The URL can be used to link to this page

10/03/2016 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – October 3, 2016 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: October 3, 2016 - 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 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. RIVER TERRACE EAST MULTI-FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00008; SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2016-00005 REQUEST: Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Devel opment Plan review is requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (case files PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River T errace East planned development. LOCATION: 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, east of SW Roy Rogers Road; Washington County Tax Map 2S10600 Tax Lots 01400 and 01401.ZONES:R-25(PD): Medium High- Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 p.m. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00001 CEMETARY SETBACKS REQUEST: The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050.B.10.b.i applies specifically to cemeteries and requires a 15-foot setback for graves from all property lines. The Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the City to approve a text amendment to the Community Development Code to remove this setback requirement. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONES: R-3.5, R-4.5, Low-Density Residential; R-7, Medium-Density Residential; and I-L, Light Industrial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.380, and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:35 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 8:40 p.m. October 3, 2016 Page 1 of 9 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 3, 2016 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jelinek Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Vice President Feeney Staff Present: Gary Pagenstecher; Associate Planner; Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Greg Berry, Engineer CHANGE OF AGENDA ITEM ORDER President Fitzgerald told the commissioners that the applicant for agenda item #6 regarding cemetery setbacks had asked to be heard first; she asked if anyone objected. Since no concern or objections were expressed from the audience, the commissioners, or the other applicant, President Fitzgerald announced that DCA2016-00001 Cemetery Setbacks would be heard first, followed by River Terrace Multi-Family (PDR) 2016-00008; (SDR) 2016-00005. COMMUNICATIONS – Commissioner Middaugh noted he and three other commissioners had attended Planning Commission Training in Salem in late September and that they had learned a lot and found it useful. The othercommissionerswho’dattendedthe training agreed. CONSIDER MINUTES September 12, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the September 12 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. October 3, 2016 Page 2 of 9 OPEN PUBLIC HEARING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00001 CEMETERY SETBACKS REQUEST: The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050.B.10.b.i applies specifically to cemeteries and requires a 15-foot setback for graves from all property lines. The Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the City to approve a text amendment to the Community Development Code to remove this setback requirement. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONES: R-3.5, R-4.5, Low-Density Residential; R-7, Medium- Density Residential; and I-L, Light Industrial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.380, and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: Commissioner Middaugh stated that his living parents own plots at this cemetery, however he’sconfidenthecanmakeadecisionwithoutbias. Site visitations: All commissioners present had visited. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner, explained that this was a very unusual development code amendment - a one of a kind. The applicant did a thorough survey of the context within which this section of the code exists in our Development Code. This exists nowhere else that staff could find in the metropolitan area, neighboring cities, or even the countytotheextentthatitreferencessetbacksforgravesites.Stafffindsthatthere’snoreason to keep the setback provision. This started out as a legislative review, as development code amendments typically are, but it was proposed by a specific landowner – the cemetery association (two) – so we revised this to be a quasi-judicial review and provided notice to property owners within 500 feet of both of the cemeteries. The city received no comments in response to those notices. Additionally, we received no comments or objections from the mall owner around Crescent Grove Cemetery. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed text amendment with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process, and that they make a final recommendation to Tigard City Council. APPLICANT’SPRESENTATION Keith Jones – Sr. Land Use Planner of Harper Houf Perterson Righellis - the applicant’s representative, introduced himself and the woman beside him - Nancy Felton, General Manager for Crescent Grove Cemetery. Mr. Jones noted the cemetery is about 22 acres – most of it platted. Three acres of the property is at the north end un-platted. Crescent Grove hired his firm to come in and plat these additional gravesites, and to do a design for an access road and a October 3, 2016 Page 3 of 9 stormwater facility. He said he helped prepare the application for this text amendment. During that process, the 15 foot setback requirement wasdiscovered.Hesaidhe’d had conversations withstafftotrytoresolvethatissue.That’swhentheydidsomeresearch.Thecemeteryhas been around since 1852 – a long time. The city adopted zoning in 1967 and then the cemetery was in Unincorporated Washington County until 1986 when it was annexed. At that time, the setback provision was placed on the cemetery. So for 132 years the cemetery did not have setbacks, andmostoftheplotsareplattedtowardsthefenceline.There’saconcreteberm around the boundary with a metal fence on top of that. The fence is inside the property line by about 10 inches. So when they excavate a gravesite, it’sgoingtobeprobablyanotherfootback- soit’llbeatleasttwofeetbackfromthepropertyline.Thefenceisclearlydemarcating the boundaries of the cemetery. This will only apply to about two cemeteries. He noted cremations are going up in numbers and becoming much more common; land is very finite – particularly in Tigard where land is at a minimum. If this setback is imposed, it will effectively take away what they calculate to be 363 grave plots. They want to platoutabout2700.Soit’sasignificant impact. He said that going forward – they agree with the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and would request the same. QUESTIONS Most questions and discussion from the commissioners centered on whether a zero set-back might be a mistake and possibly cause problems for neighbors of cemeteries whose property may abut it. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION Deliberation centered on whether a 2 ½ foot buffer might be better than a zero setback. After a rather lengthy deliberation, President Fitzgerald asked all the commissioners to weigh in with their thoughts. The commission was divided as to whether to go with staff’s recommendation or to change it to include a 2 ½ foot buffer to prevent people from accidentally hitting a casket while digging a fence, or perhaps planting a tree. One of the commissioners thought thatimposinga2½footbufferwhereit’snota problem (next to a road for instance) is unnecessary and that perhaps they should require that buffer only when needed. Othersagreedwithstaff’srecommendationasis. President Fitzgerald said she would entertain a motion to see where the commissioners are at and if they have a majority one way or the other. She noted that this is just a recommendation and that the City Council could take into account the other commissioner’sconcernsoverthe2 ½ foot buffer idea if they believe it warrants action. October 3, 2016 Page 4 of 9 MOTION Commissioner Hu made the following motion: “I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application number DCA2016-00001 and adoption of the findings contained in the staff report and based on the testimony received.” Commissioner Jelinek seconded the recommendation. In favor, Commissioners Jelinek, Fitzgerald, Hu, Middaugh, and McDowell. Opposed – Commissioners Lieuallen, Muldoon, and Schmidt. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PASSES 5 - 3. RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald re-opened the continued hearing from August 29. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) 7:05 p.m. RIVER TERRACE EAST MULTI-FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00008; SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2016-00005 REQUEST: Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review is requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (case files PDR2015 -00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development. LOCATION: 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, east of SW Roy Rogers Road; Washington County Tax Map 2S10600 Tax Lots 01400 and 01401. ZONES: R-25(PD): Medium High-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi -judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Mooney, Lieuallen, Muldoon, Schmidt, Hu, Middaugh, and McDowell. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner, went over the Concept Plan portion of the staff report first. He said he will review the Detailed Plan portion of the report after the Concept Plan has been deliberated and moved upon by the commission. (Staff reports are available on the City website one week before public hearings.) Gary went over the history of the first hearing. He October 3, 2016 Page 5 of 9 noted that at the August 29 hearing, staff had recommended denial of the original concept plan because of some unsettled circumstances regarding stormwater – and also because of the approximate ten percent slope that is characteristic of the site and how the proposal was dealing withthat.Asaresultofstaff’srecommendationtodeny,theapplicantrequestedtocontinuethe original hearing to have time to provide additional information to address those shortcomings that were the basis of the denial. The hearing was continued to October 3 at that time. On September 12 the applicant resubmitted revised plans. The reason for the denial recommendationwasthatinstaff’sview,the natural features of the site according to the concept plan approval criteria were not fully protected. The overall slope of the site was the natural feature - not a sensitive land, but a natural characteristic of the land. The original proposal had substantial retaining walls all along Roy Rogers Road at about 10 feet in height or so and running about 500’ in length. The applicant had said that was so they could level the site sufficiently to step the buildings north to south - but not east to west. The innovation of this newly revised proposal is where they’ve stepped the buildings east to west as well, and lowered the retaining walls along Roy Rogers Road - such that staff can now recommend approval of the concept plan. Gary noted the applicant will go into detail about the other changesthey’dmade. QUESTIONS Commissioner Muldoon questioned the staff recommendation where it was noted in the last sentence (that he assumes refers to condition nine), where it says “Stafffurtherrecommends that the request to defer compliance with Section 18.660.030.B to final plat approval be granted.” Gary Pagenstecher said that looked to be an error on the staff recommendation and asked that the Developmental Review Engineer, who was in the audience, come up and address that. Greg Berry came up and confirmed that the last sentence in the recommendation was in error because this isn’tasub-division. Hesaid“Condition Nine requires the applicant to submit a written deferral agreement - andthere’snoreferencetoaplat.ConditionNine states: "Prior to any site work, the applicant shall submit a written deferral agreement in a form satisfactory to the City that meets the requirements of 18.660.030.C.2.b” and that condition remains in effect. So they have to meet Condition Nine – butthereisno“plat” - therefore, the last sentence of the staff recommendation should be stricken.” The question was asked if there are other government bodies that are involved in whatever goes on here – Clean Water Services, etc. If so, have they made determinations, or are they in the process of? Is there some dependence upon what we do here or vice versa – to move this matter along? The comment letters are attached to the decision. Those comments are included in whole and have been incorporated in the body of the recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, there is some outstanding reviews occurring for the off-site stormwater facilities which the applicant can address. Another commissioner said he wanted to make sure that everything in the 45 pages of conditions was either met, deemed not applicable, or is in the process of being met. Is that the case? Yes, that is my conclusion. The applicable criteria are met or have otherwise been conditioned to be met. APPLICANT’SPRESENTATIONREGARDING THE CONCEPT PLAN October 3, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Li Alligood, Sr. Planner with OTAK, the applicant’srepresentative, introduced herself - along with her OTAK colleague, Steve Dixon. Li went through a presentation regarding the Concept Design (Exhibit A). She said they had reviewed the conditions of approval as had the applicant’sattorney,andtheyallcompletely agreewithstaff’srecommendations. Their request is for concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan. They are proposing 141 dwelling units in 9 buildings within the River Terrace East Planned Development (approved as PDR 2015-00006) – eight of those are multi-family buildings and one is a clubhouse that includes dwelling units and also some recreational uses. The Concept Design consists of building placement, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as well as usable open space. At this point, Steve Dixon came up and explained how they had decided upon those circulation routes. Steve noted the site is characterized by the grade – an approximate40’fallfromnorthtosouth– from the PGE substation down to the future Road A andtheforestedarea.Theupperhalfslopesapproximately20’fromeasttowesttowardsRoy Rogers. That grade became the primary challenge as to how to site the buildings. He went on to explain the Concept Plan while trying not to confuse it with the Detailed Plan. Going back to thepreviousplan,they’dlookedattryingtoskewthebuildingssothattheyactually sat and worked with the grade stepping down the hill. However, that left awkward small spaces as the buildings ran into the edges of the site and it became difficult to circulate around those. It still left them with the challenge of addressing the fall from east to west. In theory it appears to work better with the grade, but with the site work they were able to step those buildings and they believe this is a more meaningful site plan. QUESTIONS ABOUT CONCEPT PLAN – None. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN DELIBERATION ON CONCEPT PLAN After a very short deliberation - one or two comments - a motion was made. MOTION Commissioner Muldoon moved: “RegardingRiverTerraceEast,Multi-Family Planned Development PDR2016-00008 and Site Development Review SDR2016 -00005, I move for approval of the application and adoption of the findings pertaining to the Concept Plan with its Conditions of Approval within the staff report.” Commissioner Middaugh seconded the motion. All in favor – none opposed. CONCEPT PLAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY October 3, 2016 Page 7 of 9 REOPENED HEARING FOR DETAILED PLAN STAFF REPORT ON DETAILED PLAN The staff report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing. Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher said he would focus his comments on – not describing the project, because the applicant would do a more thorough job of describing it. His comments were focused on the elements that it takes to get an approval for this project. With those conditions – staff recommends approval. APPLICANT CONTINUES PRESENTATION REGARDING DETAILED PLAN Li Alligood and Steve Dixon noted that as part of the detailed design package they’d provided some models to demonstrate what the open space looks like and how the buildings interact with each other and with the space. These models can be seen on Exhibit A, Pages 9-11. Li and Steve went over each page elaborating on the various features – noting particularly, the ADA accessibility and the step down of the buildings down the site. Ben Bortolazzo, the urban designer (and building designer) with OTAK, briefly described the concept of the detailed design of the buildings. He noted the buildings are four stories on the downhill side – the south side - and three stories on the uphill side to negotiate the grade. On page 14 of Exhibit A there are examples of two of the most representative buildings - the 12- Plex and 21/22-Plex units. The number of units vary simply due to the orientation to the building – whetherthere’sagarageonthedownhillsideorontheuphillside.For instance, the 12-plex on top has the garage on the downhill side so you can haveitontheuphill…thatwill basically be the side that has only three stories. The architecture tries to break up the building as much as possible – especially for the longer building – the 21/22-Plex – they try to break that upalmostliketownhomessoyou’dtrytogenerallyemphasizetheliv ing areas so there are typically three windows – plenty of light and air. The top units are all vaulted ceilings and they are also trying to take advantage of views. Wherever possible they try to have living units on the corners, therefore capitalizing on the views. Steve Dixon went over the revised site grading and the challenges. The challenges were the high retaining walls along Roy Rogers. They lowered them by creating additional retaining on the east side of the project. Those walls lower the site in relation to the townhomes – so those walls will beexposedonoursite.We’renotbuildingwallsupabovethetownhomesite.Theyc reated a terracedsystemofretainingwalls.Thegradehasn’tmagicallydisappearedbutthey’vetriedto minimize the visual impact – which is the primary issue. Civil Engineer Mike Peebles from OTAK talked about the grading. The initial plan had some very tall retainingwallsandtheywereabletogetdownfroma20’walldownto8½feetatthe northendandfroma10½’walltoabout4½’onthesouthend.Thegradedidn’tgoaway– they just managed it in different places, both on the east side through grade changes, through the building, and some terracing of walls adjacent to Roy Rogers. Stormwater facility-wise Mr. Peebles went over pages 19 – 27 of Exhibit A detailing the revisions. October 3, 2016 Page 8 of 9 In conclusion, the OTAK team said they had worked closely with staff to address concerns related to grading and stormwater facility design; staff recommends approval; and the applicant respectfully requests approval of the application QUESTIONS With four stories – will there be stairways or elevators – will they be accessible for people with physical disabilities? Generallyspeaking,thesearebuildingsthatdon’thaveelevators,sow e’rerequiredto provide accessibility for the ground floor units only. Was the issue of traffic noise addressed? Wedon’texpecttheretobeanoiseissue. There were a few more questions and comments regarding rental/market rates; parking spaces; and walk-ability – which were addressed by the applicant and staff. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR –None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATION ON DETAILED PLAN Deliberation was very short. The consensus of the commission was very favorable. They liked the detailed plan; the natural feature of the slope; the plan; the creative clean solution – especially around the drainage issue; and they think the plan looks great. Thecommissionerscommendedstaffandtheapplicantsayingthey’ddoneaterrificjob.They feel very good about this proposal. The large number of conditions gave one commissioner pause. However, she believes this is much better than the first time around. MOTION There was an original motion made that inadvertently left off striking the last sentence of the staff recommendation; so, after a bit more deliberation, the final motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon and seconded by Commissioner McDowell. “Regarding the DETAILED PLAN - River Terrace East, Multi-Family Planned Development PDR2016-00008 and Site Development Review SDR2016 -00005, I move for APPROVAL of the application and adoption of the findings and Conditions of Approval within the staff report and that we strike the last sentence in the staff recommendation which reads: ‘Staff further recommends that the request to defer compliance with Section 18.660.030.B to final plat approval be granted’ as discussed in the hearing tonight.” 205 SE Spokane Street Suite 200 Portland, OR 97202 PHONE 503.221.1131 FAX 503.221.1171 www.hhpr.com Job No.: CGC-03 Date: May 24, 2016 To: Gary Pagenstecher From: Keith Jones Project/Subject: Cemetery Grave 15-foot Setback Zoning Code Text Amendment Request I. REQUEST Description. Crescent Grove Cemetery is located at 9925 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon (1S1W26CD, tax lot 100). Crescent Grove Cemetery is Tigard’s only nonprofit, nondenominational cemetery, and is one of the oldest historic pioneer cemeteries in the Portland Metro Area, with headstones dating back to 1852. The 21.12-acre site is currently developed as a cemetery, with grave plots, mausoleum, office building, maintenance buildings, and access roads throughout the site. The Cemetery recently received approval of a Conditional Use Permit minor modification to allow construction of a new access road and drainage to serve future grave sites in a lawn are at the north end of site. The cemetery now intends to plat the remainder of the site. The City of Tigard Community Development Code, Section 18.330.050(B)(10)(b) currently requires a 15-foot setback for graves from all property lines and significantly reduces the amount of graves that can be achieved on the site. Without the 15-foot setback provision, 2,710 graves can be platted. However, with the 15-foot setback in place this number is reduced by 363 to 2,347 grave sites. Therefore, the Crescent Grove Cemetery has made application to the City to amend the Community Development Code to remove this setback requirement. This request is consistent with the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association’s 1998 position paper on “Zoning and Related Construction Standards for Cemeteries.” Principle 1 states, “Zoning ordinances regulating cemetery development should be geared, as a matter of policy, to maximize the efficient use of acreage for the interment of human remains and related services.” Moreover, given the Portland Metropolitan area’s Urban Growth Boundary, which limits land supply in the region, the need for efficient site planning is most compelling. This request is further supported by St. Anthony’s Cemetery, the only other active cemetery with in the City of Tigard. (See letter of support dated December 11, 2015.) Request. The applicant requests approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to Chapter 18.330 – Conditional Use. Section 18.330.050, Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types to remove the setbacks specific to graves only, as follows: Proposed Code Language: Section 18.330.050(10)(b)(i) – Setbacks for graves only (A) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet; Page 2 of 4 (B) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet; and (C) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. Existing requirements for screening and a minimum setback for the cemetery as a whole will continue to remain in effect, thereby providing a sufficient buffer between uses per Section 18.330.050(10)(c): Adequate fencing shall be provided. A fence of at least four feet in height located at least 2- 1/2 feet from any right-of-way shall completely surround the area and shall meet visual clearance areas; Required setbacks to structures within the cemetery will also continue remain in effect per Section 18.330.050(10)(b)(ii): (A) The front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet; (B) On corner lots and through lots, the setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet on any side facing a street, plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795; (C) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet; and (D) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet. History of Washington County and Tigard Setback Requirements. The cemetery was annexed into the City of Tigard in 1986. Prior to annexation the site was under the jurisdiction of Washington County. With a history of the cemetery going back to 1852, the cemetery far predates zoning regulations. In review of both the 1985 and 1986 Washington County Community Development Codes, there were no provisions requiring a setback for graves, only that the cemetery as a whole was to be fenced and a buffer established. These requirements continue to remain in effect verbatim in the current Washington County code. (Article IV: Development Standards, 430 – Special Use Standards, Section 430-27 Cemetery). A public records request to the City of Tigard to determine the date when the grave setback was established with the Tigard Community Development Code determined that cemeteries were conditional uses in residential areas going back to the City’s first zoning code in 1967. The first mention of the 15-foot grave setback was in 1986 around the same time the property was annexed into the City. Therefore it was the annexation into the City in 1986, 132 years after the cemetery was established in Washington County that the cemetery became subject to Tigard’s setback requirement specific to graves. No minutes were found from the time period form either the Planning Commission or City Council that had discussion of the grave setback prior to adoption. II. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS 18.380.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi- judicial amendments to this title and the zoning district map. These will be referred to as “zoning map and text amendments.” It is recognized that such amendments may be necessary from time to time to reflect changing community conditions, needs and desires; to correct mistakes; and/or to address changes in the law. Response: A text amendment to the Community Development Code is allowed subject to the governing standards and process as further demonstrated in the responses below. Page 3 of 4 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by 18.390.060.G. Response: This request is made subject to the City’s legislative amendment process as governed by 18.390.060.G for which responses are provided below. DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES 18.390.060.G Decision-making considerations 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; Response: The following Statewide Planning Goals are applicable to this request. Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." It requires each city and county to have a citizen involvement program containing six components specified in the goal. It also requires local governments to have a committee for citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor and encourage public participation in planning. Response: This request is made subject to the City’s notification and decision-making process which includes public notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted. It requires that plans be based on "factual information"; that local plans and ordinances be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions and agencies; and that plans be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Response: This request is subject to the City’s legislative land use approval process as codified in the adopted Community Development Code. 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; Response: There are no known federal or state statutes or regulations that preclude the requested text amendment to the remove the 15-foot grave setback. 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; Response: Cemeteries are regulated by Tigard as conditional uses subject to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances which are in compliance with Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (“Functional Plan”). There are no Functional Plan policies specific to cemeteries applicable to this request. Page 4 of 4 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and Response: The following City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals are applicable to this request. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement “To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.” Response: This request is made subject to the City’s notification and decision-making process which includes public notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Goal 2: Land Use Planning "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." Response: This request is subject to the City’s legislative land use approval process as codified in the adopted Community Development Code. 5. Any applicable provisions of the city’s implementing ordinances. Response: The applicable provisions of the city’s implementing ordinances are contained within Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.380 and 18.390 and are addressed in the responses above. III. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard can remove the 15-foot grave setback requirement and continue to regulate cemetery setbacks and screening through Sections 18.330.050(10)(c) and 18.330.050(10)(b)(ii). The additional setback requirements specific to the siting of graves do not appreciably contribute to the public interest and place an unnecessary burden on the ability of cemeteries to plat grave sites in an efficient manner. The applicant has demonstrated that all applicable approval criteria have been met and respectfully requests the City approve this text amendment to delete Section 18.330.050(10)(b)(i) – Setbacks for graves only from the Tigard Community Development Code. Being the only operating non-denominational cemetery in the city of Tigard, eliminating the 15-foot setback code requirement will allow Crescent Grove Cemetery Association to continue to serve the future families of Tigard and surrounding communities for years to come.\ IV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from St Anthony Catholic Church dated December 11, 2015 2. Letter from Trinity Evangelical Church (no date) 3. Site Plan dated 5-24-16 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Memorandum L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_RevisionsMemo_FINAL.docx 808 SW 3rd Avenue Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 Overview of Revisions The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of revisions made to the June 16, 2016, application exhibits based on refinements in response to City of Tigard staff direction. Narrative The revised narrative addresses changes to the grading plan, stormwater facility design, and retaining wall height and location. In addition, the revised narrative includes a request for an exception to the 10-foot buffer provisions of 18.745.050. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan The Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan has been revised to include additional detail about the TRUST model, revise the inundation levels, and provide additional options for treatment. Civil Plans Although most of the civil plan sheets have been revised to reflect changes to the grading plan and stormwater basin, the most significant changes are reflected on the following sheets. Sheet P2.0 Detailed Development Plan and Site Plan The proposed stormwater facility is now shown on this plan Two pond overlooks have been added to the stormwater facility The retaining walls and fencing around the stormwater facility have been revised to provide access at the western and eastern ends of the facility. A pedestrian pathway has been included along the northern edge of the stormwater facility to allow residents to view the facility from above. Sheet P4.0 Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan Revisions to proposed grading to step buildings down from both north to south, and east to west. Modifications to site grading, finished floor elevations, and roadway grades to reduce the amount of grading. To: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Planning Commission City of Tigard From: Li Alligood, Senior Planner Copies: File Date: September 12, 2016 Subject: River Terrace East Multifamily Project: Overview of Revisions to June 16, 2016, Submittal Project No.: 17857 Page 2 River Terrace East Multifamily – Overview of Revisions to June 16, 2016, Submittal September 12, 2016 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_RevisionsMemo_FINAL.docx The height of the walls along Roy Rogers Road have been reduced from 19.5 feet to 8.4 feet (by 11.1 feet) at the highest point of the northern end of the site, and from 10.5 feet to 4.7 feet (by 5.8 feet) at the southern end of the site. Retaining walls along the northern edge of the site have been increased from 4.2 feet to 8.0 feet (by 3.8 feet) at the highest point. Retaining walls up to 8.2 feet in height have been added to the eastern edge of the site of take up the grade difference from east to west. Retaining walls adjacent to the northern edge of the stormwater facility have been reduced from 13.0 feet to 11.5 feet (1.5 feet) at the highest point. Walls adjacent to the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way at the southern edge of the stormwater facility have been reduced from 8.5 feet to 6.4 feet at the highest point. Sheet P5.0 Preliminary Site Cross Sections This sheet has been revised to reflect revisions to Sheet P4.0. Sheet P5.1 Preliminary Site Cross Sections This sheet has been revised to reflect revisions to Sheet P4.0. Landscaping Sheet L1.1 Landscape Plan Additional planting details for the water quality facility have been provided. A cascading waterfall feature has been incorporated into the design. Sheets L1.2-1.3 Landscape Plan Additional detail regarding the design of the open space has been provided. Sheets L2.5-2.6 Landscape Details Additional details about the furnishings for the open space areas have been provided Sheets LS1.1-1.2 Water Quality Facility Revisions to facility landscaping and design, and addition of graphics to illustrate proposal. Tree Canopy Sheets TC.1-TC.3 have been revised to reflect revisions to the site plan. River Terrace East Multifamily Tigard, Oregon Request for Planned Development Concept Plan Approval Planned Development Detailed Development Plan Approval Site Development Review Approval Prepared for West Hills Development Prepared by Otak, Inc. Project No. 17857 April 27, 2016 Resubmitted June 16, 2016 Revised September 12, 2016 R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y i L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak REQUESTS Combined Planned Development Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and Site Development Review approval are requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development. SITE INFORMATION SITE: Lot 1 of the River Terrace East Planned Development, addressed as 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, also described as Tax lots 1400 and 1401 of Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 2S106. The site is located on the east side of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the PGE substation. ZONING: R-25. The subject site is within the River Terrace Plan district. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT(S): West Hills Development Co. 735 SW 158th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97006 (503) 641-7342 Contact: Dan Grimberg 503.641.7342 dgrimberg@arborhomes.com OWNER(S): Arbor Road, LLC 735 SW 158th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97006 Contact: Dan Grimberg 503.641.7342 dgrimberg@arborhomes.com PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM PLANNER: Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Li Alligood, AICP 503.415.2384 li.alligood@otak.com R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y ii L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak CIVIL Otak, Inc. ENGINEER: 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Mike Peebles, PE 503.415.2354 mike.peebles@otak.com ARCHITECT: Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Ben Bortolazzo 503.415.2307 ben.bortolazzo@otak.com LANDSCAPE Otak, Inc. ARCHITECT: 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Steve Dixon, PLA 503.415.2371 steve.dixon@otak.com SURVEYOR: Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Mike Spelts, PLS 503.415.2321 Mike.Spelts@otak.com TRAFFIC Kittelson and Associates, Inc. ENGINEER: 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 Contact: Julia Kuhn, PE 503.228.5230 jkuhn@kittelson.com ENVIRONMENTAL Anchor QEA, LLC CONSULTANT: 6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 333 Tigard, OR 97224 Contact: Greg Summers 503.670.1108 gsummers@anchorqea.com R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y iii L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak GEOTECHNICAL Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc. ENGINEER: 24560 SW Middleton Road Sherwood, OR 97141 Contact: Scott Hardman, P.E. 503.822.5347 shardman.hgsi@frontier.com R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y iv L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak TABLE of CONTENTS Page I. Request ........................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1 III. Compliance with Applicable City of Tigard Community Development Code Provisions ........................................................................................................................ 2 A.Chapter 18.350 Planned Development ............................................................................ 2 B.Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review ................................................................... 16 C.Chapter 18.390 Decision-Making Procedures .............................................................. 17 D.Chapter 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts ................................................................ 17 E.Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District .................................................................. 18 F.Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress, and Circulation .......................................................... 23 G.Chapter 18.715 Density Computations ......................................................................... 26 H.Chapter 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards ......................................................... 26 I.Chapter 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards ............................................. 29 J.Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening ................................................................. 30 K.Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage ....................................... 37 L.Chapter 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements ................................ 39 M.Chapter 18.780 Signs ........................................................................................................ 42 N.Chapter 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan ............................................................................. 43 O.Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas ......................................................................... 44 P.Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards ........................................ 44 Q.Neighborhood Meeting Requirements .......................................................................... 46 IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 46 V. Appendix A.Warranty deeds confirming ownership of subject properties – Washington County Record #2006-000102 B.January 12, 2016. Pre-application conference notes by the City of Tigard staff C.Clean Water Services Water Quality Sensitive Areas Service Provider Letter No. 15-001056 issued July 9, 2015 D.Urban Forestry Plan dated April 22 September 12, 2016, prepared by Otak, Inc. E.Request for 500’ Property Owner Notification and Neighborhood meeting documentation (notice letter, affidavits of mailing and posting notices, neighborhood meeting notes, and meeting attendance list) VI. Impact Studies R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y v L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak A.Geotechnical Engineering Multifamily Report dated March 25, 2016, by Hardman Geotechnical, Inc. B.Memorandum “Transportation Analysis” dated March 15, 2016, by Kittelson Associates, Inc. C.Impact Assessment Report dated April 21, 2016, by Otak, Inc. D.Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan dated April September 9, 2016, by Otak, Inc. VII. Reduced Size Plan Set Civil P0.0 – Cover Sheet with Vicinity Map P1.0 – Existing Conditions Plan P1.1 – Existing Conditions Plan with Aerial Photo P2.0 – Detailed Development Plan & Site Plan P2.1 – Preliminary Access Plan P2.2 – Planned Development Concept Plan P2.3 – Site Setback Plan P2.4 – Shared Outdoor Space Plan P3.0 – Preliminary Composite Utility Plan P4.0 – Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan P5.0 – Preliminary Site Cross Sections P5.1 – Preliminary Site Cross Sections P6.0 – Preliminary Street Cross Sections P6.1 – Street A Preliminary Plan and Profile Landscaping L1.1 –Landscape Plan L1.2 –Landscape Plan L1.3 –Landscape Plan L2.1 – Landscape Details L2.2 – Landscape Details L2.3 – Landscape Details L2.4 – Landscape Details L2.5 – Landscape Details (NEW) L2.6 – Landscape Details (NEW) LS1.1 – Water Quality Facility Planting Plan LS1.2 – Water Quality Facility Planting Notes & Details Tree Canopy TC.1 – Tree Canopy and Soil Volume Plan TC.2 – Tree Canopy and Soil Volume Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y vi L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak TC.3 – Tree Preservation and Removal Plan Architectural A1 – 22-Plex Floorplans-Uphill A2 – 22/21-Plex Floorplans-Uphill/Downhill A3 – 21-Plex Floorplans-Downhill A4 – 22-Plex Elevations-Uphill A5 – 21-Plex Elevations-Downhill A6 – 22/21-Plex Sections-Uphill/Downhill A7 – 21/22-Plex Perspectives-Uphill/Downhill A8 – 12-Plex Floor Plans-Uphill/Downhill A9 – 12-Plex Floor Plans-Downhill A10 – 12-Plex Elevations-Uphill A11– 12-Plex Elevations-Downhill A12– 12-Plex Sections-Uphill/Downhill A13 – 12-Plex Perspectives-Uphill/Downhill A14 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Floor Plans-Uphill A15 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Elevations-Uphill A16 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Sections & Perspectives-Uphill R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 1 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak I.REQUESTS Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and Site Development approval is requested for the proposed River Terrace East multifamily development, which includes 141 multifamily residential units in nine buildings on the multifamily site within the River Terrace East planned development, which consists of two legal lots of record (Tax Lots 1400 and 1401). The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development concept plan on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). The approved River Terrace East planned development concept plan established the maximum number of units for the multifamily site at 150 multifamily units, and established accesses to the subject site from the neighborhood route street (“Street B”) to the east of the site, and from the future local street (“Street A”) east of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the site. Per the Final Order for the River Terrace East planned development, direct access to SW Roy Rogers Road from the site is prohibited. The currently proposed multifamily development project takes its public street access from Streets A and B as approved by the concept plan. A refined Concept Plan for the multifamily site and concurrent Detailed Development Plan and Site Development Review approval is necessary prior to development of the site with multifamily dwellings. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. See Sheets P1.0 Existing Condition Plan and P1.1 Existing Conditions Plan with Aerial Photo for details. The existing dwelling will be removed and replaced with nine buildings. The proposed buildings include four 12-plexes, two 21-unit buildings (with garages on the south side), and two 22-unit buildings (with garages on the north side). Generally, the residential buildings will include four stories of residential units on their north sides and three stories of residential units over ground level garages on the south sides of the buildings. The ninth building is two stories and will contain a clubhouse and a leasing office, as well as seven upper-level residential units. A pool and pool deck will be located adjacent to this building. Together, the proposed buildings contain 55 one-bedroom units, 64 two-bedroom units, and 22 three-bedroom units. See Sheet P2.0 Detailed Planned Development Plan & Site Plan for details. The site slopes from approximately 330 feet at its northeastern corner to 277 feet at the site’s southwestern corner. Based on building access requirements, ADA requirements, and parking lot aisle gradient limitations, it is necessary for the buildings to step down the site from north to south and east to west with drive aisles between garages and parking spaces to be oriented east- to-west with the majority of the connecting driveway areas to run down the slope. In general, the east-west drive aisles slope at a range of 0.5% to 4% to accommodate ADA access. ADA access has been designed to maximum practical possible. North-south portions of the drive aisle slope at a maximum slope of 12% to meet fire department access requirements. Grades were set at R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 2 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak maximums to minimize the height of the retaining walls adjacent to SW Roy Rodgers Road. The vertical separation between the lowest and highest finished floor elevation is 39 feet. It is the project team’s intention that the proposed development plans will receive the necessary planning level approvals from the City of Tigard in summer 2016. It is hoped that grading permits will be issued in late summer 2016, with site grading to begin in fall 2016. Building construction is intended to begin in spring, 2017. Completion of buildings and all site improvements is planned for summer or fall 2017. III.COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS A.CHAPTER 18.350 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Response: The proposal includes a 141-unit multifamily project located on a lot within an approved planned development, and includes a request for concurrent concept plan and detailed development plan approval for the subject site. As such, the application is subject to the City of Tigard’s Planned Development application process and the standards of Chapter 18.350. A. 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; and 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; and 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; and 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; and 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. Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 3 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. Response: The Tigard Planning Commission approved application of the PD Overlay Zone to the site through casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007. B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. Response: The Planning Commission approved Elements 1 and 3 for the River Terrace East planned development through casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007. Element 2, approval of the detailed development plan, was approved for the remainder of the River Terrace East planned development but was deferred for this multifamily parcel. The current application is for Element 1, a Concept Plan, and Element 2, Detailed Development Plan approval, for the multifamily parcel of the River Terrace East planned development. City staff has indicated that a concept plan for the multifamily site must be included as part of this application, although a separate Concept Plan Review application is not required. C. Decision-making process. 1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. Response: The River Terrace East planned development concept plan was approved by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007). The approved concept plan did not address the multifamily site, which is being addressed through this application. 2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan. Response: Concurrent Detailed Development Plan approval is requested through this application. The multifamily site concept plan and consistency of the plans for the multifamily project with the concept plan is addressed below. 3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 4 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The PD Overlay Zone was applied to the entire River Terrace East planned development through casefile PDR2015-00006. The multifamily parcel is Lot 1 of the River Terrace East planned development. D. Concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed plan. In the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the planned development application (i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval); however each required action may be made at the same hearing. (Ord. 06-16) Response: The applicant is requesting approval for a concept plan and detailed development plan, and requests that each action be made at the same hearing. The Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2 and the approval criteria of 18.350.050 are addressed below. The Detailed Development Plan is included as Sheet P2.0 and the approval criteria of 18.350.060 are addressed below. A. Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after 1-1/2 years unless an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a preliminary plat approval or request for extension is filed. Response: The application concept approval for casefile PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007 was granted on August 15, 2015. This application was submitted for approval on April 27, 2016 and resubmitted on June 16, 2016. This is consistent with the time limit provided for by this section. A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional information required by subsection B of this section. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: Response: This application contains all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as specified by Section 18.390.050, plus the additional information required by subsection B of this section. The Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2. 1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include: a.A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant; Response: The applicant’s objective is to develop a multifamily site that combines well- designed, complementary buildings connected with attractive open spaces and pedestrian pathways. The mix of units and types of open spaces, including a pool, passive open space, and a tot lot, are intended to appeal to a range of residents, from individuals to families to seniors. The proposed access drives, sidewalks, and pathways will provide convenient and safe access within and to/from the site for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 5 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak b.An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed; Response: Innovative site planning principles and techniques include the mixing various building types in a coordinated development plan, distribution of open space throughout the site, and mitigation of site slopes through a curvilinear site access design. Accessible pedestrian pathways provide north/south linkages along the eastern boundary of the site, while sidewalks provide those linkages along the western boundary of the site. Proposed site grading will preserve the predominant southwestern trending slope of the site. Some retaining walls and daylight building foundations will be utilized to minimize grading impacts to the site’s natural topography. The architectural style of the proposed development is shown in Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15. The architectural style has been designed to be consistent with the applicable standards of the River Terrace Plan District. c.An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the planned development chapter as expressed in Section 18.350.010; and Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. d.An explanation of how the proposal utilized the “Planning Commissioner’s Toolbox.” Response: The proposal respects responds to the unique topography of the site by stepping the buildings down the slope and connecting the various “levels” with wide staircases. The site design utilizes a modified curvilinear circulation system for vehicles, which allows it to respond to the slope of the site. Proposed architecture is shown on Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15. The proposed architecture is consistent with the River Terrace Community Plan District as described in the response to 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. Many of the recommendations contained in the “Planning Commissioner’s Toolbox” have been codified in the Tigard Community Development Code, specifically in Chapter 18.350 Planned Development as revised by Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District. Compliance with the standards of these chapters is addressed throughout this narrative. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 6 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed. Response: It is the project team’s intention that the proposed development plans will receive the necessary planning level approvals from the City of Tigard in summer 2016. It is hoped that grading permits will be issued in late summer 2016, with site grading to begin in fall 2016. Building construction is intended to begin in spring, 2017. Completion of buildings and all site improvements is planned for summer or fall 2017. 3. A statement of the applicant’s intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall include the applicant’s intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders. Response: It is the intent of the applicant to sell the multifamily site to another developer. Any subsequent land developer and/or home builder will be required to construct consistent with the proposed concept plan and detailed development plan, or to submit revisions to the approved plans. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the director: 1. Existing site conditions; Response: Existing site conditions are illustrated on Sheets P1.0 and P1.1. 2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and their general arrangement on the site; Response: The River Terrace East multifamily site concept, including the types of proposed structures and their general arrangement on the site, is shown on Sheet P2.2. The concept plan proposes multifamily attached residential housing in nine buildings, as well as public and private open space uses. A clubhouse is located at the western boundary of the site. 3. A grading concept; Response: Existing topography is shown on Sheets P1.0 and P1.1. Proposed site grading is illustrated on Sheet P4.0 Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, and site cross sections are shown on Sheets P5.0 and P5.1 Preliminary Site Cross Sections. The site is proposed to be graded in a manner that will preserve the naturally gentle slope of the site. 4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s); Response: Proposed shared open space and landscaping is shown on Sheet P2.2 and Sheet P2.4 Shared Outdoor Space Plan. The site includes a landscaped buffer, usable open space, and a clubhouse with a pool and community room. 5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790; R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 7 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790 is provided as Appendix D and Sheet TC.3 Tree Preservation and Removal Plan, and described in detail in the response to Chapter 18.790 below. The minimum required 33% site and parking lot tree canopy standards of Chapter 18.790 will be satisfied through a combination of street tree plantings and tree plantings in open spaces. 6. Parking concept; Response: A preliminary parking plan is included on Sheet P2.0. Each dwelling unit has at least 1 off-street parking space, and additional parking is available on site. In addition, visitor parking and ADA-compliant parking spaces are indicated. 7. A sign concept; Response: A monument entry “sign wall” is proposed at the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the stormwater facility and “Street A.” As proposed, the sign would be installed on a reinforced brick wall and flanked by reinforced CMU columns with stone veneer and precast concrete caps. The proposed sign and reinforced CMU column are illustrated on Sheet L2.3. 8. A streets and utility concept; and Response: The vehicular circulation concept is shown on Sheet P2.2. The utility concept is provided on Sheet P3.0 Preliminary Composite Utility Plan. The proposed utility systems are described in this application narrative as well as in the Impact Assessment Report C in Section VI of this report. Clean Water Services plans on constructing a sanitary sewer lift station in the southwestern portion of a companion subdivision by West Hills Development on the west side of Roy Rogers Road. Sanitary sewage from River Terrace East and from the South Cooper Mountain area of Beaverton will drain to this lift stations, and then be pumped up in a force main to the existing Barrows Road sanitary sewer trunk line. The locations of stormwater treatment facilities are shown on Sheet P3.0. The regional stormwater facility to the east of Roy Rogers Road, located within the public right-of-way, will serve the multifamily site, the contributing areas from Roy Rogers Road and Street A, and the offsite power substation. The pond will outfall to an existing roadside ditch along Roy Rogers, which conveys flows south to an existing natural drainage south of the proposed River Terrace Northwest subdivision. This drainage crosses beneath Roy Rogers Road in an existing culvert. Stormwater from Street A and the eastern half of Roy Rogers Road will be conveyed to the regional stormwater facility within the Roy Rogers Road right- of-way. 9. Structure setback and development standards concept, including the proposed residential density target if applicable. Response: Sheet P2.0 shows the proposed location of the structures, Sheet P2.2 shows the proposed building placement on the site, and Sheet P2.3 Site Setback Plan illustrates setbacks from property lines and between structures. The approved 211 attached and detached single-family units and the proposed 141 multifamily units falls within the minimum/maximum housing opportunity range of 340 to R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 8 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 424 units calculated according to the Density Calculation standards of Section 18.715. No modifications to the multifamily site’s dimension standards are proposed. C. Allowable uses. 1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are allowed with planned development approval: a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district; b. Single-family detached and attached residential units; Response: The proposed development will include 8 multifamily residential buildings and 1 clubhouse with 7 dwelling units above. “Multifamily residential” is an allowed use in the R- 25 zone per table 18.510.1 of the Community Development Code. Response: Per city staff, the concept plan approved by casefile PDR2015-00006 for the River Terrace East planned development did not adequately address the multifamily site. Although a Concept Plan Review application is not required, a Concept Plan and findings for these approval criteria are necessary to make findings of consistency between the Detailed Development Plan and the Concept Plan. A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural features of the site. Response: The concept plan approved by PDR2015-00006 includes specific designations for open space within the River Terrace East planned development. The concept plan for the multifamily development is shown on Sheet P2.2 and identifies areas of open space on the subject site and their intended level and type of us. There are no natural features on the subject site. Staff has identified the site’s approximately 10 percent slope as the distinguishing natural feature of the site. The September 12, 2016, submittal has been revised to reduce the amount of grading required on the site, respond to the existing east-west fall line of the site, and allow the proposed buildings step down both from north-south and from east-west. As a result of the revised grading plan, the height of the retaining walls along Roy Rogers Road has been reduced by several feet and the pedestrian environment has been enhanced. This criterion is met. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Response: The subject site does not contain any natural resources. Due to the site topography, significant grading will be required and preservation of the existing trees is not possible. Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3 Preliminary Landscape Plan and Sheet TC.3 show the existing trees on and adjacent to the site, protection measures, and the number and type of replacement trees to be planted on the site. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 9 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. Response: Sheets P2.0 and Sheet P2.2 illustrate how the proposed development will integrate into the approved River Terrace East planned development by providing a transition between the single-family lots to the east and the lower-density development to the west of Roy Rogers Road. This transition will be provided by a gradual intensity of uses as well as landscaped buffers. The architectural style of the buildings is intended to complement the planned townhouse and single-family development to the east. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. Response: Sheet P2.2 illustrates a proposed pedestrian circulation system that connects pedestrians from the northern/upper area of the site to the southern/lower area of the site through pathways along the western and eastern boundaries as well as through the center of the site. Pedestrian connections are also provided to Roy Rogers Road and the future local street to the south. These pedestrian pathways are shorter than vehicular routes on the site. The site is located more than a mile from transit and does not include pedestrian connections to transit. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. Response: Sheet P2.2 identifies the proposed multifamily uses on the site and the location of individual buildings on the site. All of the proposed dwellings are located within attached multifamily buildings as shown. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single- family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 10 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. The site design responds to the natural site topography by “stepping” buildings and roadways from both north-south and east-west. Proposed active open spaces are proposed along an east-west access to take advantage of the southern exposure and views provided by the natural slope of the site. A.General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. Response:The applicant has submitted an application form and supporting plans and this application narrative containing all of the general information required for a Type III procedure as required by Section 18.390.050; the additional information required by 18.350.040.B; and responses to the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. This requirement is met. B.Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information: 1. Contour intervals of one foot, unless otherwise approved by the director, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed. Response: The Detailed Development Plan & Site Plan is included as Sheet P2.0. Sheets P1.0 and P1.1 include site topography with 2-foot contour intervals and spot elevations at breaks in grade, and as needed. 2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, building construction, and landscaping for each phase. Response: The proposed multifamily development will be developed in one phase. Site construction is expected to be initiated in late summer 2016. Site construction will include demolition, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, and public improvements. Building construction is expected to be initiated in spring 2017 and is expected to be completed within one year. Landscaping will occur concurrently with building construction. 3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants. Response: No restrictions or covenants are proposed. C.Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions, with the following modifications: Response: The specific standards of Section 18.350.060.C are superseded by Code Section 18.660.070.B. See the response to that section below. The specific standards of Section 18.350.060.C are not included in this report. A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: A. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 11 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The approved planned development concept plan did not provide details regarding the multifamily site design. The proposed Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2, and the proposed Development Plan is included as Sheet P2.0. The building placement, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation, and usable open space demonstrated on Sheet P2.0 are consistent with the Concept Plan. This criterion is met. B. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420, Partitions, and 18.430, Subdivisions, shall be met if applicable; Response: No land division is proposed. This criterion is not applicable. C. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the commission that promotes the purpose of this chapter. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed below. The applicant shall respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and clearly identify where their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application of the standards. For those chapters not specifically exempted, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested. 1. Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not applicable to planned development reviews. The detailed development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as the site development review. Response: The application is being submitted for Detailed Development Plan review approval. Chapter 18.360 is not applicable. 2. Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.705 is detailed below. 3. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district, using the minimum lot size established for that district. Response: The permitted maximum density for this site is 150 units, as approved by casefile PDR2015-00006. 141 units are proposed. This criterion is met. 4. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The commission may grant an exception to the landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall landscape plan was prepared by a licensed landscape architect, provides for 20% of the net site area to be professionally landscaped, and meets the intent of the specific standard being modified. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.745 is detailed below. An exception to the buffer standards contained in 18.745.050 has been requested to allow a portion of a structure within the 10-foot buffer along Roy Rogers Road. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 12 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak The overall site plan was prepared by David Haynes, PLA, a licensed landscaped architect. More than 20% of the net site area will be professionally landscaped. The intent of the buffer standards is contained in 18.745.050.A.1: It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. A buffer along the western and southern boundaries of the property is required due to the presence of Roy Rogers Road, an arterial. The proposed landscaping plan provides significant landscaping along the perimeters of the site to eliminate “visual pollution” to and from the site. The portion of the site where the buffer exception is required is adjacent to a planned stormwater facility, which will be landscaped and include community amenities. The distance between the nearest portion of the building and Roy Rogers Road would be approximately 15 feet, a further distance than the required buffer area. 5. Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.765 is detailed below. 6. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Response: A monument “entry sign wall” has been proposed. Compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.780 is detailed below. 7. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.795 is detailed below. 8. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks, and 18.810.060, Lots. Response: No exceptions to the Street and Utility Improvement standards of Chapter 18.810 are requested. This criterion is met. D. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. Response: The subject site slopes significantly from the northeast to southwest corner, and substantial grading is required to prepare the site for development. The grading plan has been revised to minimize the amount of grading needed to construct the proposed development on the site, in order to retain as much of the natural slope as possible. The existing trees on the site will be removed and will be replaced per Sheet P4.0. This criterion is met. b. