lot has been deemed cost prohibitive by the applicant. A third option was suggested which involves installing permeable pavers within the limits of the parking stalls surrounding the trees. The City Arborist indicated this option can improve the tree rooting environment, support long term tree growth, and help minimize costs. The applicant contends that the site soils are not conducive to permeable pavers. An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50% canopy shading as a standard for parking lots. Amencan Forests recommends a 40% citywide canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan has determined that 40% citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). If averaged over the whole site, including the revised landscaping proposed by the developer in their Memorandum and the non-buildable open space areas,40%canopy coverage would be expected. This is an area for Planning Commission deliberation. New tree code standards will likely emphasize canopy cover rather than individual trees. If the Commission determines that adequate canopy cover will result from the applicant's proposal, the Commission should accept the applicant's findings. If not, the Commission can approve the use of permeable surface,additional soil volume,or other acceptable means. 4. Further discussion on LID(low inpact detelopmmt]grin balding practic3,LEED pradics for both the site and the balding Applicant Response: The applicant submitted revised elevations and information on a potential system to Incorporate solar arrays into the building architecture as,part of the awnings along the south side of the building. They have engaged the Energy Trust of Oregon to hep analyze energy conservation systems as well as other available technologies. Categones within the LEED rating system that the site would potentially.be eligible for include restoring habitat, reducing heat island effect associated with roofs, construction activity pollution prevention public transportation access and alternative transportation. Target has also continued with their efforts to develop Memorandum design and proposed sustainable features that they would incorporate into their building. A Design Intent Memorandum from Target's Senior Project Architect dated April 9,2009 is included. Staff Response: As shown in the Planning Commission minutes, the Commission is interested in a cost/benefit analysis addressing the issue of pervious paving materials, use of a green roof, and use of solar energy or both the site plan and building and the rationale for including them, or not. The applicant has included Solar Concept Sketches incorporating solar panels in the awnings of the two retail shop buildings. However, the applicant believes there is more enemy cost savings in conservation methods through energy efficient lighting low E lazing and reflective roofin than would otherwise be off-set by the use,of solar power. the applicant included additional materials that showed which aspects of the project would be creditable under LEED and what sustainable initiatives were already being incorporated by Target. The applicant intends to share the results of the Energy,Trust analysis with the Commission and may provide additional responses to this item at the upcoming Commission meeting. 5. A dcb ss feather discussion on police dep nnrnt comm. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 8 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Applicant Response: The applicant met with Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department (TPD) who commented that the Department's chief concern was the lack of defensible space on the store's south and west perimeters.TPD supports using the proposed plaza space on the north side as an alternative route between SW Hermosa and SW Dartmouth. Staff Response: Staff supports the inclusion of the proposed path along the wetlands as provided for in the Tigard Development standards for connectivity and the planned development standards for open space recreation. Additional pedestrian scale lighting may improve the safety of the trail. Monitoring trail use can provide information on whether the level of use of the trail will itself improve safety in the area, which is currently frequented by transients (as reported by the police). Monitoring trail use by both Target (remote cameras) and the Oty Police Department (potentially, quad patrol) would-help determine if other techniques would need to be incorporated to enhance defensible space on the south and west sides of the proposed Target store. The Tigard Police Planning Division, and the applicant will discuss the issue further to substantively address the potential conflict between public safety and access and enjoyment of the natural area. 6. Take a lock at the front facade cf the Talget store to see if there's a Tory to bring the right side q'it dozers to mare pedestrian stole Applicant Response: As shown on the revised landscape plan, L-la, a planter island has been added to the northwest corner of the building along with a trellis to effectively wrap the building with landscaping materials that tie into the pedestrian plaza and landscape elements that occur along the entire north elevation. Staff Response: Staff finds the revised landscape plan, L-1a, is consistent with the original plan set (PG 1.0) with no apparent changes to the plan. No revised elevations drawings were submitted with which to gauge the effectiveness of the proposed trellis and additional landscape island with respect to the pedestrian scale. 7. A ddrtss Teillingness to put in bits shelter should one be drenrad appropriate at sage future crate Applicant Response: PacTrust contacted Ben Baldwin with TriMet to discuss the project, bus service along Dartmouth and the potential desire to provide a bus shelter for the site. As noted in the email correspondence from Mr.Baldwin that is included with this memorandum,TriMet does not currently plan to change line in this area, or add a line to service to this area along Dartmouth. However, PacTrust will continue to stay in contact with TriMet as the project develops and would remain open to the concept of providing a bus shelter for the property. Staff Response: Staff supports the efforts and willingness of Pactrust to incorporate transit facilities into the project. 8. Mai Teich the The Baird Applicant Response: PacTrust met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. Tree canopy and long term viability with respect to soil volumes for parking lot trees were discussed.The Project Landscape Architect will be present at the May 18, 2009 hearing to discuss the minimum standards that have been developed by PacTrust for parking lot landscaping installation and maintenance based on their experience. Staff Response: The applicant met with the Tree Board on January 28, 2009. The Tree Board was generally positive about the overall site plan, but inquired about the possibility of improving soil conditions for the interior parking lot trees with permeable pavers under pavement treatments, and bioswales. The applicant has investigated these options and determined that they are infeasible. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 9 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 9. Cam to see if there are any imntizes for eregy aspects for the building Applicant Response: PacTrust has a meeting scheduled with the Energy Trust in April to review some of the energy conservation measures that they have already proposed for the building such as Low E glazing with our expansive glass line, TPO roofing materials and lighting systems. We will also be discussing other energy conservation measures that they would suggest for tthhe building as well as some of the incentive programs that maybe available and how they might apply to our project. Staff Response:The applicant may provide further information at the May 18th Planning Commission meeting. 18.520 - (COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) FINDING: As demonstrated in the pplicant's narrative and plan set,the proposed development complies with the applicable commercial zoning district standards. 18.620 - (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section.These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Low Screen - For eneral landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall-apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial,trees shall be planted at 31/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Where the parking lot is not located behind the retail pad buildings (approximately 280 lineal feet), the setback between the parking lot and SW Dartmouth St. exceeds five feet clue to the width of the wetland and associated buffer area. The wetland buffer area is being enhanced per Clean Water Services requirements. The applicant's Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1a) shows Red Sunset Maples spaced approximately 28 feet apart, consistent with this standard. However,the size specified in the Plant Materials Listing is 1/2 inch caliper rather than the required 3 1/2 inches. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot consistent with the L-1 standards. 2. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided a a minimum 2-1/2 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. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. According to the Landscape Rendering Plan (Sheet L-1d) and the Plant Materials Listing (Sheet L-2) the applicant has specified Crimson Sentry Maple (2 inch caliper) and Red Sunset Maple (2 1/z inch caliper) for the parking lot field; Greenspire Linden (2 inch caliper), Kwanzan Cherry(no caliper specified), and Autumn Purple Ash (2 inch caliper) are specified street trees for SW Dartmouth, SWrmoso, and the access drive, respectively. The sizes of these trees are not all consistent with the L-2 standard. Therefore the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/z inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28' apart. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 10 OF 19 PLANNING ODMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design standards, with the exception of Section 18.620.070 as reviewed above. -Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design Standards. CONDITIONS: ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing trees in the setback between SW Dartmouth and the proposed parking lot are consistent with the L-1 standards of 3 1/2 inch caliper. ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 2 1/ inch caliper and spaced no greater than 28'apart. 18.705 - (ACCESS AND EGRESS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Access and Egress standards. 18.725 - (ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Environmental Performance standards. 18.745 - (LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): ''PD Guideline Chas ter Section 18.745.030.C: Installation Requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the American Institute of Architects'Architectural Graphic Standards. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally,there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. The City Arborist is concerned that the parking lot trees on the interior of the parking lot have not been rovided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity. According to the Architectural Graphic Standards,the required soil volume per tree should be 1200 cubic feet. The applicant has determined that it is not feasible to provide the required soil volume. Instead,the applicant has proposed additional parking lot trees at a ratio of one tree for every four parking spaces. An ISA ordinance provision for 25 cites recommends 50% canopy shading as a standard for parking lots.American Forests recommends a 40% citywide determined canopy goal for Pacific Northwest cities. Preliminary land use analysis in the Urban Forestry Master Plan h that 40% citywide canopy coverage is achievable in the City of Tigard (current canopy is 24%). FINDING: As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan sett the proposed development complies with the applicable Landscaping and Screening standards, with the exception of the Section 18.745.030.C.1 as reviewed above. CONDITION: ♦ The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan demonstrating that the parking lot trees will be provided sufficient soil volume to support their growth to maturity or otherwise provide}or parking lot canopy coverage of 50%. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 11 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 18.755- MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE : FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set the proposed development complies with the applicable Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage standards. 18.765- OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS : *'PD Guideline Cha'ter Off-street loading spaces. Commercial, 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: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The applicant states that "the proposed Target provides 4 truck loading spaces in the loading ock. The smaller retail buildings are multi-tenant retail shop buildings with up to 9 tenants in each building. The tenants will lease blocks of the building with areas ranging from 1,200-sf to 1,800-sf. Some tenants may choose to lease multiple blocks of the building, but the maximum tenant space for these types of buildings typically does not exceed 5,000- sf. These smaller retail format merchant stores do not typically receive large quantities through large delivery trucks and do not require dedicated loading stlace. Based on this information, no dedicated loading space is needed or proposed for the smaller retail buildings.' The two proposed 12 000 square foot retail buildings have not been provided with any loading spaces, as required. The applicant states that the expected size of the leased space would not create the need for such loading spaces. However it would be possible for a single business to lease the entire space, where the size would warrant the required loading space. Therefore this standard is not met. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements with the exception of Section 18.765.080.A.1. To comply with this section, the applicant would either need to limit tenants to less than 10,000 square feet or provide a loading space for each of the 12,000 square foot pad buildings. CONDITION: • The applicant shall either provide a revised site plan showing one loading space for each of the proposed 12,000 square foot buildings or, alternatively, provide documentation limiting tenants of these buildings to 10,000 square feet or less. 18.775 - SENSITIVE LANDS : FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sensitive Lands standards. 18.780- SIGNS : "PD Guideline Cha I ter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Sign standards. 18.790- TREE REMOVAL : 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arbonst shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. The applicant submitted an arborist report and tree plan prepared by a certified arborist at Arbor Pro, Inc., dated August 20, 2008. The report includes a site plan Tree Inventory Table, and provides guidelines for the removal and protection of existing trees on the site. The applicant states that the majority of trees proposed to be removed with this development are dead or in poor health and pose a potential safety hazard. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 12 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; The Arborist Report's Tree Inventory Table and site plan identify the size, species and location of all existing trees on the site. The site does not contain any trees designated as significant by the City. 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existin trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The applicant states that as shown in the Arborist Report, there are 19 trees on site that are alive and greater than 12" caliper. Of these, 13 will be retained (65%). In accordance with the mitigation requirements outlined above, 50% of the trees to be removed will be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D. Trees that are dead or a hazardous condition are not included in these calculations. The narrative refers to the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the proposed tree mitigation. However, the applicant's plan set includes a Landscape Concept Plan (Sheet L-1). The applicant's Memorandum includes Landscape Concept Plans (Sheets L-la through L-1d)-and a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PG5.0). None of these plans include the referenced mitigation plan. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; All trees to be removed have been identified in the Tree Inventory Table and on the Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet PG5.0). A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The arborist report defines standards and methods to protect trees during and after construction. However, the proposed tree protection measures have not been shown in the plan set. To ensure tree protection in the field during construction, the applicant will be required to incorporate the tree protection measures in the plan set. Therefore,the applicant shall submit a revised grading plan that shows which trees are to be removed/retained and how retained trees will be protected. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated 8/20/08. The grading/tree protection lan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the 8/2-0/ 08 arborist report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. 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 as a 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. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 13 OF 19 PLANNING COMIMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 18.790.050 Permit Applicability A. Removal ermit required. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: No trees within sensitive lands are proposed to be removed. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development does not comply with all of the applicable Tree Removal standards. Provided the applicant meets the following conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable-Tree Removal standards. CONDITIONS: • Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that includes detailed mitigation calculations and a detailed mitigation plan. The applicant shall submit a cash assurance for the value of the required tree mitigation. Trees planted for mitigation on the site or off site in accordance with 18.790.060.D will be credited against the cash assurance, for two years following Certificate of Occupancy based on a mitigation plan submitted for review and approval to the staff Planner. After such time,the remaining value of the cash assurance will be retained by the City as a fee in-lieu of planting. ♦ Prior to commencing an site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The protection guidelines shall be based on the project arborist report dated August 20, 2008. The tree protection plan shall show the tree protection fencing dimensions to scale, include the tree protection requirements in the August 20, 2008 arbonst report, and include a signature of approval from the project arborist. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 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. ♦ Only.those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. The following note shall be placed on the final construction documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, anyparty found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Mungcipa_ Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to,the following: Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined-using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. ♦ Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree rotection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 14 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 ♦ If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the roject arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved-by the City Arbonst before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. ♦ Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arbonst has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone C1PZ) fencing installation, through building construction,as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall 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. ♦ Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6 diameter 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 decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 18.795 - VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS : *PD Guideline Cha,ter FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Visual Clearance Areas standards. 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS : Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers,and drainage. The applicant's narrative and plan set address the applicable standards of Section 18.810. In addition to the proposed site improvements and adjacent right-of-way improvements for SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way, the applicant has identified and proposed off-site improvements to SW 72`d Avenue and OR 99W. The applicant has prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis (June 2007) and supplemental analyses (October 2008, November 2008 and January 2009), and worked closely with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to identify off-site traffic impacts. The ODOT recommendations for off-site improvements are included at the end of this report and include substantial mitigation to SW 72`c and Hwy 99W. The applicant has worked with the City and ODOT to satisfactorily address the impacts to streets and arterials in the vicinity of the proposed development. The City's Development Review Engineer has reviewed this information and provided the following comments and recommended conditions for the applicant's proposal: 1. OR 99W: The raised medians shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along its entirety, except where sight distance maybe compromised. 2. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: City Engineering staff concurs with the ODOT recommendation. 3. SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: City Engineering staff concurs with ODOT recommendations with the additional requirement that the applicant construct the full pavement,curb and storm sewer improvements to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 15 OF 19 PLANNING ODMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies with the applicable Street and Utility Improvement standards for the subject site. With respect to offsite improvements the applicant shall be subject to following ODOT recommended conditions of approval and additional City conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: ♦ OR 99W: The applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72nd Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised concrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72nd Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard 11ft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements,U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbound at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74th Avenue (see December 1st, 2008 letter for explanation). ODOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72nd Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. ♦ OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper). This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. ♦ SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the • northbound lanes along SW 72nd Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right in/right out. ♦ ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. ♦ The applicant shall incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians on OR 99W,except where sight distance may be compromised. ♦ The applicant shall construct the full pavement, curb and stoma sewer improvements on SW 72nd Avenue through the OR 217 Interchange Area to provide the two north bound lanes to Beveland Road. ♦ All ODOT permits must be obtained prior to issuance of any City of Tigard Permits. ♦ All public improvements must be completed prior to occupancy. 18.390- DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUD : Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type-III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant shall include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests,the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 16 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. As shown in the applicant's Preliminary Site Plan and narrative,the applicant specifically concurs with the required SW Hermoso Way dedication. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County figures, TIF's are expected to recapture 20 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed,the applicant is required to pay TIF's of approximately$916,810. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 20 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $4,584,050 ($916,810 divided by .20). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. Mitigation Value Assessment: Full Impact ($916,810=0.20) $4,584,050 Less '11F Assessment 916,810 Less SW Hermoso Way Dedication... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . $15 x 2,178 sq. ft.) - 32,670 Less mitigated values for off-site transportation improvements (SW 72°d/Hwy 99W) - 4,000,000 0 Estimate of unmitigated impacts -$365,430 TIF Credit $916,810 Total Net Estimate of unmitigated impacts $551,380 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Hermoso Wayy, a local street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet PG 1.0) and stated in the narrative. The applicant has proposed transportation improvements on SW Dartmouth, SW 72"a Avenue, and OR 99W to address the project's impact. For this project, the TIF is creditable to the off-site impact miti?ation required of the applicant for SW 72'd, an arterial. Based on the analysis above the net value of nese dedications, assessments, and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department commented that the side and rear of the proposed Target store should include design elements to increase natural surveillance to provide added safety to trail users. It was further suggested that utilization of the pedestrian plaza area on the north side of the building would better address the safety issues as an alternative to the pedestrian/bicycle connection between SW Dartmouth and SW Hermoso Way. The Tigard Public Works Department commented that they would support the proposed public sewer main segment entering the property via the westernmost driveway if the property is planned to be partitioned. The applicant plans to adjust the lot lines of the three existing lots to match the three separate buildings. The City Athorist commented on the proposed development finding that not all of the landscaping and screening street tree, and tree plan requirements have been met. These standards are addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening and Tree Removal Chapters of this staff report. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Water District commented that the plans needed clarification and that fire lines cannot be tapped directly f or domestic water for the buildings. These issues must be addressed with construction plan set review of by Portland General Electric commented on the subject proposal requesting a public utility easement on the south side of Dartmouth along the frontage of the sijbject property and the adjacent property to the east to provide underground power from the east side of SW 72" Avenue at Dartmouth. Oregon Department of Transportation provided additional comment on the subject proposal in a letter dated April 23, 2009 in which it made its final recommended conditions of approval to address off-site impacts to state highways: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 17 OF 19 PLANNING OOMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Recommended Local Conditions of Approval: 1. OR 99W;,dThe applicant shall develop a third westbound through lane on OR 99W in advance of the OR 99W/72 Avenue intersection and extending southwest through the Tigard Theater and SW Dartmouth Street intersections to OR 217. To address safety concerns with left turning vehicles crossing three lanes of traffic, a raised cpncrete median island or traffic separator shall be installed for all unsignalized accesses between SW 72 Avenue and OR 217. The applicant will be required by ODOT to apply for a design exception subject to the approval of the State Traffic Engineer to allow the substandard IJft lanes on OR 99W. With these improvements, U-turns will not be allowed on OR 99W westbourgl at the OR 217 northbound ramp terminals or on OR 99W eastbound at SW 74 Avenue (see December 1 ,2008 letter for explanation). OuOT will consider allowing U-turns at OR 99W eastbound at Dartmouth and OR 99W eastbound at SW 72 Avenue. The applicant shall lengthen the eastbound right turn lane at the OR 99W/Dartmouth from 300 ft to 400 ft to accommodate the increase traffic at this movement. 2. OR 217/SW 72nd Avenue Northbound Off Ramp: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper. This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. 3. SW 72nd Avenge through the OR 217 Interchange Area: The applicant shall restripe the northbound lanes along SW 72 Avenue from the OR 217 southbound ramp terminal to SW Beveland Road to provide two continuous northbound through lanes (see attached conceptual layout). The applicant shall remove the traffic signal at SW Hampton Street and install a raised concrete island to restrict the side street movements to right m/right out. 4. ODOT Permits: The applicant shall obtain an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work in the highway right of way. Oregon Department of State Lands was notified of wetlands located on the subject site but did not comment on the proposed development. Because the proposal does not further impact wetlands on the site, it is unlikely DSL would prioritize this application for review and comment. Clean Water Services issued a service provider letter dated August 1, 2008 (CWS File No. 08-00228) requiring enhancement of existing sensitive areas. Washington County commented that they have no objection to the proposed development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue commented that they can endorse the proposed development with conditions of approval relating to required fire flow, reflective hydrant markers, hydrant fire department connections, access and water supply during construction,and provision of a Knox box. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 18 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 • SECTION IX. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has APPROVED, Planned Development Review (PDR2008-00001) — TIGARD RETAIL CENTER IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PASSED: THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. Jody Inman,Planr irlg Commission President Dated this c;2 I day of May,2009. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: May 18, 2009 Revised Applicant's Materials (Sheet L-lb and 3 Additional Pages Attachment 3: Off-Site Transportation Improvements (Applicant's Exhibits A-D) TIGARD RETAIL CENTER(PDR2008-00001) PAGE 19 OF 19 PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2009-02 PC,DETAILED PLAN 5/18/2009 Fr'- CITY of TIGARD r I - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM _ ATLANTA VICINITY MAP• - ;4-1 I � il Q 9 , I - - BAYLOR T T S PD2008-00001 0001 H - BAYLOR w H a 1 1 ' I TIGARD RETAIL AIL I - [------- CENTER I I , 1 � LI I � I I - L T v CLINTON- 1� I 1 IP -I V — -- — - 121 r -- 1 PI — , J LEGEND:II DARTMOUTH ST 1 SUBJECT \ , I i /A SI'lli i \ii \ \xi\ , __ , _ , ELMHURST S 1 J °� ' � � /# !RTSQWA, j ce i � 1 1 1 1 ■ -�/ I I � ��� % I 1 FRANKLIN Tigard Area Map /� i! !\� �� �i �EVELAND Rp �� 1 N / �// III 1------__� I _ BEVELAND RD /� I 1 —- r - T _ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet S� // ! -� I1 _ 1 . \, „// I \ 1 481 feet• ILI II GONZAG_A ST I� .� I I/ I i I. Information on this map is for general location only and �i �� _ \ I 1 1 should be verified with the Development Services Division. % �— —— J 13125 SW Hall Blvd � SW —J �—— j Tigard,OR 97223 • ___ HAMPTON (503)639-4171 I 1 i http;Uwww.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Nov 5,2008;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD . Approved "Jnotioiraliy App.oveci Fr only the work as described in: . PaciMIT NO. ----II Legend .i.. See Letter to: Follow Attach i 1 ' i i 1 1 -•0.co i„,-;-:1-, _ Job ___, \4r.0,•••■■.r NM^ I .• . 'Akt'.' E - Date: C ..- KE/MIAL COMIEFICIAL) I 43, 1 MLE ZOPE (MIMEO ME CID• .." 11 ." 0 Kmawrin CM, I . .'S'1,4.7,,,- • • _ , I 1•■•I <2'-' i . r.j: •,ttir.N. C-) ,13)4 C Mr-4....groe•WO flf.,:-:, .;.-,f,;...---i•iN, • \s, . . c, xtu_ ,.....:14,--1.-L • . - >4 0 ....en . ..; I:4•.•'...1111.11111111ii• n,. .4 ,4112.,„,iEFFZAN , - . " p• .• •. _ 011.110'OP • ..0. alit ...e. -.It ---,- ...,f. - --. --- --:. .2, ... < c,12•D CL c ‘........................... :..----=-- : :...,-'?•110 1,13. 740) , Lida.:...i 0 0...,•-••1,0.•P..... -4.• 0 ....4' I el.4110 1 i i fti•••-°'1/44 ./3 0- - 4.1,„ -Cease z.:E'tattle. .42 fi a-",ir„- .-Air fiiii.474"‘-"'• Mii4ii ,ii%iilil a.54• Nemo wow d MI ..••rn li.,-•••,1,,,, ' ..-'a s.-Vete. IPS*411 1 ",,•• li 4 • •• 1 _ , .0) 4.• mi*KU it IMP•Acru cr .4 a_ -,..L, 0, .,.......,.... -::* k.•"0:1P . RI L'1 t r. t s. . ..., _.. I .,..,,-_ _vvir(.,., ,,2, ! E. , . _,..".IMP ;.".";•74.711 in -, ' r>. a , Alm • I .: , grollil illtig% • - ■-■ o 0^ ! V."Ili .1. MO • 1,.7..iig'Inp.,1t, -- 1:4•5:11!!...' .4i, -',•:,.- 14';'::..'.-.Ii. ' - . ',1„•,••:' ""- ' i ....; li ...s.. . _ . 24 _ zi• I r: '.. 4,41y,-,..•4 sig,„.,,,c . IP/P/IIIII !i%Pill ot •,, .I _104 A, a!t, YP . ..., .4aNcipria,•!44 .. t,,, ..,...* +.• fir C.,.. , ,■, , I 0,411..“,f4,....,:r.... c Allilli Wiiii? I g =mg/war"..,...,•-4 8 • , • k. III/12 / 4,14,:st:-.1tr.,..,: Air...ot i ..pkok _piiiiii _... 1 ........ .._......g.),..........,a ...•4.:,,..:74..fti.,:z...., .. •a.::°;";41, Arde.,11 rel.; • I 4,,,,,:y2t7.:. W04." I - ..f•40,4'a, I ----' f'arkna PreldsA +5+C1-0 . 9: I Mi,'4it411.,. .t: ‘'',.% 1.11 . leiiii,lilikM4 • 412 Vaaass 0 ..L.:-.11.4„, .. .1' t■ ,set,,Irdmi f,r---...MN 111,147..ald Ill • 60 Trees!WA 1/1 a ,irk,Qt, ., . 21.- .-- vim 5 '"' ill! 11,11,1111111111-- 1 ,. _ * "f'.'ild .44 g.:;•„,4 6 • 71 Parmata.Pram Nal% ! :.. Z.".: "' I : ■ 34 .1:4 . -, g • I 0 Tmes Pe4O • 51 TreeS Prowled • r 1' -.: :i. •'.. II,. .„, __Iiimit ii ' . 411! : • ..,., , I s 1 ()TARGET • 29 Sveat Tree5 Prowled °6.K.C. s''''... .:,?,•, . 0. ‘011111 -. imio .111a01 1 ,.... ,I • 2 21 150e1 TIEC5 5hown ;"';'-i-'•;:. '■.-5,* .. •2! I %,,..0.., ,.... r■ g •71,1 .9 LL WI MODII9ED DOCK . =.": 4***ii.' C\I i ..ife'di .di .0.._.4.,P..trg r. „,„ . , 1,900 5.1 t22.,, II Ir -t,r:..,, tot 4 . ■ =Niue i i t-1800 ILIND■Mbl 8.„.. .11iriii;II 7at 1.,N gm...11=1 ......mpacat•-reca.... ¢.............4711,11.0 .! ',.. "".:' '. Ili .11111111iimiiti ---- .7...-^iro.r, ,30 21.4 .,.-,,,..., . t al•*iv, I- = ••••■•,. ....0 1 or,-,,4ri. 11 ... , LL-I LI 2 c i• /7„......',". '''''"'1,''4'."-''''.-''......1...2..7....2.., .... _ ".. i:„..•;72 I 4'. '. ■,..007,70ro.%:..,onomo,- • - m 211E0 0 Ct a .. 4 gl!„•••••.‘11.,.... 106., „Iiiirj II WV! IX 0 3 64.■•a/ 11/://1.4 i •'.la .,)=ilgal" t, •Ig/.,..tidi 1 ...a.":,.. <1- 0 t • A.)ta o1 544 620.402 sat% •••.41.14' ''j 1" : A; i _ i•' 0 ,NP.,..".0 • n,... , Ae.r..,••0 , or-„-„ir, • z 04.•-40 • Tree Me"of 5•ce ,,,... 0i.40/ , ,■-afa'..47,..,, ., ..., .; • --.`' ii i/ ak•, ,„ i 253 327 sat It(40 3%) 4'411.1 i li •% t 1...• II IV! Vtt.li I I IrtZt"1:1'40,' % '4 RUM-1% se -iell )1--,,, , 4 ;. 44...q -... ,A •12000 5Ft • , ....,„ _.„.. 1 grip--- •.a"A.:,4..,...s%■ FFE.174 if, ..., IA 011.9.1,12.46 PAW!" ; Lgif I .W.14'12''',4•■•■'.1k 1' .,:zr irl io..v. , 1 li$e1.41 I .7.. ■ - /... It:. , ,,.. , oreLlit AIWA.I,, •m.4. •'1r„Tui iii rpm 'il 41110• c. % 'T'.*:'.' ■ •••it".•''.•liAs,.7..,, \ t, 10 4•,,Viitt•i i l .- - ts!" " l...., 66 -4,•••1.• • II 14.7,!•7••‘i • ''7Z.E.'.:::•:. `,P■1"A " --41••• Aft.t4, ‘,„ A -,.., - - INV IM•M■.1=1 • . -, . / *.f...,.:. i MIR. REY 5-10-M1 1043;"1.4411,) 111 .1111'Illk..7.wig gr-a)))).41-14:474- ‘ 't .,,a.- . 223337333977 '' " .11,1;--'•- lipPli, .0.3 ...'" ;:e......: ' ' "" -•""'"'"0.■•:;2:$1' %.... V.,:.:;-,1'..,t,..".. ^S11,110:.,illii, 4 - , "4-jr16417,,:.5%,,,154.!!1.1.4,4911;(-0:11%‘1474itY:ti"::::•••If;.%*!.-.4 .. 4) ..:':*: I i'41.,4;;;frj***!,--;-',•-z..:::.:;c:-::01/4011P?"11,,,th °,%:..,-;.•`:::::01.-.4P,Irolk •°•,,-‘''•°.‘...- •-,.-1,1t.i-_, 01.111.0 4.,mr■..■..■..■.■a.■ '"::' l■ '. I%';'''C ir,.....■•...4.••••,- '.' ' '.I, .*,.....4-‘,..::.,...•..:,..fref:Alrirre'l .. .. . ••••In 1119 i exam th UM • . TREES SHOWN AT SIZE om veva N.Yrn nal unbar 30 YEARS AFTER PLANTING ' EY Led NM. AM M. OW Z LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN /...1 (- II-1 L-lb NJ 0 20 40 to 4 4 1 4 t �� y A. i +� ® L. - - wie V TIGARD, OR TARGET STORE DESIGN INTEGRAL COLOR SPLIT FACE CNU C-11 . IIIRGAAL COLOR SPLIT FAQ OILIC-h 1 M111DING SIGNAGE - --•• _---1-- --- 16'116'CMU-4 EASE EPS C-1 EPS C-1 STORE FRONT W/CLEAR QQAZIII1' EIFS C.10 -- -- TBR-1 -TAR-1 CMU-4 NT ERT WNW C-E0 CM1.1-4--- INTEGRAL COLOR n t1,7-7. MM1G1� SPLIT PACE CMU CAI L- T11R-I °-uAa J. 1 a FRONT ELEVATION — PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-14 --PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C-11 PANTED SPLIT FACE CNU C-13—— PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13 ---- PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-IT ; f CMU C-11 I u.N4'r °ill e I I 1 I • • 14 R Aw 0' • RIGHT ELEVATION MOOED PUTM N CND C-11 - PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C.11 INTEGRAL COLOR SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 MADDED SPLIT PACE OW C-13 -- PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C•l] -•,-- 169116'COO-U BASE MINDED SPLIT PACE OW C-14 -- EPS C-1 - -PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-IA - TAN_I BUILDING SIGNAGE r 11......r r I n-I� ._ f - • E.•. - ius1,. lkl LEFT ELEVATION . - PAINTED SPILT FACE COW cM EFS C-1 --. ' PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C.13 EFS C-11 (PS C-I I 1 EFS C-11 PAINTED SPILT FACE GNU C-13 - PAINTED SPILT FACE GNU C-14 4111 ,YDIDOIO WM@ PAINTED CMU C.14 f'I u-MY.Y j E1���- 1 I EI LtP 1 ♦.;.4 n: • - r , REAR ELEVATION TIGARD, OR LEFT ENTRY LEFT DOCK TARGET STORE DESIGN CONFIGURATION Tigard, OR Sustainable Strategies Prepared by: Heather Sexton Senior Design Project Architect Target Corporation To: Matt Oyen Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (PacTrust) Date: 15 May 2009 Target Tigard, OR Elevations Following the meeting with the City of Tigard on May 12, I would like to comment on the Staff concern about the building elevation at the NW corner. There was a suggestion to address the pedestrian scale in this area. Target has added an 8'-0" high brick trellis on the front elevation (near office windows) to bring down the scale and add another layer of texture and rhythm to this facade. We prefer to keep the three shade trees (instead of a trellis at the corner) as they add verticality and rhythm to the composition, but we have also added a planter with high shrubs. Along the west side we have also added shrubs and ornamental trees to help soften the scale. Please let me know if you have any further comments. • Tigard Retail Center May 2009 ATTACHMENT 3 >F v r^ • •. I• , Construct 3'Westbound Lane on Highway 99W '.. i from 72-'Avenue to Highway 217 -.t.. .•. , Including Traffic Signal Modifications 1 °•,-. , • r • - 4 t_ - C l - �- , M , , iiit.•%,•�lr i C>*‘...•?∎ 1 9 N* �, *, Construct New Traffic Signal �� 'L1+1 a1i '} at the Dartmouth St./WinCo/ i ,� " Site-Access Driveway Intersection •" "a'-'• ,,.• �'" r . .,A�' • 0 .'33, > • w.` 1.. ..,-,-•' y Extend Dual �O n r1,. i tie Cy Northbound G.)•,,,, ^ ',w,_ by Left-Turn S r 1 94- Storage and - ''"". et \,• ''ice Modify Median • •• r DARTMOUTH ST fi- ,tr:•; SITE ,s, - : '" .. . •• • • i .. 7 - `•_" ,_ Construct New Traffic Signal at the Dartmouth SfJ 1. „•,,, •�. ' J •` .i _ ° 88'"Avenue intersection , • • '. Construct New Traffic Signal . . •s._ ,-,„,y at the Dartmouth St.) r• • • - I ■1• - .1, 72"'Avenue Intersection •.. ^ ,a f N a ;.y& ~ Y t _ - BEVELAND,RD -. - .. , ,,t ii'.,,, - — -.. 7.1544 ••F' x 1,-1-It 11 uf Improve B evel and Road ` .(' • . 1 ▪. s1= •t=. NUy21k- n HAMPTON ST r t -3 .00 , . ., . ' '. ks./' A-. ▪!f•• \ ;. M1 11 n , ; I Extend Side-By-Side ` • 0„r Turn Lane Storage s„ ~ Widen 72'"Avenue Between Verne Street y -• v7 -- •- ; k....../.- and Beveland Road •-• , t_ �. t --. ti ,VARNSAST ', 1' Yr. 4.1'.0 A. .R.y•�-.�.- ' Traffic Signal Modifications ' ' _ AID ^ ... IL'`^ : .AN.4•*. .. 'l , s_ , . �{ Sri• It , t e �" i f .� '' NOTES: it 1. Not to Scale 2. For Illustrative Purposes Only 3. Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit = E. Summary of Off-Site Transportation Improvements r`Nle'r A iK J ]KI N&ASSOCIATES.1 NC. • Tigard Reta,f Center May 2009 c _ 'N• ... _ • .- N ! ' AEVELAND RD i Signal Modification ,j •�� ' a ; ,,,,, Improve Beveland Road in accordance Z with the Beveland Road Analysis Memorandum ., Issued by the City of Tigard(Nov.10,2008) •"' r • t I= r r : I ir • 1 IP • � •..1r,i i _ pGGNNZAGA ST 1 ; , 1 . ' I a ww , .. f I Is >414r P -7 _ - __ a. Remove Signal ,, r• ..ti i ` fetid as • ,..� t I,( . N Ifs70N<Sa r Signal Modification "''` ;.. ''Jim" --r �w� �� • i - ,40'M . Extend Side-By-Side ' s' .„._, ii. = 4,-.. .,.. 'i 1.1-,11.11t "1- Tw r a Turn Lane Storage f. 11,w Addition of i , o. sr Second Northbound 1 \ . .•1 ►& A;-1 'I Through Lane - . ,- -F 441 2a . ( lit P a' 1 1 - r � ~ �� �.e1 ji ,1, `it,44 \ . p! . Jo?, i 4 Signal Modification ,o 'f. A. r. ,� K z , r _ e l 1 ..A.r� . ' f ,a. r �dam 4110 �- r s�IN --4 .4, (,� 140,4 VA NS ST ti it PI. • ..^- .-• 4' .v, +� / t . NOTES: 1.Not to Scale 2.For Illustrative Purposes Only 3. Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit Off-Site transportation Improvements E'"'a" ' \,... 72nd Avenue(Beveland Road to Varns Street) B / KIK ITTELSON$Assoc i.TES.INC. Tigard Retail Center May 2009 r r r 0 / a- e i .. t "I.i am. • J �,a, rr` ! . Addition of Continuous 3 Signal Modification s �� a Third Westbound Through Lane ,, 'f •• .'s /, Install Landscape Median ilk i, / i�:. c l �; 1 ,, __� *l '� fit -' •_ __ Cowes. -•ti .. T a *`- rJS _ . h t„ • _i_�'• 9 r."'; _ PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99W- ._--e 1,11 t �Sd' t 1 .'a _ " _■I A t ice. 1f Extend Right-Turn Lane - — Northbound Left Turn .• t' _ Lane Extension - t Install Landscape Median . 1011 . .., ,,,/ \It:- . N _-.. . 's• //. 4,.., 10, I'P , It.... . ilg, v. iotef- ._ ' ' if f a Tr NOTES: ` .r - 1. Not to Scale 2. For Illustrative Purposes Only 3. Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit Off-Site Transportation Improvements Pacific Highway 99W(Highway 217 to Pfaffle) •,4Ks TTTT OK B Ass 0Cl.rrs.INC ■ Tigard Retail Center May 2009 • )011110 ... ...... , . . ,,,. , . , 1 f., 7 Alit-ii_,'' ' AA. \ 1 61 Signal Modification - Start of Westbound ' Through Lane �.. : •: ';. R t •)• • - .0 :- ' .. tp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = ' c 4 ..Ind c N,OHw..ww r"---/„..,_-/- : r..,......„ ^., a • , / - 11;/ ' �' :' • .!, +, .•, s 1 •. I *' • � z Install Landscape Median .r 4 Signal Modification • .r a' f r 1 - 3 fit• 'lit• or. ` • l ' •r It • w" r . 7.1Priyt r."14°-le* /#11‘,44•Citileiteellirillit .•••,- ,-;7,0*. . 1 _ NOTES: 1 y • r' �,; _ 1. Not to Scale 2. For Illustrative Purposes Only 3. Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit Er Off-Site Transportation Improvements Pacific Highway 99W(Pfaff'.to 72nd) D KKe n 6 ASSOC,.7 F S,Inc. • , COMMUNITY NEWSPAPEIS 0605 SE lake Rood,Porliaod,OR 97222•PO Box 22109 Partlaad OR 91289-2109 IIII Moe:503-984-0390 Fax:503-020-3433 11111 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: E-mail: legals @cemmnewsgagera.com AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION T 1 G n R D State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning depose and say that I am the Accounting Commission on Monday May 18. 2009 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Oregon. Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public general circulation, published at Beaverton, hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of in the aforesaid county and state, as defined procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The City of Tigard Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to Notice of Public Hearing/CPA 2009-00002 making a decision. TT11296 Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard A copy of which is hereto annexed, was Planning Division (Staff contact: Cheryl Caines.Associate published in the entire issue of said Planner)at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. newspaper for 1 week in the following issue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT April 30, 2009 (CPA)2009-00002/ DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA)2009-00002 -DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDS- C,/ l n r [4(J`l-j',L Oujij,,p R EQUEST: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Cti Development Code Amendment to amend the Comprehensive Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Mana r) Plan (Policy 12.1.2.c), Transportation System Plan (Chapter 8, Figure 8-10), Tigard Development Code (Chapter 18.810 Subscribed and sworn to before me this Street and Utility Improvement Standards), and the Municipal Code (10.28.130 — Motor Vehicle Parking). The proposed April 30, 2009. amendments will allow vehicle parking on SW Main and SW Burnham Streets and remove the requirement for bike lanes on collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. U)---Q■0,_-0mac}. LOCATION:The Downtown Urban Renewal District.ZONES: CBD: Central Business District. The CBD zoning district is TARVPUBLIC FOR OREGON designed to provide a concentrated central business district, My commission expires ,201 I centered on the City's historic downtown, including a mix of t civic, retail and office uses. Single-family attached housing Acct#10093001 at a maximum density of 12 units/net acre, equivalent of the Attn: Patty Lunsford --__�- �- R-12 zoning district, and multi-family housing at a minimum ��? OFFICIAL density of 32 units/acre, equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, City of Tigard {l -�7..9: SUZETTE I C are permitted outright; and MUR-1: Mixed-Use High-Density 13125 SW Hall Blvd () kV - NOTARY PUBLIC Residential. The MUR-1 zoning district is designed to apply to Tigard, OR 97223 ( ` .!'o COMMISSION P g predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVI when compatible with the residential use. APPLICABLE h' Development Code • REVIEW CRITERIA: Communi Develo Size: 2x 8.5 P Amount Due: $141.95* Chapters 18.380, 18.390, and 18.810; Comprehensive Plan 'Please remit to the address above. Policy 12.1.2(c)and Goal 15; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, and 12. Publish 04/30/2009. TT11296 ESTIMONY SIGN-IN SHE We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 minutes. If you are speaking on behalf of four or more persons, please state which group you're speaking on behalf of and you may request extra time. If extra time is granted, you will be limited to 20 minutes. Written comments are always appreciated by the Planning Commission to supplement oral testimony & are entered into the record. Please submit any written testimony to the Planning Commission Secretary (Doreen Laughlin). AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5.2 DATE: May 18, 2009 PAGE OF FILE NAME: 'DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET STANDARDSI CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2009-00002 Development Code Amendment DCA2009-00002 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME,ADDRESS— Please print clearly PROPONENT OF APPLICATION OPPONENT OF APPLICATION - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral)- - (Speaking Against)- - Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. I Name,Address,Zip Code and Phone No. Tigard fanning Commission — Roll Call Updated May 14,2009 Hearing/Workshop Date: 5- I - ©n{ Starting Time: ' 1 0 1 COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) David Walsh (Vice President) Tom Anderson Rex Caffall Margaret Doherty Karen Fishel Stuart Hasman Matthew Muldoon Jeremy Vermilyea Timothy Gaschke (Alternate) STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Ron Bunch Gary Pagenstecher Doreen Laughlin heryl Gaines John Floyd Jerree Lewis Duane Roberts ✓Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly Gus Duenas Darren Wyss Todd Prager Marissa Daniels I - r CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 18,2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL President Inman;Vice President Walsh; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon, and alternate Commissioner Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Hasman and Vermilyea Staff Present: ' : - : . -, ` - - : : -- • - `'. - (amended on 6/1/09); Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineering Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS—None. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 5-4-09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or additions to the minutes. There was one amendment. The amendment was that V.P. Walsh opened the 5-4-09 meeting, not President Inman. All agreed to the amendment and President Inman declared the minutes approved as amended. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Tigard Retail Center—PDR2008-00001 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman opened the hearing and read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. When the commission was asked whether there were any ex parte contacts or site visits, Commissioner Muldoon noted that he'd made a site visit and had asked general questions without specific application to Energy Trust of Oregon and Oregon Department of Energy—both without project specificity. PLANNING COMMISSION MEL'T'ING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 1 of 8 No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. No conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, distributed a memo from Officer Jim Wolf, of the Tigard Police Dept., commenting on Tigard Retail Center (Target) and lack of defensible space (Exhibit A). He also distributed an email from Commissioner Muldoon and an article from the Oregonian (Exhibit B). He then gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review one week before scheduled public hearings.] Pagenstecher briefly reviewed the direction given to the applicant at the earlier hearing. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS Can we waive the dock requirement?The requirement is for a loading space, not a dock, so it doesn't necessarily mean the building has to incorporate a dock area. To address your specific question, the standard requirement- loading "space" - for a building 10,000 sq ft or larger - can be achieved in the parking field adjacent to the building with a space that's large enough. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION Eric Sporre —Vice President with Pac Trust, distributed a packet for the Commissioners to refer to while they were giving their presentation (Exhibit C). He said he was assuming that no one wanted to hear the history of the site and that they'd move forward. No one objected. He noted that they'd been there last on December 1st and there were a series of questions that they'd spent a considerable amount of time researching the answers to. He said Marc Butorac with Kittelson would be here to discuss traffic. Hal Beighley of Beighley and Associates will discuss landscape. Ken Grimes will touch on design and sustainability issues. He noted they'd received the staff report a week earlier and that they take exception to a number of things in the report. First and foremost is the 50% tree canopy. He said that goes far beyond what the direction of the Planning Commission was. It goes way beyond any code requirements and any recent land use decisions. It's just not feasible and far too costly. They also take exception to the landscape in the median on 99W. He said, especially in light of the current retail economy, they are very happy to be here. He added that they'd like to have a decision tonight. Mark Butorac with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 6210 SW Alder St., Suite 700, Portland, summarized offsite improvements decided upon in the past. They will work with council on a reimbursement due to "past sins". Regarding the landscaping— he noted their proposal would be to put a financial cap of$50,000 for the landscape median. He said that's within reason for an adequate landscaping. It would be aesthetically pleasing with a cap of 50K. PLANNING COMMISSION MI :TING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 2 of 8 He said he wanted to bring into the record official exhibits so that everyone is on the same page (Exhibit D). Hal Beighley of Beighley and Associates, 12840 NW Cornell, Portland, first spoke about condition number 3. He believes the tree size should be 2 '/2" rather than 3 '/2" caliper trees along the parking lot edge and gave the reasons why. He spoke about the differences in canopy coverage at 10, 20, & 30 years. He said they'd met with the tree committee in January. Kenneth Grimes, representing Pac Trust, discussed the Target building and some of the low impact development items in the program. He spoke about "green roofs." He said they are extremely expensive. He spoke about solar options. He read a statement that was presented in March by the national president of the American Institute of Architects: "Target Corporation received an AIA Presidential Citation in recognition of its excellent work in elevating the importance of design to the public." He noted that Target is really thought of as a premier retailer. He went through other low impact development items and examples. Matt Oyen, representing Pac Trust, in conjunction with Tanner Creek Engineering, and Energy Trust of Oregon— said the biggest impacts they have from their side is the tax liability where they're not able to fully utilize the 30% federal tax credit or the 50% Betsy [Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC / "Betsy"]. What they have is a 45% tax liability due to their partnership. He went on to talk about a spreadsheet he had for a 16 panel system. He went through it line by line. He spoke about tax credits and energy savings. Eric Sporre came back up and summarized: Condition 1 — canopy should be 30% not 50%. Condition 3 — 2 1/2 inch vs 3 1/2 Condition 10 — put a cap at $50,000. Condition 17 —contingent upon getting a reimbursement district Condition 18 —reference exhibits (Exhibit D) They went back and added Condition 13 — frequency of reporting from the project arborist. They would like their arborist to have to go out only every two weeks during a site work construction in the vicinity of impacted trees. [There was some discussion as to it simply stating "or by arrangement with the Project Arborist and the City Forester."] COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT & STAFF With regard to seeking a 50K cap on the landscaping on the median - What do we get for 50K? Traditionally we put in low ground cover, small trees in a bark type treatment versus more ornamental type features such as metals or bricks and such. That's where the cost escalates. It'd be similar to what, in layman's terms, you believe is low vegetation landscaping. $5.00 per sq ft is what we're estimating. That includes irrigation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 3 of 8 Staff— what isyour take on that?(Kim McMillan answered): I don't think 50K would cover it. We need street trees, low maintenance shrubs, clustering with lower level... I think we would like to work together for something reasonable. I don't have a figure that I can put to that. Eric Sporre said they don't have more money to throw at it. They believe 50K is reasonable. They have no frontage on Hwy 99W. Kim McMillan suggested a reasonable approach. Put infrastructure. (Put just trees and let others put in bushes, etc.) They all agreed that was reasonable. Why do we need a median?Marc Butorac answered: A raised median is an ODOT requirement to prevent left turn movement. When does the signal on 72nd go in? McMillan answered that it goes in with this project. It's up to how they structure their construction schedule. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR None PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN OPPOSITION None APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL None needed PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:00 PM DELIBERATION President Inman summarized the list of conditions of approval that she believed were what they all had tentatively agreed upon: • Revision to condition of approval No. 1 to revise: the parking lot canopy coverage from 50% to 30%. • Revision to condition of approval No. 4—the condition will now read: "Prior to issuance of any site/building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing all required parking lot and street trees at 3 1/2 2 % inch caliper. [Remove the wording that had included "and spaced no greater than 28' apart.] They have to come back for a variance. • Revision to condition of approval No. 10 to insert: The applicant shall revise their plan to incorporate landscaping and irrigation along the entirety of the raised medians. Landscaping is to include the installation of proper soil and street trees at the equivalent separation of one tree every 28 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 4 of 8 • Revision to condition of approval No. 13 to insert: "the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, or as by arrangement with the Project Arborist and the City Arborist." • Revision to condition of approval No. 17 to insert: The applicant shall extend the two lane storage on the northbound off ramp from 100 ft to 650 ft of two lane storage (550 additional feet of two lane storage including 160 ft taper) contingent upon successful adoption of a reimbursement district. This improvement can be provided within the existing right of way. • Revision to condition of approval No. 18: (-- - ; - : : - - : -. ; ; : . ) will read (refer to exhibits— of ite transportation improvements- Exhibit D). • New condition of approval: The applicant shall incorporate safety measures to address the defensible space issues raised in the City of Tigard Police Department comment letter dated May 15, 2009 (Exhibit A). President Inman thanked the applicant for working so diligently and doing so well in addressing the commission's concerns. One of the commissioners asked about a possible timeline for the store being built. The applicant said it would most likely be done in the summer of 2011. MOTION: 9:06 PM The motion: "To approve PDR2008-00001 Tigard Retail Center as stipulated and with the amended stipulations provided and recited just prior, and with the findings derived from the hearing tonight"was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Caffall. The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman and Commissioner Vermilyea (2) 5.2 Downtown Collector Street Standards—CPA2009-00002/DCA2009-00002 9:08 PM STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Cheryl Caines, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available for review one week before scheduled public hearings.] Caines said the proposal is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to amend the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 5 of 8 Comprehensive Plan, (Policy 12.1.2c), which is Transportation,Transportation System Plan, Chapter 8, regarding motor vehicles, the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards, and the Municipal Code Chapter 10,which is motor vehicle parking. Caines wanted to make one correction to the staff report proposal. It currently reads "The proposed amendments will allow vehicle parking and remove the requirement for bike lanes on collector streets within the Downtown Urban Renewal District." The word "separate," before "bike lanes," was omitted. So the wording should actually be "and remove the requirement for separate bike lanes on collector streets..." Caines said she pointed out that clarification in that the proposal could be a little misleading in that they're not saying "no bicycle lanes at all" —they're just saying that what they want to do is look at either having separate bicycle lanes or having the bicycles share a lane with a wider vehicle traveling. So it would be a little bit wider—maybe 14 feet instead of the typical 12 feet. So they would accommodate different types of modes of traffic on the same lane. Also — the collectors in the downtown would have a lower posted speed. Caines distributed an email dated May 18 (Exhibit E) from a transportation planner from Metro,John Mermin,who had a comment about the proposed amendment. She noted he's in favor, and Metro's in favor, of the proposed vehicle parking on streets and also mostly okay with the removal of the bike lane requirement except for Main Street. On the bottom of the email are his comments and, on the top, Caine's response to him. Caines noted it's kind of ironic in that in our current Transportation System Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan calls for bike lanes on all the downtown collectors except Main Street. So we currently don't even have anything that would require them on Main Street. Therefore, we're not actually removing that requirement for Main Street. Until these plans are finalized, the proposed amendment will give flexibility when designing downtown streets. Caines noted that staff is recommending approval as proposed. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS Why are we changing it? Is there a pending application... or...? Kim McMillan answered "The main reason we're changing it is because Burnham Street is a collector. Burnham will use TIF dollars as a collector. If it doesn't meet the standards of a collector, we can't use the TIF dollars. We need to do housekeeping to allow our collectors in the downtown to have parking. It serves several purposes. One is to clean up our design. When we design things, I believe we need to meet our standards. Main Street also has parking and it's a collector. We need to either change the standard to allow parking on a collector in the downtown, or re- designate those streets. And we don't want to re-designate those if we want to use certain funding mechanisms. Is there signage letting people know they're in a special area with bicycles,pedestrians, etc.? I'm not sure that's something we could consider - especially if we do the Main Street/Green Street—but as Cheryl pointed out, the ORS allows for several design options for bicycles to share the PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'T'ING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 6 of 8 road. One is its own bike lane separated from the roadway completely and you could stretch that to say Fanno Creek trail—to have a striped bike lane adjacent to travel lane and then to share the travel lane. And at the speeds we have downtown, you could go down to an 11 ft travel lane and share the lane safely. We're going to hopefully have wider lanes to do that. Burnham will also have an 18 foot sidewalk on each side,which is huge. (A travel lane for cars is 12'.) So we're going to have this 18 foot, what we call a multi-modal pedestrian path— so you can have the bicycles on that as well. So Burnham is well equipped to take care of bicycles and then Main Street—we are working with Metro. They help facilitate the funding —the federal grant. The second one says `Remove the requirement to construct bike lanes in accordance with the Bicycle Master Plan along collector streets."And so you're just dealing basically with those streets that are listed here? It's not that you're going to get rid of the bike lanes—you're just going to make them better. Is that what the idea is? I just don't want to send the message that they're getting rid of a bike master plan and that we're going to have everyone stay in our cars and get rid of our bikes. I think it's the idea that...from the way I understand you've got this written is that it would be up to the City Engineer to see how best bike lanes fit into the collector streets now that the collector streets have vehicles parked on them. Is that correct? Yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY- IN FAVOR- none PUBLIC TESTIMONY—IN OPPOSITION - none APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL—N/A PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED @ 9:25 PM DELIBERATIONS—No further discussion MOTION Commissioner Caffall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty: "I move to make a final recommendation for approval [of CPA2009-00002/DCA2009- 00002—Downtown Collector Street Standards] to City Council." The motion passed unanimously on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Hasman and Commissioner Vermilyea (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 7 of 8 President Inman noted that this would go to City Council on June 23rd. 6. OTHER BUSINESS— The Commissioners were reminded that the next meeting will be June 1St and will be a double workshop—a buildable lands presentation and an omnibus Code Amendment—a housekeeping item—both led by Darren Wyss. In addition, a meeting will be held June 16th (a Tuesday) and would be a combined meeting with Council. Consultants will give a presentation regarding the Neighborhood Trail Study Results. This meeting would be in lieu of the regularly scheduled second meeting of the month. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. CTI • • o. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co . 's.ion Secretary ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—May 18,2009—Page 8 of 8 City and Exhibit A Y 0 f Ti e _ g k Memorandum To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner, City of Tigard From: Jim Wolf., Public Information Officer, Tigard Police Department Re: Tigard Retail Center (Target) Date: May 15, 2009 In a previous comment regarding the proposed plans for the project, I noted that the Tigard Police Department had concerns regarding one aspect of the design. It pointed to the trail which connects Dartmouth St. to Hermosa Way, namely the portion of the foot path which runs along the side (south) and rear (east) perimeters of the Target structure. Concerns were focused on the lack of defensible space or visibility of this area until the path emerges from the shadows of the building. Using CPTED as a guiding principle, we suggested rerouting the trail to an area with more visibility. Understandably that route utilizes the hard surfaces already in place along the front (west) and side (north) of the store and does not offer opportunity to connect pedestrians with green space as the project originally intended. If the parties involved in the planning choose to continue with the original design, we suggest some methods to possibly enhance the questionable areas of the trail. There is no guarantee that the suggestions will make the area free of crime, however the use of video surveillance and enhanced lighting may offer added levels of safety to the path users. We also suggest prominent signage drawing attention to cameras and path users being "under surveillance." We also suggest occasional monitoring by store personnel to give further indication that the area is being observed. In addition, we also would like to reserve the opportunity at some future point to provide feedback to the retailer for further safety enhancements in the event unreasonable levels of criminal or undesirable activity is documented. Gary Pagenstecher Exhibit B I • Subject: FW: Article of Interest Attachments: Gov Appoints Mark Long ODOE Head May 15, 2009.doc Original Message From: MULDOON Matt J. [mailto:matt.muldoon @state.or.us] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:32 AM To: Doreen Laughlin Subject: Article of Interest Please share the attached article with staff and Planning Commissioners tonight. I see that the Tigard Target would address roofing materials and lighting that address state energy goals. However it was unclear what the cost benefit analysis results for rooftop solar were, or whether that analysis was undertaken. As I read the background packet, I senses an either - or approach rather than an "all - cost - effective approach" to green building elements. If possible please share with the project proponent the likelihood that there will be a question tonight on the results of an analysis of rooftop solar: A: What was the overall cost to mount rooftop (not awning) south oriented solar. B: What was the cost to shift orientation slightly to max afternoon peaking generation. C: Do these costs include clustering and reinforcement of other roof elements to the N? If not what was that cost? D: If this analysis was not done in conjunction with ETO and ODOE, is the project proponent willing to add the analysis - not mandating any result other than that the study be made in conjunction with ODOE and ETO to clarify incentives and aggregate final cost to Target post grants and incentives - as an approval criteria. A question for staff is: 1: Can we waive loading dock requirements in the 2 retial buildings that were designed to have 360 degree attractive facade? Best regards, Matt Muldoon Oregon Public Utility Commission Matthew J. Muldoon 550 Capitol St. NE, Suite 215 - Utility Program Salem, OR 97301-2551 Tel: (503) 378-6164 - Cell: (503) 970-9060 Fax: (503) 373-7752 email: Matt.MuldoonaOstate.or.us The information contained in this electronic mail, and any attachments to this electronic mail, is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient may be prohibited by state or federal law. If you receive this electronic mail in error, please delete the material from any computer or server where electronic mail is stored. 1 Governor Kulongoski repl, s Oregon Energy Director The Oregonian — Friday May 15, 2009, 3:03 PM by Scott Learn Amid a tough Legislative session for energy and the environment, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced this afternoon that he's replacing Michael Grainey, the head of the Oregon Department of Energy, with a manager from the state's building codes' division who helped lead efforts to increase energy efficiency. Mark Long, manager of the Oregon Building Codes Division, will take over as the Department of Energy's acting director on Monday, Kulongoski's office said. In a press release, Kulongoski stressed that Long would help advance renewable energy measures in the final months of the Legislature. Kulongoski is pushing numerous environmental and energy bills, including expanding tax credits for industrial conservation and trying to lower the carbon content of auto and truck fuel. The governor is also fighting legislative backlash against already implemented measures, including ethanol content standards and the state's aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals. John Ledger, a vice president and lobbyist for Associated Oregon Industries, said Grainey's departure from the director post comes as a surprise. "He's trusted by a lot of people," Ledger said. But energy and environmental issues "are at the center of the storm now," Ledger noted, and the governor may have wanted to shake things up. The governor's office did not give a reason for Grainey's departure. Instead it emphasized Long's knowledge of the legislative process and his buildings work, noting that he initiated several green building efforts related to solar power, gray water re-use and electric vehicle infrastructure. The Department of Energy works closely with the state's utilities and handles programs on energy conservation, siting of energy facilities, biofuels and renewable energy. Exhibit C Tigard, OR Sustainable Strategies Prepared by: Heather Sexton Senior Design Project Architect Target Corporation To: Matt Oyen Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (PacTrust) Date: 15 May 2009 Target Tigard, OR Sustainable Strategies A core value of Target has always been giving back to the community. Whether it's the contribution of 5%of our income to programs that serve our communities, Target's strong volunteer program or creating sustainably designed stores, Target takes a holistic approach. When it comes to the environment, we look at every aspect of our business- from our corporate carbon footprint, to packaging and recycling, to environmental site conditions and energy use. The largest contributor to our carbon footprint is our energy use. We have been keenly focused on reducing our energy use for the last decade. The result is that our stores are now 30%more efficient than most codes require and our new 2009 prototype uses 15% less energy than our 2004 stores. Before investing in costly high-tech strategies, we believe it is important to reduce the energy a building will consume overall. We regularly evaluate the benefits of renewable energy technologies such as photovoltaics and wind-generated power and have installed solar panels on the roofs of 18 stores in California. Through our analysis we have determined that, unless heavily subsidized, the high capital costs required to install and maintain these systems exceeds the cost saving benefits and that the money is better spent on improved efficiencies in other areas of the store. For example, the reflective white roof that Target specifies reduces solar heat gain transferred to the store and therefore reduces cooling required. Though Target recognizes the advantages of green roofs, we find that with the size of our roof, a white reflective surface is a better solution, especially on suburban sites where stormwater issues can be dealt with in a variety of ways. In urban Chicago stores, where green roofs are required, our costs are about$8 a square foot (approximately$400K per store) which is an extremely expensive option that lacks a proportional benefit. To maximize the Portland General Electric solar incentive, a 200kW photovoltaic system would need to be installed at the cost of $1.6 Million. Factoring in the Oregon Department of Energy 50% installation incentive along with tax credits, depreciation, solar output, operating and maintenance cost and energy rates, the payback on this location would still be greater than 10 years and above our threshold for financial viability at this time. For comparison, the California stores where Target implements solar have less than a 5 year payback with the available incentives and enormous energy output due to abundant sunshine. However, every new Target store is designed to carry the load imposed by roof-mounted photovoltaic panels for potential future installation, given a change in equipment costs and incentives. Through careful research, we have identified the following cost effective, LEED compliant sustainable strategies that Target employs in all new stores: Site and Water - Pollution from construction activity will be avoided by use of silt fence and other measures. - Alternative transportation will be encouraged by providing bicycle storage and other facilities for bike riders. Information on public transit will be made available to store team and the public. - Heat island effect will be minimized by use of a highly reflective white roof membrane to reduce cooling load. - High efficiency plumbing fixtures will be used in public restrooms to cut municipal water use by 30 percent. Energy Optimization - High-efficiency rooftop equipment will be used, which will exceed local requirements for energy conservation. - Enhanced commissioning will be utilized and Measurement & Verification practices put in place to insure ongoing accountability of energy management over time. Materials and Resources - Construction waste will be managed in order to recycle and divert from the waste stream 75%of all construction refuse. - Construction materials will contain a minimum of 10% recycled content for the overall project including: 50% minimum recycled content in all structural steel framing, 20% in joists and joist girders; fly ash in concrete, crushed concrete sub-base in parking lot, recycled bituminous paving for drive surface. - Regional materials will be utilized to every extent possible with locally manufactured products made from locally extracted raw (or re-cycled) materials. - Wood from FSC certified sources will be used for all blocking and framing and sheathing. Indoor Air Quality - The store building will be a tobacco-free environment. - During construction an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) management plan will be in place. - Volatile Organic Compounds will be minimized within the finished space by use of low-VOC materials for all flooring, adhesives, sealants, paints and coatings, ceilings and wall systems. Additional Measures - A 2 lamp T-8 light fixtures with low mercury will be used throughout the store (preferred over skylights for warmth of light in product display; less roof penetrations which cause heat-loss in winter). - All new stores are designed to carry the load imposed by roof-mounted photovoltaic panels for potential future installation. - Site lighting fixtures will be "dark sky" compliant with full "cut-off" features to prevent light spill to adjoining property. - All Target stores have an extensive program to re-cycle solid waste. On average: 512,000 pounds of cardboard per store, 765 million pounds company-wide in 2006. 2,100 pounds of concrete per store, 3 million pounds company-wide in 2006. 32 shopping carts per store, 47,000 company-wide (each cart contains 30 pounds of steel and 20 pounds of plastic) in 2006. 271,000 garment hangers per store in 2007. 322,000 pounds of trash per store in 2006. • MEMORANDUM Date: ❑ Telephone ❑ FYI ❑ Conference To: cc: - From: Re: Cr6)1\-40C3te0 61,J61 ,7011/ \NG, MILJ O-V 14014/p4k, 74 6°,74 it 12-+v( OOd �1 tvf • CIV " ,a - a w 1,?/tOw 1/5. � I ' , - 8 06w 614„, • GrnW,cywov► ictb Vu-kitt\ ??;4441/ hoti -- 410 D G' w - 4,00 lite4 :LT-- ft/1D VIPs/ 1610(41 2Ztztoow 2gAr fr1,41 Iww/tPil 4404,4 ALL .170 )0„. f=6/41.31 11491404 6740.611/,=--- 6 16 log& (0° ‘11V0Vol cair L waievil multi row r( , w Q-46,14>kit A 61n Ityt 15350 S.JPSeq a kwy.,Suite 300 PACTRU Portland,Oregon 9-'22 • Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-630J Facsimile:5331;,24-: 7.5 1696 aevkaidy . �... ' MEMORANDUM Date: ❑ Telephone ❑ FYI ❑ Conference To: cc: From: /✓1 Re: //e-Ar�__ �?21 Lc- NEiLOir,ciJ 12 L 3Arrs/a>r PAS Aa>sq ( / 04 EFFIcemey Figero a_ wtwk_ 714h& ,141 A�Qtaa• Via Nat- 5ris 2Adsc• vN Dectro4 5k'sc, Rrn kevsi CaQttrtile (S I m x 2n'1 02 3.1 'G.Z = 15.2skr Aux a RzcoverbAj Pea 961TveL= (it 0,QTrs/6r)(11.1 /f, ) 0,C I& Gel- Pee Rol] or%) TANfrfsQ Caggg 1Nrreevo4rc tiv tuvt•'.'(. t�� Y 5Tau_Tufs. 41 % 4 / PAIL '1IN At_ R'M Q, Pi?zov.c ricAl eAten 0,4 17412E,t: ivvJ cPftoN) A = IG PANIEt x r„ratryaan t. = z 20V Warr Z!e Nroc- x 17, ' i4e'tr3/Pokve-v- u3141-r L= 3\ 90,,464,s x t 3 c' w"'VPA NE L: s-I 1.4'? uui tT PAcTRusT 15350 S.W.Sequoia Pkwy.,Suite 300 Portlanc,0reyo.,87224 Pacific Rcaliar Anecicinter;, L.P , , 503/624-5300 Facsimile:552/`:2'-:'?5' Project:Tigard Retail Shops Building Layout A-16 Panel system Tax Summary of Estimated Cash Flow: Rate 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals System Cost 22,080 - - - - 22,080 Federal Tax Credit @ 30%of Cost(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (2,981) (2,981) Oregon Tax Credit(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (800) (800) (800) (800) (800) (8,888) Oregon BETC Application Fee 104 104 Energy Trust Rebate (3,864) (3,864) Estimated Tax on Trust Rebate 1,700 1,700 Additional Federal Tax because of Oregon Tax Credit 35% 280 280 280 280 280 3,111 Estimated Energy Savings for next 6 years (185) (185) (185) (185) (185) (185) (1,112) Tax Savings from Federal Depreciation (1,802) (2,162) (1,297) (819) (819) (307) (7,206) Tax Savings from Federal Bonus Depreciation - - Tax Savings From Oregon Depreciation (497) (596) (358) (226) (226) (85) (1,987) Tax Savings From Oregon Bonus Depreciation - - Estimated Interest Expense 1,083 738 564 440 335 265 3,426 Net Cost(Savings)by Year 15,119 2,725 1,797 1,310 1,416 312 4,382 Cummulative Cost(Savings) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals Federal Depreciation Cost of equipment 22,080 less 50%of tax credit (1,490) Federal Depreciation Basis 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 Remaining Depreciation Basis 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 20,590 Deprecation Deduction 5,147 6,177 3,706 2,341 2,341 877 20,590 Federal Tax Rate 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Federal Tax Savings 1,802 2,162 1,297 819 819 307 7,206 Oregon Depreciation Oregon Depreciation Basis 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 Oregon Bonus - Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings from bonus depreciation - - Remaining Oregon Depreciation Basis 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 22,080 Oregon Depreciation Deduction 5,520 6,624 3,974 2,510 2,510 941 22,080 Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings 497 596 358 226 226 85 1,987 Energy Trust Rebate 3,864 3,864 Federal and State Tax Rate 44.0% 44.0% Tax on Trust Rebate 1,700 1,700 Input Items: DC rated watts 2,208 Estimated cost per DC watt $10.00 Equals Estimated System Cost $22,080 Page 1 of 2 Energy Trust per watt rebate $1.75 Total Energy Trust rebate $3,864 Estimated BETC multiplier $8.30 Panel de-rate 0.97 Estimated Oregon Tax Credit $8,888 Estimated annual AC output 2,318 kWh Location solar irradiance factor 1,312 System efficiency 80% Electricity rate6 0.08 Estimated annual savings 185 Estimated In service Date 4/15/2009 USE Q2 make changes to formula above for depreciation MACRS factors based on in-service date Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 0.35 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.01 Q2 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.04 Q3 0.15 0.34 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.07 Q4 0.05 0.38 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.10 Page 2 of 2 Project:Tigard Retail Shops Building Layout B-26 Panel system Tax Summary of Estimated Cash Flow: Rate 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals System Cost 42,780 - - - - 42,780 Federal Tax Credit @ 30%of Cost(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (5,775) (5,775) Oregon Tax Credit(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (17,221) Oregon BETC Application Fee 202 202 Energy Trust Rebate (7,487) (7,487) Estimated Tax on Trust Rebate 3,294 3,294 Additional Federal Tax because of Oregon Tax Credit 35% 542 542 542 542 542 6,027 Estimated Energy Savings for next 6 years (359) (359) (359) (359) (359) (359) (2,155) Tax Savings from Federal Depreciation (3,491) (4,189) (2,513) (1,588) (1,588) (595) (13,962) Tax Savings from Federal Bonus Depreciation - - Tax Savings From Oregon Depreciation (963) (1,155) (693) (438) (438) (164) (3,850) Tax Savings From Oregon Bonus Depreciation - - Estimated Interest Expense 2,099 1,430 1,092 853 649 514 6,638 Net Cost(Savings)by Year 29,294 5,280 3,481 2,539 2,743 604 8,491 Cummulative Cost(Savings) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals Federal Depreciation Cost of equipment 42,780 less 50%of tax credit (2,888) Federal Depreciation Basis 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 Remaining Depreciation Basis 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 Deprecation Deduction 9,973 11,968 7,181 4,536 4,536 1,699 39,892 Federal Tax Rate 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Federal Tax Savings 3,491 4,189 2,513 1,588 1,588 595 13,962 Oregon Depreciation Oregon Depreciation Basis 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 Oregon Bonus - - Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings from bonus depreciation - - Remaining Oregon Depreciation Basis 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 Oregon Depreciation Deduction 10,695 12,834 7,700 4,864 4,864 1,822 42,780 Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings 963 1,155 693 438 438 164 3,850 Energy Trust Rebate 7,487 7,487 Federal and State Tax Rate 44.0% 44.0% Tax on Trust Rebate 3,294 3,294 Input Items: DC rated watts 4,278 Estimated cost per DC watt $10.00 Equals Estimated System Cost $42,780 Page 1 of 2 Energy Trust per watt rebate $1.75 Total Energy Trust rebate $7,487 Estimated BETC multiplier $8.30 Panel de-rate 0.97 Estimated Oregon Tax Credit $17,221 Estimated annual AC output 4,490 kWh Location solar irradiance factor 1,312 System efficiency 80% Electricity rates 0.08 Estimated annual savings 359 Estimated In service Date 4/15/2009 USE 02 make changes to formula above for depreciation MACRS factors based on in-service date Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 0.35 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.01 Q2 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.04 Q3 0.15 0.34 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.07 Q4 0.05 0.38 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.10 Page 2 of 2 Project:Tigard Retail Shops Building Layout C-31 Panel system Tax Summary of Estimated Cash Flow: Rate 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals System Cost 42,780 - - - - 42,780 Federal Tax Credit @ 30%of Cost(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (5,775) (5,775) Oregon Tax Credit(PacTrust 45%tax liability) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (1,550) (17,221) Oregon BETC Application Fee 202 202 Energy Trust Rebate (7,487) (7,487) Estimated Tax on Trust Rebate 3,294 3,294 Additional Federal Tax because of Oregon Tax Credit 35% 542 542 542 542 542 6,027 Estimated Energy Savings for next 6 years (359) (359) (359) (359) (359) (359) (2,155) Tax Savings from Federal Depreciation (3,491) (4,189) (2,513) (1,588) (1,588) (595) (13,962) Tax Savings from Federal Bonus Depreciation - - Tax Savings From Oregon Depreciation (963) (1,155) (693) (438) (438) (164) (3,850) Tax Savings From Oregon Bonus Depreciation - - Estimated Interest Expense 2,099 1,430 1,092 853 649 514 6,638 Net Cost(Savings)by Year 29,294 5,280 3,481 2,539 2,743 604 8,491 Cummulative Cost(Savings) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals Federal Depreciation Cost of equipment 42,780 less 50%of tax credit (2,888) Federal Depreciation Basis 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 Remaining Depreciation Basis 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 39,892 Deprecation Deduction 9,973 11,968 7,181 4,536 4,536 1,699 39,892 Federal Tax Rate 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Federal Tax Savings 3,491 4,189 2,513 1,588 1,588 595 13,962 Oregon Depreciation Oregon Depreciation Basis 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 Oregon Bonus - - Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings from bonus depreciation - - Remaining Oregon Depreciation Basis 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 42,780 Oregon Depreciation Deduction 10,695 12,834 7,700 4,864 4,864 1,822 42,780 Oregon Tax Rate 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Oregon Tax Savings 963 1,155 693 438 438 164 3,850 Energy Trust Rebate 7,487 7,487 Federal and State Tax Rate 44.0% 44.0% Tax on Trust Rebate 3,294 3,294 Input Items: DC rated watts 4,278 Estimated cost per DC watt $10.00 Equals Estimated System Cost $42,780 Page 1 of 2 . Energy Trust per watt rebate $1.75 Total Energy Trust rebate $7,487 Estimated BETC multiplier $8.30 Panel de-rate 0.97 Estimated Oregon Tax Credit $17,221 Estimated annual AC output 4,490 kWh Location solar irradiance factor 1,312 System efficiency 80% Electricity rates 0.08 Estimated annual savings 359 Estimated In service Date 4/15/2009 USE Q2 make changes to formula above for depreciation MACRS factors based on in-service date Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 0.35 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.01 Q2 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.04 Q3 0.15 0.34 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.07 Q4 0.05 0.38 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.10 Page 2 of 2 L , Legend 1,..k. ` J 1 •® Z N N I +� 1 z ZNr` i; 1 Z z � (0 •=: _ l y , 1. snre pine o `o Vine Pine C G ZONE I MUE ZONE W n Q., 1 (MIXED USE `'' 4':.;,•,. (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) p O o • EMPLOYME ) z. • :::__ 4: r , \ . 1 Y-1 < C 1111 tfenbge Rlyu arch ,,e i r+rO ova ,�'`� ■ \\ r•I. B Dewar cedar 1 O 'C EL•$ • }� _ . a;,1 koa ■■ ■■ ® tea Red Aida ^.y+t I v.a, ��� 't •■ F- �ft d Cedar yot .> s3'� -sn 3 �i W o . Crimson Sentry Maple J•trT •m.[� r .y 9 f♦, '<' - r \1 I 1 ♦_ CC Deodar Cedar a P°C pf ,`t.- ] Green ••• . EsisGrw Trees to l»I n CO IId.• ISO}�&6'0 3 S 4i7. Removed 1 Crim-•Y..• <�J CO '1,".1.;.P. a''ii xr b :K 3 c'ms - 'ii e.:' •4f,. O Q O7 a4,LI t a8 . Yapk S i \ ``= AR _1ST REPORT ALONG ES ✓ [I] O 2 Greens ire Li {'K� II3�q'aB 'A - Ix �` l A - �N 1 WEST°PROPER TREES asp W U NI- Hogan Cedar d IY�.rg, F �� N N t FAILING BADLY-HAZARDOUS •1 1 ay. a■,.9h A AND SHOULD BE REPLACED. 11///..''�11����� �•I M Green Arrow Cypress if.... 4-41;yV4)4 Q Nom r' I Sentry Maple I 3 Red Alder "' Z LO l �T'•6 I.o p {7��� ] Crimson LLJ ' Bi• Leal Male .� ,1� �0 .` W NW -,IC. ' M i I64 2 Maple 6 Weetem Red C. T("T O Vine Maple Y t00r Y '"` \\\` 3 Deader Cedar ►� M d R.tl Alder Pad/�r ? ! r to ... cedar rL] Z DO O 9/Ar.e r< a a. z. --1 I .-d l ® Q N !;,:17,1'.V1 1 VJ Cm "�\ � .t snty Ya .+,.. . �'Wstftw .•,: - C S v Wple I K T °ham M•ab at /r?1 ::J WZ 07n / -fer...s <a t -,..P i'• ,..� _ ` .., 9 Herit-e River Birch .<a /ert�':a V'.:•+i- ..r �IBIRh +r Weetam Rw Cedar Ya M • Plantings,n the Mitigation. r �a�' Z ea......n..� y' ' lin Buffer,amweWwzones 6+��' rr7? e„ Maple �► • are to W m Accordance }p�'Jaat. < .nth Clean Water Service y► p '< SV•�Yr /' 4' I r 1.�, Standards. iog ��e" r 10( —_-... eaaaaaaaa� --<•i 17f�e�rui" ..Crimson Parking PACWS A +B t C+D éJ , I y Maple Ypk 612 Veledes .f g YY li� ��` I f ' •• 68 Trees Rental 1/1 :tie na _ \■■\ \ A 1 ' • 106 Trees Prowled O O,N t - •■• r _ 1 • I OI Perimeter rees Re{d Stalls A/`a t r \.\. ............. I W h. ' • K • 51 Trots Prowled �, v r`�n/ 2 • 3 -_- - - AZ= -4!`:A4'9aAd' 7:S _Trees_ 10 H•••n • 2311 Buffer Trees Shawn U41T OF EXIS mop v� ; T: + '^ ceear _ p .A1 ENHANCEMENT .„1,5,:::1 + 4 ti I ®TARGET f0 Re•�, u • �� rsr) f ant; c i 3 Vine Mask PO9 LL W/MODIFIED DOCK yea.;■ MUE ZONE N•�....� �f easy 137,900 SF± �I r 'vµ�+�f�`ro 4 (MIXED US 1- • Area of Parteg-253,598 set R / 7 c,._i _.c-�....,,,,_.;.�•:,. _ f FFE = 180.0 T . d-► EMPLOYME I•' • Tree cover en Park 76,587 ft �I .f� .... (30.296) "5- 5°i +?' ,�� I r 2 Crimson aple � �.°r�di' , of• A�"i r3 A4J, o • 1 a I •rY�,> ,,; .y '::t'''',..'v I.. r [yJ] to � 82. 81 Cr 1 •■■■TPgs I =�i'i`ft a/:'...�i�3.,:,'',1-6;.•:.> �• r, � Ir 0 0 • of sae-628,602 s3 ft Hess 1 l 0:14 I :,c;:ifeo:Eipo:titil,14,..,,:vi...7,40,,,P, Me+`�) t Q�p,A®a� I tt°a S , 3 vx Ya.k 't<e1 • (n vii • Tree cover of Site-253.327 sct ft �f{A.y4A x. I - 1. O ! ■ •(40.396) S•llyd;&a�4T I -,B�B,r- sentry Napl s I s oegnGa ) ■®-, d► I a,q�,,,, 4 7 I 6. dl#,� rM ,,, RETAIL 1 / •',< j6�' a� K"A�o tl' FIA wl 120005Ff ��� - K�Qr,Yy ra v� 1 wE STUNG 1 50• RANG s9r„�� .rg9 a9 �F;Sr FFE = 776 �S,�o I 3 Vine M••le II. 1, -°�v:Xf. BOUNDARY ■_q<� t '1''i, 6 7'!�d a'6�i 1. a I t��`'w ■ revile%♦n'E.� I ► r 4, t �0 e19k.a•'CO�• T!t I _ li ? �a • >n as`a ,¢9�D•CIA er t y 3 t crimson ej4;,:: "'■ r >y- - Wv 0 s sent MOI <+Zvi aO v E%ISTINC `�°.► �s+t,jra ry P Vol'',4A a, ♦ oyN-0�VQ• H I 3,r tt( f 5- v� KQi>a' REVISIONS • -•a•'-.ca 41 ,. BOUNDARY / .;°.`. o .oU, Gres Arro _ \ rims.Seri Ma•le se` ,pt.,dp AC,.e ate i'1 v<z.'z r s. 3 cure M I .c� ] 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 J 7 �, __ _ _ _ _ ' i�?#+`w�°" REV 4-9-09 6'".rlA♦i0a ;••" iw-9' ♦e.., ," �v''' ";rf.G -�._. �3 Y�.v:°ge•VrOtiaa iN�+�, ` $N'`- a�V "ya'v1 ■ I■■ �•-,n�i,�a84,r 7 � <$/�'• :j ,° .tlf'�6'�` !1 \C ;.Owe,de:iisi�l��� 1r�a.• e�r;'rS" *T"P O',faO•'r"Aeil��1��• ♦: ��Iflt�f�f■■i6iY " ° ` ■ 6►`, t�♦ ',:""..-•{,..,0 Nt .-J,,'',r' ` '9*.':.' sas*Fitt relit 11117g0itl;3p�1r-^i'-,. ..m•'t'"a,wi,S?"'4157teAdobb+b*Cb,-,a t...s4?, -,•.,. tPSP„`:445eVai♦b ,..01„4 ...,...,,,.,; 4rrw o,�. gat ♦ l �. :t 4 '479'.,e, '4,-;,. eci7;40 ” ?-,, W ae,�v3etr'4, ,a'"<,r, o'ORnv e• yY`t a,' •.4 i`p.51 ,-+�v.`� vY' v _. t'9 ''r,, 9 sa r, 7: a a -tie e a Ait••` a�ta -^a4 il,-,6 q^ .9••es t. 91 . a i i - ids,tP � �`4l,P• • 'a +.. d 01.,� s-{(�bk oRAWINc OMIT OF EXISTING BUFFER ;7;0,;c et.�,. ,Ie,�D S Q,t77 z•P gp 9�t as ,y •so ♦a' a -v■,�¢• F�L$t a.dt,a-R b ti" P+ J•ENHANCEMENT h <•r,' + �" '>S,a•.b! Rl'd.,{p®i9RO as 9)494-,'/:','":"-,+ :a a of a4P,•— ^a A��tayari t�rein's.. ae,•.te..^,•`"--I� ■ DRAWN BY: RCO•a:a.:::-.y.''.%-:" F Yte,'°46y L,._ m� v,s •r ,vA. kIiF.n?..,.A-„ ,:40_,A3F,w:,t,t/P.I.0'- - ■ •• ■ire■fa.....�■r.■Ia•t .. 44.,., _ •W� a •, v a i� ..• a ■a ma=a a- SHOWN AT SIZE CHECKED BY: HSB Red Nhr 30 YEARS AFTER PLANTING DATE: 8/29/0a 3 . ar war Welter.Red Cedar ” m"° (So Leaf Maw. LANDSCAPE JOB N0. Oars CONCEPT PLAN SHEET: 0 20 0 L- 1b or 4 • • • • . .1' ELEVATION 0 , . .. • A t / ID rue/b: hIA:it v)v 01/41 h helo Vivi ...... ..... t6 . .-1 ? /,.e,4 icoti, &0104/ --=--- tip , . . _. = , . w_:_�--� w I . I i I r j _ I CARD 1 i I 8 r _ 9i' '`�"' fi i. ..b F ia'T' 1 yita.V'� :.i'i-L=_.;: �-ce: ._-yn.t.r. !3 fe�✓ - _= it.,+., :xcecs =r_-e�_5 1,'== z ';Inc i�� _ h -'��� ,'p i t ',eCi ?'?r� y ��a+•,��v" n. ►yes r4 - r Sl i i./.4_45:.. � I i ' r• VPAI c'>i;l ' � �� (I 9 TAU j �% i ^+4111V-'" xY `, �f� ' II L�----° / 2;thi i 74; • r I T'7. r_'Y• ''- i '. • 1.--:''' , LW, . _al- `k ';a`,+ j - F•' t"'..,r; t�'CR� Lr- ark r`?�-. s.___::i`ll r n/ I II .a r-S�f;•? ,�.�'-3'•j .r`~ �I 'i�� 1 .. .. }: ; C3 .4 ii H.-__ ELEVATION r • I D SHOPS Tigard, OR Sustainable Strategies Prepared by: Heather Sexton Senior Design Project Architect Target Corporation To: Matt Oyen Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (PacTrust) Date: 15 May 2009 Target Tigard, OR Elevations Following the meeting with the City of Tigard on May 12, I would like to comment on the Staff concern about the building elevation at the NW corner. There was a suggestion to address the pedestrian scale in this area. Target has added an 8'-0" high brick trellis on the front elevation (near office windows) to bring down the scale and add another layer of texture and rhythm to this facade. We prefer to keep the three shade trees (instead of a trellis at the corner) as they add verticality and rhythm to the composition, but we have also added a planter with high shrubs. Along the west side we have also added shrubs and ornamental trees to help soften the scale. Please let me know if you have any further comments. 0 f t. tN a • y �` - k _ 1 s 1, • • 1 rF•. Z -,• t •sit .41;. rills I ?9 ��_ ' t r� �l '! '� - '' r . �.. L tw w rlrWt 4:`:Y r ! M,�N' ;M! f {' S'• f- far; I ! . ( 1 ./ i TIGARD OR TARGET STORE DESIGN t AY 1 b_2009 -__-.INTEGRAL COLOR SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 INTEGRAL COLOR SPLIT FACE CMU C-l1 BUILDING SIGNAGE- ---- - F_____169116'CMU-4 BASE - - EFS C-1 EFS C-1 STORE FRONT W/CLEAR GLAZING EIFS C-10- - TBR-I TBR-1 ENTRY CANOPY C-20 CMU-4 - I ^INTEGRAL COLOR RED WALL C-1 SPLIT FACE CMU C•I1 EL.l32'-2" -TBR-2 LtR EL•126'-Y EL•126'-2"•• • 1 i. - _ L4,121,6* q`l r it I' } : < • FRONT ELEVATION PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-14 -PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13- - - PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13 - PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13 TBR-I -PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-14 ---- EFS C-1 FL.130'-r '.di•' N•116'-2' _ -. ,i '. ELI-OF 0- RIGHT ELEVATION I PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-11- - PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 - -- - -INTEGRAL COLOR SPLIT FACE CMU C-11 PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13 PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-13 -16'7(16"CMU-•BASE PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-14 EFS C-1 1 - PAINTED SPLIT FACE CMU C-I4 TOR-1 -BUILDING SIGNAGE EL.130'-1' Ally/ ' EL-114'-1" t — Oi EL•l26'-Y I I a 1 1 1 ti ∎.....{ri.... r ail- LEFT ELEVATION - - PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C-19 'FS C-1 - PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C-13 EFS C-11 -EFS C-11 EFS C-11 PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C-13 -PAINTED SPILT FACE CMU C-14 -PAINTED CMU C-14 BUILDING SIGNAGE 1 EL-124'•2' 91 - r - E1.108'-0" REAR ELEVATION TIGARD, OR LEFT ENTRY LEFT DOCK TARGET STORE DESIGN CONFIGURATION MAY 16 2009 • Tigard Retail Center May 2009 Exhibit D rr ; i- , s : .,. . • a it , ,.. * � N ;I , t,.i• Y ...4acti. a .•• ' , �t Construct 3'Westbound Lane on Highway 99W . • •R• from 72"Avenue to Highway 217 • ''Including Traffic Signal Modifications 4,.• . . >. ' •.• _ • w r `.. sAr a F • . •Z - . a G . �•' ;� 1 P o' -4 \•h,as�s•.. • 'HAINESST _._ 4•.t r �` \ -_ .a% I a■^ .... - Construct New Traffic Signal '., ,`~ it at the Dartmouth St./WinCo/ ■ , ! • Site-Access Driveway Intersection 'a' • "' • R & 4. 0 asr - , a iu • Q. .. _ -- •5r • Extend Dual ;O Z .5.%•• 1 z - 1 Qy Northbound Gp N - Left-Turn i T ' .1. .. - Storage and \` T'i� Modify Median rs, DARTMOUTH ST ' , a, I SITE a ` • • ..ti � . '17 Construct New Traffic Signal • • at the Dartmouth St./ >,','• t ;'1, I J • - "" 66'"Avenue Intersection i` y 7 ` a - 0 -- t • • Construct New Traffic Signal 4 s I F at the Dartmouth St/ .•. - ' < _� -r `! L:. 72"Avenue Intersection •, , 4 • -• BEVELAND RD • . ._ -• r 1 >,ti ' ` r'►`I 1 tu Improve Beveland Road .'r .. • ti. . •._ 0LN. i, - ti HAMPTON ST Ill s 1 2jkFA s I. aM ! j ' c • - } J _ + Extend Side-By-Side• ^' t'a .. ei Turn Lane Storage • 4., ■ I "` "ti, ,- • 'art Widen 72' Avenue Between yarns Street ' '•9 and Beveland Road --S x ..1 `, . •, 'iJ 4.4 vARNS l °ST ' N Traffic Signal Modifications • w'•I� �• - j i • .....- _4(164tik`ev R 14;R.'1 T . ' NOTES: I 1.Not to Scale 2.For Illustrative Purposes Only 3.Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit Summary of Off-Site Transportation Improvements FXN1B,r A r'i K ITTELEON a AOSOCIATEa,INC. • yy Tigard Retail Center May 2009 e 4401510 . ; " ; , . _ N I. • . • ' L- BEVELAN RD - 4 V - M � ' mar R t r-_ —- Ar— -414111k Signal Modification w W I t 1.= a use', _ , , a Al,, Improve Beveland Road in accordance i with the Beveland Road Analysis Memorandum ., ,. r r- l i Issued by the City of Tigard(Nov.10,2008) •"" t y I 1 -t� . lGONZAGA ST . • + I i AA%_ r a • t- i1 Remove Signal ' "*"1111 f• _ • w s 1r w r •.T i•i I I,I NAMR,TONZST ��rr- 1�ra n! APt,,,,,,, ,Signal Modification ,1` '., 1 1 # t--. • _r~ -.P"' r - ' • — tit •� a • :. •. . Extend Side-By-Side ■ f� ' - I. \\\• Turn Lane Storage f + A 1 • i ire'' A .. Addition of l l ,, } Second Northbound j \ ^ _..—s.,y, • �• i I. • Through Lane + I ,$ A. - , - " t r r I 4.,•1-• 1 ' - r i z� . 1 I� ,,, c 111 a '''' .-iliiBililiri A a..,_ _•D+4M I'' \ few,' • J Signal Modification ,,;,- , .*, fa FZ 111 ,.r• �fN C /. r/L VA'lTNS �T j ' �+ } y..aro. If!' *tr.> ,:, ..., .1. , 1 ...,;#. • *4 0 re-..v"-e.-".. -'-JO 44, ii, ' I 1 . iiii Alr. v: sr �L `�• NOTES: 1.Not to Scale 2.For Illustrative Purposes Only p 3.Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing ..i roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit 0 fi Off-Site transportation Improvements 72nd Avenue(Beveland Road to Varns Street) K ITTCLSON&AssOCIATCs.INC. Tigard Retail Center May 2009 .• s ,. � t ; yam, {' Rl'.. b k " i im **4 , _ , :4!4.....:(., ,.. , . , ., . Addition of Continuous +1 't' Signal Modification /, __ •1 �' • ~ Third Westbound Through Lane • . • -• Install Landscape Median '4-... •' le f ......" . • a � . t» - / An • r � � r .y`"■'�" r; PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99W- '�.` !., Northbound Left Turn 11. ° Extend Right-Turn Lane „ „% /' _ : Lane Extension r. Install Landscape Median * r y ••••••,, . ..7 , •••*/# ft? i If • .. . , 7 R. , ., ._S•' I,'...r . • X04 X M _ rti • OPP ` jtr r DOTES: • lb. '. ,. - T 1.Not to Scale 2.For Illustrative Purposes Only 3_Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit 091-13119 Transportation Improvements E'°'°" Pacific Highway 99W(Highway 217 to Pfaffle) C / IF/4111KIT INAION a AS OCIAT[a,INC.. !igartl Retail Cower Andy 2009 -- ■. f d a r A 1 A . 4 Signal Modification ? ° s"` ' Start of Westbound t, Through Lane..0 .,.y\i-_,...-- "/, • -' ' Re•r. r --r j . _._,_,,ACIriC Y/ ' rN ; * f %` l ♦rte i imak , ",1)11,,p,' .r. 7 , Install Landscape Median f# `. •s ' •/ t fi ,4 Signal Modification �• 1 rt k ri fw �'� / ' ,i d1{• i r 0 1t,, • fr'' , .,, a tea" r / If •¢. a_ ._ P. r. ""'ri,iitig-' -iv . .1. . f. , . , ,. VT..r. ft , . ..,r. OFYit,,,,,prisr . . ....• .'*4 .1.;.- -4"j)7.: -:--''' '' t. r. t� .NOTES: . i 1.Not to Scale 2.For Illustrative Purposes Only 3.Pavement improvements will be limited to widening of the existing roadway to provide lane configuration shown by the exhibit i Off-Site Transportation Improvements er,.',. '4 Pacific Highway 99W(Pfaffle to 72nd) D 114:K7TLL♦OM f tetr.m T[t t?: Cheryl Caines From: Cheryl Caines Exhibit E Sent: Monday. May 18, 2009 4:27 PM To: 'John Mermin' Cc: Ron Bunch: Mike McCarthy Subject: RE: Comments on Tigard TSP/Comp plan/code amendments Hi John, Thank you for your comments. I've discussed your concern about the removal of a bike lane requirement along Main Street with our Director and Transportation Engineer. Our current TSP (Bicycle Master Plan) does not require bike lanes along Main Street and the Regional Transportation Plan does not consider these streets regionally significant. At the same time we understand the importance of bike connections to the Fanno Creek Trail, WES, and other public transportation from Main Street and share your concern about providing those connections. Downtown streets will have lower speeds to accommodate shared lanes where separate bike lanes are not proposed. Along Main Street there are existing conditions such as buildings constructed near the ROW that may make it difficult to accommodate a separate bike lane. The purpose of this amendment is not to eliminate bike lanes along Main Street. We only hope to allow some flexibility when designing it. I know that the City is working with Metro regarding bike traffic on Main Street and will continue to do so as we move forward. Our goal is to design a street that accommodates a wide range of users. Thank you for taking the time to review the proposal. Your comments will be presented to the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing (May 18`h). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thank you, Cheryl Caines Associate Planner City of Tigard (503) 718-2437 From: John Mermin [mailto:John.Mermin©oregonmetro.gov] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:35 AM To: Cheryl Caines Cc: meg.fernekees @state.or.us Subject: Comments on Tigard TSP/Comp plan/code amendments Hi Cheryl, It was good to chat with you on the phone the other day. I reviewed the proposed amendments to the TSP Comp plan, Development Code and Municipal code. After discussing with our engineer, and some of my transportation and land use colleagues, we'd like to express our strong support for allowing parking on collectors in the downtown urban renewal district. However, we are concerned about the removal of the bike lane requirement for one of the downtown collectors, Main Street. due to the high volumes (estimated 10,000 ADT), and the need to make current and future intermodal connections with Fanno Creek Trail, WES station, and possible future LRT station. We are okay with the removal of the bike lane requirement on the other downtown collectors. Thanks for your consideration of our comments. Let me know if you have any questions. John Mermin 1 Associate Transportation Planner Planning Metro 503 797-1747 John.Mermin@oregonmetro.gov www.oregonmetro.gov Metro I People places. Open spaces 2 1 v ! ti \ ? Avc- , IV- A -, , , 0, „tie, ,.. li . t(2 6 la W A Y v -- Pliw - g s 0 0 N I " w + i € a 4t \ 4""*t -4/„.- i '*.'1 1.- µ _ , , , I, , , :„ , ff;.,, a If" ,\ . ,Jr # ,4. \ .. I <# 11,4;11. # # i x i^; ; 44.' U. \ 777''` .4 ¢ • d % # } j �•° - A 1 .. 1tio V i '4*>;\ ‘.% \\\ itii \ \ , -... , ,-- ,0,46 -.:-,., - , Ili • „4 „,„ : 1`" 1 ' . i ` c '' , \\ r41 i . a ,,,,: t 1 ,,4.*0,8st,„„*Oz-Ni, , 1 i...,:.!.,. 4 . , , - se , . te 4 ` — 31W CN?i Pols O. - a 6 '!`, k i. 4 25 ,1 1 _- V,,\'.\ , ...:', (-,, - ;41. , , �,� \ 4 `,�' NI, , t t I , i .4 !� \ 4 P 'I.:— 2.,-. ..,_ Nla ;>1,.,‘\ t a ate. � et. '' � �' :I:IL lig \ . \ \ !• y ks; g` . ...„ i V• \ ; \ t ,per ppi kY t ' ' a \ '\�a Y3kla 3,'1V Hitt JJ`lg 1 4A n4k 4/P''' \\: .1 '. . ,v x �' a , . 1. . _. .. ,i_ , . ,........, t v., „,: ,> j \* 4 , _ ,�` a• a ',:� * . t N. '': i 4 - . ,1 \ I, ”' 44 yz,. 1 V I ,, 4E. 4A,, , .,...„ ,,,,,,.. ,,,,,I,.. ,,,,i 4..„.,e N. .,..,+ ', + , I itj� 1 1„ Iwr \ t v_yti qI 4 t ‘ \\ IS `�S -_ 5� i _ • a o.l. A ik . . ..... ,..: ,, _ a r. , \-, \ - - ,-,ci . it --11 IV. mss;° t- ' 4 a\ t \y 4A„ ar.. fi �:, ( 660, .e, \ 1 g r T rC. ` "� 4 .' '}p' \ •a ? =• �\\ i t 1 4r - — - v - t { \ •- N. \ 3AV Rai \ ", v v , v „a v t4 I S. '4 % : i rr ¢ 9. . t i ! "St ,,, ti 4 V a. tF 4' y 1.\ i L. ii t,. i i, t '. 4fr e ' -'5 4., ' 7— # t f \_ t a d o t 44 ie910 tp ' '**. 't, , \ S � 4 tr p ' ' t 14 � \,, \ .• �R� � �� .4i L f k r e t 8, E ' 1. IA: 6- i'. \\ ( .,1 't. ‘ %.*''s \ , . , ^int d 'P 'c t� :' Z Z ' " 4- 0 „1- t A dr. —a, 4$ . ; 1 .1 5 r ‘1.` -\ C49 Li 5 ,\ • 7E- \ t \ - )•\,, � \p d N ZZ \ , i y dq " +4 R? �, ' t �,. tea •' R �„' , 4 •% r. 8 •�'tik l X co z- c16 Q \ •t ;�.' i°p�¢'+ ,� �¢r .. 1, yr� x a`. t 1 -t`. ,• A 1„ [0 —1 R J+p R" 4.. 'rw� aG' t a• e : '$ 4''rf :...0 , l �., to 1.1 k. a ft k- ' - ': >l ' '' fib* \: ', 'r . . ` - , a ✓ A c4.1'CPA Patoi a1oP4Pt+ waVP-E 9006'e4+V 44074106-iOCLIe1994 'SLY'. A4dwa7AMftiPIA/`Mgt€csia+d,..H _ _ L . \ I I II k I I - 11 . I Ik