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation; and R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 13 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The proposed structures will be located on structural fill designed to accommodate the load of the buildings. The underlying ground is stable and not severely sloped. A geotechnical study has been prepared for the proposed development by Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc. That study is included as Report A in Section VI of this application. The recommendations of the study will be utilized in developing the final grading plan for the project. This criterion is met. c. Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible. Response: As illustrated on Sheet P2.0, each of the buildings has been situated so that the long axes of the buildings have east-to-west orientations to maximize solar gain. This criterion is met. 2. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a.Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses; e.g., between single-family and multifamily residential, and residential and commercial uses; Response: The site is located adjacent to a vacant site in the R-7 Zone and adjacent to Roy Rogers Road, an arterial roadway. Per Table 18.745.1 Buffer Matrix and the pre- application conference notes, a 10-ft buffer is required around the perimeter of the site. The applicant proposes a 10-ft buffer as illustrated on Sheet L1.2. An exception to the buffer requirement has been requested for a portion of the site adjacent to Roy Rogers Road. With an approved exception, this criterion is met. b.On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: i. What needs to be screened; ii. The direction from which it is needed; and iii. Whether the screening needs to be year-round. Response: The proposed multifamily development will include four trash and recycling enclosures located in distinct areas: the northwest corner of the site; the central eastern edge of the site; the southwest corner of the apartment area; and to the west of the recreation building. These enclosures will be constructed of CMU walls with steel gates. The location relatively deep into the parking area and site will provide adequate screening from adjoining properties. Proposed parking areas are interior to the site and are minimally visible. Visitor/ADA parking in the southeast corner of the site will be visible from the southern-most lots of the adjacent site and will be screened by landscaping. This criterion is met. 3.Privacy and noise. Nonresidential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Response: No nonresidential structures which will abut existing dwellings are included within the project. This criterion is not applicable. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 14 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 4.Exterior elevations—Single-family attached and multiple-family structures. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a. Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; b. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and c. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height. Response: As illustrated in Sheets A4, A5, A10, A11, and A15, the proposed multifamily dwelling design includes offsets at a minimum of every 30 feet. The offsets are provided by a combination of 10-foot wide private patios or balconies for each unit and breaks in roof elevations of 4 or more feet in height. This standard is met. 5.Private outdoor area—Residential use: a. Exclusive of any other required open space facility, each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet; b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space. Response: Per Section 18.660.070 Planned Developments, this provision applies to multifamily development, and is applicable to the proposal. Each ground-level residential dwelling unit has an outdoor private area of 60 square feet with depths of 6 feet and widths of 10 feet. The private outdoor spaces are recessed 5 foot and extend 1 foot beyond the façade, which provides enclosure on three sides. 6.Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas—Residential use: a. Exclusive of any other required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: i. Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; ii. Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. b. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; c. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: i. Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities; ii. Additional outdoor active use open space facilities; iii. Indoor recreation center; or iv. A combination of the above. Response: Per Section 18.660.070 Planned Developments, this provision applies to multifamily development, and is applicable to the proposal There are no minimum “outdoor passive” or “outdoor active” use open space facility requirements for sites within the River Terrace Plan District, and all shared outdoor recreation space applies to this requirement. Sheet P2.4 illustrates the type and size of the proposed shared open space. The proposed 141 residential units will be a mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed development is required to provide 30,400 square feet of R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 15 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak shared usable outdoor recreation areas to satisfy subsection (a) of this standard. The proposed development plans provide for the following areas to be provided as shared usable outdoor recreation areas: Recreation Area Minimum Required Provided Pool, deck, and pool lawn area 5,781 square feet Clubhouse recreation room 912 square feet Outdoor space 26,148 square feet Total Usable Active Open Space provided 30,400 34,213 square feet The shared outdoor recreation spaces consist of a selection of small plazas, lawn areas, active areas for badminton and bocce, and trails. All shared spaces are located adjacent to residential units, which will provide for passive surveillance of the area. The interior amenity room of the clubhouse will be visible from the pool deck area. Outdoor recreation areas are dispersed throughout the development and include lawn areas, a “tot lot”, terraced seating areas, and a lawn area between the two northernmost buildings. All of the areas are faced by at least one building façade, and in some cases many. The pedestrian path connecting the River Terrace East subdivision with SW Roy Rogers Rd is located along the northern edge of the site and is within sight of the northernmost units. 7.Access and circulation: a. The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; b. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles; and c. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the project site. Response: The proposed development requires a minimum of two access points, and two access points are provided. The site plan has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. The project development team submitted the site plan to the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (TVFRD), and they confirmed that the site plan meets its access requirements. 1 Sheet P2.1 Preliminary Access Plan demonstrates site access and fire access. 8.Landscaping and open space—Residential development. In addition to the buffering and screening requirements of paragraph 2 of this subsection D, and any minimal use open space facilities, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped. Response: The proposed development plans call for 53,485 square feet of landscaped area on the site, or 24.5% of the 218,100 square foot development site area. This area will include trees and shrubs which will provide screening and buffering for the parking area. The landscape plan is included as Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3and was prepared by and under the direction of Steve Dixon, PLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. 1 E-mail from John Wolff, Deputy Fire Marshal II, received March 23, 2016. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 16 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 9.Public transit: Response: There currently is no public transit available adjacent to or within a quarter mile of the project site. This standard is not applicable. 10.Parking. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765: Response: Sheet P2.0 illustrates the layout of the parking areas on site. The proposed parking areas within the project have been designed consistent with the applicable design standards of Chapter 18.765. Each dwelling is provided with a dedicated off-street parking space. See the response to Chapter 18.765 below. 11.Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. Response: The proposed storm drainage system within the site has been designed consistent with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.810. See the response Chapter 18.810 below and the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan included as Impact Study D in Section VI of this report. 12.Floodplain dedication. Where landfill and/or development are allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the city shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. Response: The project site does not include any 100-year floodplain. This standard is not applicable. 13.Shared open space facilities. These requirements are applicable to residential planned developments only. The detailed development plan shall designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as a shared open space facility. Response: Per 18.660.070.E, the shared open space facility requirements of paragraph 18.350.070.D.13 shall not apply and the open space requirements and development enhancements of 18.660.070.E.1-3 apply in their place. See the response to Chapter 18.660 below. 14.Open space conveyance: Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a plan adopted by the city is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. Response: No open space conveyance from the subject site is anticipated at this time. This section is not applicable. B.CHAPTER 18.360 – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Response: The standards of Subsection 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria supersede the standards of this chapter. This chapter is therefore not applicable. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 17 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak C.CHAPTER 18.390 – DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES Response: This application is for Planned Development Concept Plan approval and Detailed Development Review, each of which is subject to Type III land use review. The application includes the information requested on the application form; addresses the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; and is accompanied by the required fee. A Request for 500’ Property Owner Notification has been submitted, and the required impact study is included in Section VI. D.CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Response:The site is zoned R-25, which is a Medium High-Density Residential designation. Table 18.510.1 of the Community Development lists permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the residential zones. “Household Living” and “Multifamily Units” are listed as a permitted uses in the R-25 district. Table 18.521.2 provides a tabulation of minimum development standards for each of the commercial districts. Some of these standards are superseded by the standards of section 18.660.070. See Table 1 for an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the standards of the R-25 Zone. Table 1: Analysis of Proposal Compliance with R-25 Zone Standards. Standard Required Proposed Minimum lot size MF: 1,480 sq. ft. Not applicable Average lot width None Not applicable Minimum/maximum setbacks Minimum front yard Minimum side yard Minimum rear yard Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. Not applicable Maximum building height 45 ft. Not applicable Maximum site coverage 80% 75.5% Minimum landscape requirement 20% 24.5% Minimum density 23.54 du/ac 29.56 du/ac Maximum density 29.43 du/ac The proposal will comply with all applicable standards of the R-25 Zone, with the exception of the maximum density. The proposal includes 141 dwelling units, at a density of 29.56 dwelling units per acre. Casefile PDR2015-00006 approved between 120 and 150 dwelling units on the multifamily site, which was within the total number of units permitted within the River Terrace East planned development. These standards are met. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 18 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak E.CHAPTER 18.660 - RIVER TERRACE PLAN DISTRICT A. This chapter applies to all property that is located in the River Terrace Plan District…The standards and requirements in this chapter apply in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other applicable provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC). Response: The River Terrace East planned development, including the subject site, is located within the River Terrace Plan District boundary, and regulations of this chapter are applicable. B.Approval Standard. Land use applications for Subdivisions, Partitions, Planned Developments, Site Development Reviews, and Conditional Uses may be approved when the applicable standards in Subsection 18.660.030.E are met by the applicant … Response: This application is for a planned development detailed plan review, and this standard is applicable. Compliance with the applicable standards of 18.660.030.E is addressed below. C.Deferral of Compliance. Response: Per the Final Order for casefile PDR2015-00006, compliance with the requirements of this Chapter has been deferred until final plat approval. Polygon Northwest and the applicant will work with the City to develop a development agreement that addresses the items listed in Condition 62 of the Final Order. D.Exception. Response: No exceptions are requested. This section is not applicable. E.Additional Standards. 1.Infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation systems, including but not limited to pump stations and trunk lines, shall be located and designed to serve the proposed development and not unduly or unnecessarily restrict the ability of any other property to develop in accordance with the applicable River Terrace Infrastructure Master Plan. Response: As illustrated in Sheet P3.0 Preliminary Composite Utility plan, the proposed infrastructure improvements will be located and designed to serve the proposed development, and the proposal does not restrict the ability of any other property to develop in accordance with the applicable River Terrace Infrastructure Master Plan (RTIMP). This standard is met. 2.Infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, and stormwater shall be placed in easements that are located, wherever possible, within existing or future rights-of-way. Easements and rights-of-way shall extend through and to the edge of the development site at such locations that would maximize the function and availability of the easement and right-of-way to serve adjacent and surrounding properties. Response: As illustrated in Sheet P3.0, the infrastructure improvements will be located in rights-of-way or easements. This standard is met. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 19 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 3.Development in water pressure zone 550 shall either provide or demonstrate that there is sufficient water capacity in water pressure zone 550 to serve the proposed development, or that it can be served by another water pressure zone that has sufficient capacity, to the satisfaction of the city engineer and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue during the land use review process. Response: This development will be served by the 410 water pressure zone. This standard is not applicable. 4.Development in the north and south sewer sub-basins shall demonstrate, where applicable, that there is sufficient pump station capacity and associated force mains to serve the proposed development, or that it can be served by other system improvements, to the satisfaction of the city engineer and Clean Water Services during the land use review process. Response: The approved plans for the River Terrace East planned development indicate that sewer mains will be constructed throughout the development to convey flow to the south and west, crossing Roy Rogers Road and connecting to the proposed gravity sewer located in the River Terrace Northwest Subdivision, and continuing on to a new CWS sanitary sewer pump station. This site is located within the River Terrace East planned development and will be served by these mains. This standard is met. 5.If compliance with stormwater management standards is dependent upon an off-site conveyance system or an on- or off-site regional facility that has not yet been provided, the applicant may propose alternative and/or interim systems and facilities as described in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. Response: The stormwater management system for the River Terrace East multifamily development is proposed in a regional facility (Facility WQ2_7a from the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan) located southwest of the site in a portion of the existing Washington County “additional” right-of-way on the east side of Roy Rogers Road. See Sheet P3.0. The design of the facility will accommodate the proposed runoff from the east side of the proposed roadway improvements on Roy Rogers Road (MSTIP project), Street A, the power substation to the north, and the subject site. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility and will outfall to the existing drainage to the south. The facility maximizes the space available, but does not have capacity to meet the City’s detention requirements. A downstream regional pond described below will be used to compensate for the additional volume required, so detention standards are met at the Point of Compliance. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design is currently proposing some modifications to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and the approved River Terrace East Planned Development stormwater management plan to combine/revise some proposed regional facilities and account for detention of basin flows in the existing wetland/pond that is south and east of the multifamily parcel (Facility T2_6). The final stormwater plan for the area proposes to lessen the detention volume requirements of the multifamily storm facility by utilizing the additional storage volume available in the regional facility. Otak and Pacific Community Design are combining TRUST models to verify compliance with City standards. Additional coordination and modelling will be completed with final design and resolution of regional stormwater facilities. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 20 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak F.Other Provisions 1.Unless expressly authorized in a development approval, no person shall impose a private fee or any charge whatsoever that prohibits, restricts, or impairs adjacent or surrounding properties from accessing a public facility, easement, or service. 2.For the purposes of this section, an ordinance or resolution adopting an SDC, utility fee, or other charge to fund public facilities and/or services described in this section shall be deemed effective if it has taken effect and the time for any legal challenges has expired or any legal challenge has been finally decided. Response: The applicant does not intend to impose a private fee or any charge that prohibits, restricts, or impairs an adjoining property from accessing a public easement, facility, or service or denies access to such an easement, facility, or service. The applicant understands that any ordinance or resolution adopting charges will be deemed effective if it has taken effect. This standard is met. A. Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Site Development Review Approval Criteria. In addition to the approval criteria in Section 18.330.030, Sections 18.350.050 and 070, and Section 18.360.090, the following approval criterion shall apply to all Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Site Development Review applications in River Terrace. 1.Unless the applicable approval authority determines it is in the public interest to make modifications, the applicant shall design construct all streets, street extensions, and intersections to conform to: a.The River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum; and b. The street spacing and connectivity standards of this chapter, the TCDC, and Washington County, where applicable; and c. The approved plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions of abutting properties, if any, as to width and general direction. 2. The development shall not impede the future use or development of adjacent property in River Terrace not under the control or ownership of the applicant proposing the conditional use, planned development, multifamily, or commercial development. Response: The applicant requests Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Plan Review approval and Site Development Review approval. These criteria are applicable. A preliminary plat for the River Terrace East planned development, which includes the subject site, was approved through casefile PDR2015-00006. The proposed street connections are designed consistent with that approval. The site is bounded to the north by the developed PGE substation site, to the west by the SW Roy Rogers Street public right-of-way, and to the south by the future Street A public right-of-way. The plans for the River Terrace East multifamily project will not impede development or use of adjacent properties. This criterion is met. The requirements of Chapter 18.350 shall apply to all planned developments in River Terrace, except as modified below. Response: The subject site is located within the River Terrace East planned development, which was approved through casefile PDR2015-00006, and this section is applicable. A.Density Calculation. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 21 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The River Terrace East planned development contains 5.61 acres in the R-4.5 zone, 25.37 acres in the R-7 zone, and 12.94 acres in the R-25 zone. The PDR application proposed 211 single-family dwellings and 120-150 multifamily units. The Planning Commission found that the proposed unit count of 331-362 dwelling units was within the permitted density range of 328-410 units. This standard is met. B. Development Standards. 1.Lot dimensions. The minimum lot area and lot width standards of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any lots, including those lots abutting right-of-way, with the following exception: Lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall meet the minimum lot area and lot width standards of the underlying base zone. Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. 2.Building height. The maximum building height standard of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any building on any lot, including those lots abutting right-of-way, with the following exception: Buildings on lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall be set back one additional foot for every two feet of height above the maximum height allowed on the side of the lot abutting the perimeter. Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. 3.Setbacks. The setback standards of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any building on any lot, including those lots abutting right-of-way, except as follows: a. All buildings on lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall meet the setback standard of the underlying base zone or the abutting zone… Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. b. All buildings shall meet the minimum requirements of the Oregon Specialty Codes and the Oregon Fire Code. Response: All buildings within the River Terrace East multifamily site will be subject to the building and fire codes which are effective at the time of application for a building permit. c. All garages and carports shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet on the side of the lot from which vehicle access is taken from a public right-of-way. If vehicle access is taken from a private street or alley, this setback may be reduced to 0 feet where proper clearances for turning and backing movements are provided. Response: Each dwelling unit in the 8 residential-only buildings is provided with a garage. The garage faces are set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the back of walkways, as shown on Sheet P2.0. This standard is met. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 22 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak d. Where the applicant proposes to reduce the underlying base zone setbacks for buildings on lots not included in Subsection B.3.a above, the applicant shall specify the proposed setbacks on either a lot- by-lot or area-wide basis. Response: No reduction to the base zone setbacks is proposed. This standard is not applicable. 4.Planning Commission Discretion. Response: No exceptions to setbacks are requested. This standard is not applicable. C. Private Outdoor Area—Residential Use. The private outdoor area requirements of 18.350.070.D.5 shall only apply to multifamily development. Response: This standard is addressed under the requirements of 18.350.070.D. D. Shared Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Facility Areas—Residential Use. The shared outdoor recreation and open space requirements of 18.350.070.D.6 shall only apply to multifamily development. Response: This standard is addressed under the requirements of 18.350.070.D. E. Shared Open Space Facilities. The shared open space facility requirements of Subsection 18.350.070.D.13 shall not apply. In lieu of these requirements, the following open space requirements and development enhancements shall apply. Response: These standards were addressed during the River Terrace East planned development review and are not applicable to the proposed development. F. Open Space Conveyance. The standards of Subsection 18.350.070.D.14 shall apply to the conveyance of open space in River Terrace. The standards of Subsection 18.810.080.B shall not apply. Response: This standard is superseded by the requirements of 18.350.070.D and is not applicable. G. Street Design Standards. The standards of Chapter 18.810 shall apply in addition to the specific provisions for public skinny streets, private streets, and private alleys in Subsections 18.660.080.D and E. Response: The street design standards of Subsection 18.810 are addressed below. H. Phased Development. Response: Phased development is not proposed. This standard is not applicable. I. Design Standards for Single-Family Dwelling Units and Duplexes. Response: The proposed development does not include any detached or attached single family residences. These standards are not applicable. J. Block Perimeter. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed a total of 1,600 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 23 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak significant habitat areas, bodies of water, pre-existing development, or an arterial or collector street along which the city has identified a need to minimize the number of intersections. Response: Section 18.810.040 provides objectives for the design of blocks. The site circulation is provided by access aisles; no streets are proposed. In addition, the site is located adjacent to Roy Rogers Road, a collector street, and new intersections at this location are prohibited. This standard is not applicable. A. Street Design –Arterial Streets Response: The site abuts SW Roy Rogers Road, which is a Washington County arterial street. The final street cross-sections were determined as part of the River Terrace East planned development concept plan approval. The application will provide the cross-sections required by the Final Order for casefile PDR2015-00006. This standard is met. B. Public Skinny Streets and Private Streets. Response: The River Terrace East planned development includes Street A, which will intersect with SW Roy Rogers Road to the southwest of the site. Sheet P6.1 illustrates the preliminary plan and profile for this street. The approved design for Street A is a skinny street that meets the skinny street options of Figure 18.810.6.B. This standard is met. F.CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION Response: The proposal will result in the construction of new structures. These provisions are applicable. A.Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the city. B.Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. C.Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 2. Copies of the CWSs, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the city. D.Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in 18.705.030.H and I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: A preliminary access plan has been included as Sheet P2.1. The southern access of the site connects directly to proposed Street A, which is a public local street. Street A intersects with Roy Rogers Road and provides access to the site. Direct access to Roy Rogers Road is not R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 24 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak permitted and is not proposed. These standards are met. E.Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N. (Note: accurate reference is 18.810.130.O) Response: The proposed accesses will require curb cuts. The curb cuts will meet the standards of 18.810.030.NO. This standard is met. F.Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multifamily developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities. Response: The proposed development includes 141 dwelling units in 9 buildings. The individual dwellings are accessed through interior corridors, and each building has one primary entrance. As shown in Sheet P2.0, walkways connect each building to the parking area, common open space, and recreation facilities. This standard is met. 2. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, on-site walkways are separated from the parking areas and drive aisles on site by 6-inch curbs. The walkways are a minimum of four feet in width, are free from obstructions, and are ADA compliant. This standard is met. 3. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, other pervious paving surfaces, etc. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, the on-site walkways will be paved with hard concrete. These standards are met. G.Access management. 1.An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Response: An access report prepared by Kittelson and Associates is included as Impact Study B in Section VI of this application narrative. This standard is met. 2.Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 25 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: Roy Rogers Road is an arterial street; Street A to the south of the site is a local street. The proposed southern access is located approximately 250 feet from the Roy Rogers Road intersection, which exceeds the 150 feet minimum. This standard is met. 3.The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. Response: Roy Rogers Road is an arterial street, and no driveway access is proposed to Roy Rogers Road. This standard is met. 4.The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Response: No public streets are proposed within the multifamily site. This standard is not applicable. H.Minimum access requirements for residential use. 1.Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multifamily residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Tables 18.705.1 and 18.705.2. Response: The proposed project includes 141 dwelling units. As shown on Sheet P2.1, the site will have two driveway access points: the northeastern access includes 24 feet of paving, two 6-inch curbs, and a 5-6 foot walkway (30-31 feet total); the southeastern access includes 24 feet of paving, two 6-inch curbs, 18 inches of landscaping, and a 6-foot walk (32.5 feet total). Compliance with these standards is detailed below. These standards are met. Standard Required Proposed Comments Dwelling Units 50-100 141 100 units is the highest number listed Minimum # of Driveways Required 2 2 This standard is met. Minimum Access Required 30 ft. 30-32.5 ft. This standard is met. Minimum Pavement Sidewalks, Etc. 24 ft., 6 in curbs, and 5 ft. walkway required 24 ft., 6 in. curbs, 5- 6 ft. walkway, 18 in landscaping (SE) This standard is met. 2.Vehicular access to multifamily structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. Response: Vehicular access to each structure is provided within 50 feet of the main access point. This standard is met. 3.Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 26 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The plans for the project’s internal circulation system have been reviewed with the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District’s plan reviewer in order that all applicable Uniform Fire Code provisions can be satisfied. This standard is met. G.CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS Response: The River Terrace East planned development contains 5.61 acres in the R-4.5 zone, 25.37 acres in the R-7 zone, and 12.94 acres in the R-25 zone. The PDR application proposed 211 single-family dwellings and 120-150 multifamily units. The Planning Commission found that the proposed unit count of 331-362 dwelling units was within the permitted density range of 328-410 units. This standard is met. H.CHAPTER 18.720 - DESIGN COMPATABILITY STANDARDS A.When provisions apply. These provisions apply to all multi-family and attached single-family residential projects in zoning districts R-4.5 through R-40 that abut property zoned for single-family residential development. Response: The proposed multifamily development site is zoned R-25 and abuts property zoned R-7, which is zoned for attached and detached single-family homes. These standards are applicable. B.Site design review. All residential development to which these provisions apply shall be subject to site design review. In addition to the design standards of this chapter, the development requirements of the underlying zone and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, shall apply Response: The provisions of this section are applicable to the subject site, and the requirements of the underlying R-25 Zone apply. The requirements of 18.350.070 supersede the requirements of Chapter 18.360. A.Density transition. When a multifamily or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply: 1.Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line or three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line. Response: Per 18.660.020 Applicability, in the event of a conflict between the standards and requirements of Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District and other standards and requirements, the standards and requirements of Chapter 18.660 prevail. Per 18.660.070.B.2, the maximum building height of the underlying R-25 base zone shall not apply to this site. Therefore, there is no height limit applicable to this site. 2.Building planes for multifamily dwellings within 50 feet of the common property line(s) and abutting public rights-of-way shall be subject to the following standards: Response: See Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15 for detailed architectural elevations. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 27 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak a.No building plane that faces the common property line shall exceed 960 square feet within 30 feet or 1,400 square feet within 50 feet of the property line; b.No building plane shall have a dimension greater than 40 feet in length or 35 feet in height; c.If more than one building plane faces a property line and building planes align at a common distance from the line, the building planes shall be horizontally separated by at least 20 feet. For purposes of this standard, “common distance” shall be defined as within 12 feet; d.Building plane is defined as a surface that includes a building wall that extends from the ground to the top of each wall of a structure. Response: No proposed buildings are located within 30 feet of a common property line. Two of the proposed buildings, a 12-plex and a 21/22-plex, are located within 50 feet of the eastern property line and are subject to these standards. Each of the subject building planes is less than 1,400 square feet. Though the buildings are both within 50 feet of the common property lines, the distances between planes exceed 20 feet. These standards are met. B.Front façades. All primary ground-floor common entries or individual unit entries of street frontage units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof pediments are encourages for structures facing a street to create visual interest. Response: The site has street frontage along the proposed Street A and SW Roy Rogers Road. The buildings are distributed throughout the site and oriented east-west to provide maximum solar access for all units. All primary ground-floor common entries for all buildings face the interior access drives. The front elevations of all structures are divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less by the use of recesses, projections, material changes and bay windows. The following projecting features are being utilized: porches, balconies, bays, and roof pediments. This standard is met. C.Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the street upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main entrance oriented to either street or at the corner. Response: All buildings are oriented with their main entrance facing access drives. See Sheet P2.0. This standard is met. D. Unit definition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay windows on the street-facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the street. Ground-level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. Response: Each dwelling unit is emphasized with a balcony or porch and a roof gable. In many cases, units are also emphasized by bay windows. All ground-level units have approximately 60 sf porches with the smallest dimension being 6 feet. This standard is met. E.Roof lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall be a minimum four-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 28 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: Roof-line offsets are provided at intervals of 40 feet or less or the main elevations; the roof line offsets provide at least a 4-foot variation. This standard is met. F.Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure’s street-facing elevation(s). Response: All buildings use trim on the roof lines, porches, windows and doors of all elevations. This standard is met. G.Mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground-level view. Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design. Response: No roof-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed. This standard is not applicable. H.Parking. Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from the street, parking must be provided: 1.In a garage that is attached to the primary structure; 2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; or 3.In a parking area at the side or rear of the site. Response: The site contains 9 buildings, none of which are the “primary” structure. As shown on Sheet P2.0, parking and loading areas are located to the side and rear of the clubhouse building, and to the interior of the site. These standards are met. I.Pedestrian circulation. 1.The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following: a.Streets abutting the site; b.Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities; c.Parking areas; d.Shared open space and play areas; e. Abutting transit stops; and f.Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints. 2.There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200 linear feet of street frontage. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, the on-site pedestrian circulation system is continuous and connects the ground-level entrances of the structures on the site to the proposed Street A and SW Roy Rogers Road; the clubhouse building; parking areas; and shared open space. There are no abutting transit stops. Three pedestrian connections are provided to the abutting street frontages. The proposed Street A frontage is approximately 230 feet, and the SW Roy Rogers Road frontage is approximately 500 feet. One pedestrian connection, a sidewalk adjacent to the access drive, is proposed at the midway point of the Street A frontage. Additional connections are not feasible due to the 12-foot difference in grade between the western portion of the site and R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 29 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak the sidewalk below. Two pedestrian connections are proposed to SW Roy Rogers Road: one at the southern and northern ends of the site. Additional pedestrian connections along the SW Roy Rogers Road frontage are not possible due to the significant difference in grade (up to 19.58.4 feet) between much of the site and street. These standards are met. I.CHAPTER 18.730 - EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A.Distance between multifamily residential structure and other structures on site. 1.To provide privacy, light, air, and access to the multiple and attached residential dwellings within a development, the following separations shall apply: Response: See Sheet P2.3 for details. a.Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25-foot separation; Response: Building separation between windowed walls ranges from a minimum of 31 feet up to a maximum of 74 feet. This standard is met. b.Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15-foot separation; Response: During the architectural design of the buildings and units, a conscious effort was made to activate the end walls of buildings. Consequently, windowed unit walls do not face blank walls. This standard is met. c.Buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10-foot separation; Response: The only blank walls belong to ground level garages. These garages face each other with distances similar to those of window-to-window separations (31-74 feet). This standard is met. d.Building separation shall also apply to buildings having projections such as balconies, bay windows and room projections; and Response: The minimum distance between balconies is 39 feet. The minimum distance between bays is also 39 feet. This standard is met. e.Buildings with courtyards to maintain separation of opposing walls as listed in subparagraphs a through c of this paragraph 1 for walls in separate buildings. Response: Courtyard and other open spaces have been provided between building walls. The separations range from 31 feet to 50 feet. This standard is met. 2.Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. Response: A table and matrix have been provided on Sheet P2. 3 that detail required minimum separation distances between all buildings on the site. Four of the proposed R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 30 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak buildings are 151 feet in length, and 5 of the buildings are 84 feet in length. Each of the buildings is 37 feet in height. As demonstrated in P2.3, which includes a Building Separation Table, the separation between buildings ranges from 30 to 34 feet (additional separation of 5 to 9 feet + base separation of 25 feet between windowed walls). This standard is met. 3.Driveways, parking lots, and common or public walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: a.Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and Response: All proposed window wall separations from driveways, parking lots and walkways meet or exceed the minimum standards. The minimum separation proposed between any windowed walls and driveway/parking areas is 14 feet. The minimum separation proposed between any windowed walls and walkways is 5 feet. This standard is met. b.Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least seven feet. Response: All proposed living room window separations from driveways, parking lots and walkways meet or exceed the minimum standards. The minimum separation between living room windows and driveways/parking lots is 14 feet. The minimum separation between living room windows and walkways is 9 feet. This standard is met. J.CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING A.Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development that requires a Type I conditional use minor modification, a Type I site development review minor modification, any Type II land use review or any Type III land use review unless otherwise specified in any of the sections below. B.When urban forestry plan requirements concurrently apply. When the provisions of Chapter 18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, concurrently apply, any trees required by this chapter shall be included in the urban forestry plan and subject to all of the requirements in Chapter 18.790. C.Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: This development is subject to Type III land use review, and the provisions of Chapter 18.790 concurrently apply. This requirement is applicable. The application submittal includes a site plan (Sheet P2.0) and an Urban Forestry Plan (Appendix D and Sheets TC.1 – TC.3). A.Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), minor land partition (Type II), planned development (Type III), site development review (Type II) and subdivision (Type II and III) permits. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 31 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak B.The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by rounding to the nearest whole number. C.Street trees required by this section shall be planted according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. D.Street trees required by this section shall be provided adequate soil volumes according to the street tree soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. E.Street trees required by this section shall be planted within the right-of-way whenever practicable according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than six feet from the right-of-way according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable. F.An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that 1.The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; 2.The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the street tree planting and soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual if it were newly planted; and 3.The tree is shown as preserved in the tree preservation and removal site plan (per 18.790.030.A.2), tree canopy cover site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a concurrent urban forestry plan and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. G.In cases where it is not practicable to provide the minimum number of required street trees, the director may allow the applicant to remit payment into the urban forestry fund for tree planting and early establishment in an amount equivalent to the city’s cost to plant and maintain a street tree for three years (per the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual) for each tree below the minimum required. Response: The site has frontage along two streets: 758 feet along Roy Rogers Road and 250 feet along the proposed local street to the south (the existing frontage of 330 feet less the 30- foot entrance drive and site triangles). Per the preliminary landscape plans included as Sheets L1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, 19 street trees are required along the Roy Rogers Road frontage and 19 trees are proposed; 6 trees are required along the local street frontage and 6 are proposed. The Urban Forestry Plan attached as Appendix D and Sheets TC.1, TC.2, and TC.3 demonstrate that the soil volume standards are met for street trees and other site trees. The street trees will be planted within the public right-of-ways. These standards are met. A. General provisions. 1.It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. 2.Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. 3.In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the director’s approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 32 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The multifamily site is bordered by the R-7 zone to the east and north. It is separated from development to the west by SW Roy Rogers Road, an arterial, and from development to the south by a proposed open space tract. These provisions are applicable. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. Response: The buffering and screening matrix specifies a buffer of 10 feet between multifamily development and arterial streets. Roy Rogers Road is an arterial street, and the site abuts the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way along its western and southern property lines. The proposed water quality facility to the south of the site is located within the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way, and a 10-foot buffer is required along this section of the site as well. The applicant is requesting an exception to this requirement in order to allow a 9-foot portion of the southernmost multifamily building to be located 4.9 feet from the property line, within the 10-foot buffer, along the southern property line of the site. See Sheet P2.3 for details. The portion of the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way adjacent to this building proposed as a stormwater facility rather than a roadway, and the impacts of the street on this section of the site will be minimal. If the exception is granted, the building would be 4.9 feet from the right-of-way and more than 15 feet from the roadway. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the city. Response: The buffer is occupied by utilities, screening, and pedestrian pathways, with the exception of the southwest corner of the multifamily building along the southern Roy Rogers Road right-of-way (adjacent to the stormwater facility). At that location, a section of the building approximately 9 feet wide is set back between 10 feet and 4.9 feet from the property line. The applicant is requesting an exception to this requirement in order to allow a small portion of the proposed building to occupy the 10-foot buffer. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of paragraph B.8 and subsection D of this section. Response: Compliance with the conditions and requirements of paragraph B.8 and subsection D of this section is addressed below. 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: Response: Table 18.745.1 establishes a C buffer between the subject site and sites to the east and north; and an A buffer between the site and Roy Rogers Road right-of-way to the west and south. Buffer C includes three options: C1, C2, and C3. The proposed buffer is C1, which requires a buffer 10 feet in width, trees planted between 15 feet and 40 feet apart, and 4-foot hedges. Buffer A adjacent to the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way requires a buffer 10 feet in width and planting of lawn/living ground cover. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 33 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. Trees shall be chosen from any of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual (except the nuisance tree list) unless otherwise approved by the director and have a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches for deciduous trees and a minimum height of six feet for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: i. Small stature or columnar trees shall be spaced no less than 15 feet on center and no greater than 20 feet on center. ii. Medium stature trees shall be spaced no less than 20 feet on center and no greater than 30 feet on center. iii. Large stature trees shall be spaced no less than 30 feet on center and no greater than 40 feet on center. Response: The proposed landscape plan includes a C1, 10-foot buffer to the north and east. The northern buffer will be planted with one row of large stature deciduous trees (Yellowwood/Cladtrastis kentuckea) spaced approximately 30 feet apart. The trees will be 1.5 inch caliper in size. The eastern buffer will be planted with one row of large stature evergreen trees (Western Red Cedar/Thuja plicata) spaced approximately 25 feet apart and interspersed with deciduous trees (Eastern Redbud / Cercis Canadensis). The evergreen trees will be a minimum of 6 feet in height, and the deciduous trees will be 1.5 inch caliper. The proposed landscape plan includes the A, 10-foot buffer to the west and south. The western buffer will be planted with a combination of medium stature deciduous trees (Eastern Redbud/Cercis canadensis) spaced approximately 24 feet apart in the southern third of the site, transitioning to large stature evergreen trees (Western Red Cedar/Thuja plicata) spaced approximately 30 feet apart. The deciduous trees will be at least 1.5 inch caliper in size. The evergreen trees will be a minimum of 6 feet in height. The southern buffer will be planted with medium stature deciduous trees (Yulan Magnolia / Magnolia denudata) spaced approximately 30 feet apart. The trees will be 1.5 inch caliper. b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area. Response: Required buffer areas will be planted with a combination a variety of shrubs and groundcover plantings. Buffer areas will be planted with a minimum 20 one-gallon groundcover shrubs per 1,000 square feet of buffer area, augmented with groups of two- gallon and five-gallon shrubs to provide and attractive buffer planting. c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. Response: The remaining buffer area will be planted in living ground cover 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four-foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 34 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. Response: No screening is required along the western or southern property lines of the site (buffer A). The C1 buffer requires four-foot hedge screening. The northern and eastern buffers will be planted with a combination of shrubs that will exceed four feet in height within two years of planting. In addition, much of the eastern property line will be separated from the adjacent properties by retaining walls between 1.3 and 8.2 feet in height. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: If conflicts are identified between the provisions of this section and the vision clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795, that chapter will supersede the requirements of this chapter. 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six-foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval. Response: The proposed multifamily use will be uphill from the adjoining Roy Rogers Road right-of-way to the west and south, and downhill from the adjoining single-family zones to the north and east. The heights of the required shrubs and hedges have been measured from the grade of the site. In order to provide screening of 4 feet in height from the grade of the adjoining properties to the north and east, the landscape screening would need to reach between approximately 6 and 12 feet in height. The proposed shrubs will reach up to 8 feet in height; taller shrubs are impractical and would conflict with the required tree plantings. The proposed trees will reach between 30 and 50 feet in height, and at full maturity the tree canopies will provide full coverage between the subject property and adjacent properties. A detailed landscape/screening plan has been submitted for approval. See Sheets L1.1 – L1.3. 8. Fences and walls. a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other city regulations; c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening; however, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. Response: Fences and walls are not required or proposed as screening methods. These standards are not applicable. 9. Hedges. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 35 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight- obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in subparagraphs C.2.a and C.2.b of this section; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: Sight-obscuring fences are not required or proposed as screening methods. These standards are not applicable. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in paragraph 2 of this subsection C except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects. 2. Fences or walls. a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795. 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. Response: Fences will be installed on top of retaining walls where required by building code. The maximum height of these fences will be 6 feet. Some of these fences will be located in the “front yard” adjacent to the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way, which is a designated arterial street. Fences within the required front yard will not exceed 6 feet. D. Height restrictions. 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements. 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot height limitation for screening. Response: Fences and walls are not required or proposed as screening methods. These standards are not applicable. E. Screening: special provisions. 1.Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a.Screening of parking and loading areas is required…The specifications for this screening are as follows: i.Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 36 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak ii.Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; iii.Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; iv.All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with the parking lot tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: There are three proposed parking areas on site: one resident parking area along the northern boundary of the site; one resident parking area located in the center of the site; and a visitor parking area located in the southeastern corner of the site. The resident parking areas are interior to the site, as well as between 12 and 193.6 and 8.4 feet above the street right-of-way elevation, and will not be visible from either Roy Rogers Road or adjacent local road. The visitor parking area will be visible from the local road right-of-way, and will be screened in accordance with this section. 2.Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Response: Refuse disposal areas and some service facilities will be visible from the resident parking area. Refuse containers and visible service facilities within the project will be screened from views by either a solid wood fence or CMU block enclosures between five and eight feet in height. This standard is met. 3.Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by the state building code. Response: The swimming pool will be enclosed as required by the state building code. This standard is met. 4.Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Response: Refuse containers within the project will be screened from views by 6 ft. tall CMU block enclosures. This standard is met. F. Buffer matrix. 1.The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts. Response: The multifamily development contains 141 units. The subject site is located adjacent to the R-7 Zone to the east. Per Table 18.745.1, a 10-feet buffer is required between a single-family zone and multifamily development of 5 or more units, and between a residential site and an arterial road. A 10-feet perimeter buffer is proposed along the northern, western, and southern property lines. An exception to this standard has been R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 37 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak requested to allow a portion of the building in the southwestern corner to occupy approximately 5 feet of the required 10-foot buffer in that location. A 30-foot setback is required along the eastern property line due to the location of the proposed multifamily development adjacent to property zoned for single-family residential uses. See Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3 for details. The buffer will be planted with a combination of trees, shrubs, and grass. This standard is met. A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping and screening requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities are completed. B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway; and 1. Such storage shall be located consistent with an approved urban forestry plan per Chapter 18.790 or outside the tree canopy driplines of trees intended to be preserved in cases when there is no approved urban forestry plan; and 2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. C. Methods of re-vegetation. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent germination rates, and: 1. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to each 1,000 square feet of land area; 2. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved by the approval authority; 3. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival and growth; and 4. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Response: The site will be re-vegetated post-development. The above standards will be met per the Urban Forestry Plan included as Appendix D and Sheets L1.1 – L2.4. K.CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTES AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE A. Applicability. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and nonresidential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. Response: The proposal is for 9 multi-family residential buildings containing 5 or more units. This chapter is therefore applicable. A. Alternative methods of compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: 1.Minimum standards; 2.Waste assessment; 3.Comprehensive recycling plan; or 4.Franchised hauler review and sign-off. B. Provisions. The following provisions apply to all four methods of demonstrating compliance: R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 38 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 1.Section 18.755.050, Location, Design and Access Standards, except as provided in 18.755.040.G; 2.The floor area of an interior or exterior storage area required by this chapter shall be excluded from the calculation of lot coverage and from the calculation of building floor area for purposes of determining minimum storage requirements. C. Minimum standards method. 1.Description of method. This method specifies a minimum storage area requirement based on the size and general use category of the new construction; 2.Typical application of method. This method is most appropriate when the specific use of a new building is not known. It provides specific dimensions for the minimum size of storage areas by general use category; 3.Application requirements and review procedure. The size and location of the storage area(s) shall be indicated on the site plan of any construction subject to this ordinance. Through the site plan review process, compliance with the general and specific requirements set forth below is verified; 4.General requirements. a.The storage area requirement is based on the predominant use(s) of the building, (i.e., residential, office, retail, wholesale/warehouse/ manufacturing, educational/institutional, or other). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies 20% or less of the floor area of the building, the floor area occupied by that use shall be counted toward the floor area of the predominant use(s). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies more than 20% of the floor area of the building, then the storage area requirement for the whole building shall be the sum of the requirement for the area of each use. b.Storage areas for multiple uses on a single site may be combined and shared. c.The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of four feet for solid waste/recyclable. Vertical storage higher than four feet but no higher than seven feet may be used to accommodate the same volume of storage in a reduced floor space (potential reduction of 43% of specific requirements). Where vertical or stacked storage is proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate the layout of the storage area and dimensions of containers. Response: The applicant has selected the Minimum Standards method. The site is primarily multifamily with an accessory office use. No reduction of the floor space is requested. 5.Specific requirements. a.Multi-unit residential buildings containing 5-10 units shall provide a minimum storage area of 50 square feet. Buildings containing more than 10 residential units shall provide an additional five square feet per unit for each unit above 10. Response: The proposed development is a multifamily residential development containing 141 units. The storage areas for the site will be shared among the 9 buildings. Sheet P2.0 illustrates the size and location of the storage areas. Per subsection 5.a above, the site requires 705 square feet of storage area (50 square feet base + (5 square feet x 131 units) = 705 square feet). The site will contain four storage areas totaling 972 square feet: two “Type A” enclosures and two “Type B” enclosures. The Type A enclosures are located in central locations at the northwest corner of the first row of buildings and the northeast corner of the second row of buildings. Each Type A enclosure has dimensions of 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep, and an area of 360 square feet. The Type B enclosures are located to the northwest of the clubhouse and at the northwest corner of the site. Each Type B enclosure has dimensions of 12.5 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and an area of 126 square feet. The total square footage of the R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 39 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak four enclosures is 972 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 705 square feet. The project team submitted a preliminary site plan and trash enclosure plans to Waste Management, Inc., the franchised hauler for this site, on April 11, 2016. Comments from Waste Management, Inc. were received by e-mail on April 12, 2016. The hauler requested revisions to the proposed dimensions of the enclosures, which have been incorporated into the proposed plan. This standard is met. L.CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS A.New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. Response: The proposal is for construction of a 141-unit multifamily development. This chapter is applicable. A.Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided in this chapter that show how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The application shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about the submittal requirement. Response: Sheets P2.0 and P2.1 show proposed parking, access, and circulation. This standard is met. B.Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: Response: The proposed parking is located on the development site. This standard is met. C.Visitor parking in multifamily residential developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. Response: The proposed development requires 203 parking spaces. An additional 30 spaces, or 15% above the minimum required, are provided throughout the site; each dwelling unit has a dedicated garage and driveway for parking, and surface parking areas are available for both resident and visitor use. Required bicycle parking facilities are located within each building. This standard is met. D.Disabled-accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the state building code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 40 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: Disabled parking space are provided consistent with the state requirements. For parking lots with 201 to 300 spaces, 7 accessible spaces and 1 van space are required. Sheet P2.0 shows 3 surface spaces and 4 accessible-adaptable spaces within the parking garages, for a total of 7 accessible spaces. This standard is met. A. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1.Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2.The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 3.Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4.Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5.Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and 6.Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. B. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. C. Parking space surfacing. 1.Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this subsection H, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. D. Parking lot striping. 1.Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2.All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. E. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. F. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the city engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. G. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. H. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. I. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) Response: The number and size of the proposed access drives comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.705. The access drives will be marked and improved per the standards of this Section. See Sheet P2.1. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 41 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak The parking lots will be landscaped in accordance with this Chapter. See Appendix D Urban Forestry Plan and Sheets L1.1, L1.2, L1.3, and TC.1. The proposed parking areas are designed consistent with the applicable dimensional and design requirements of Figure 18.765.1, including parking space sizes and drive aisle widths required for a parking space orientation of 90 degrees. As permitted by this section’s allowance for up to 50% compact spaces, the proposed development plan provides for 52 of 234 on-site parking spaces to be compact spaces, or approximately 22% of the spaces proposed. A curb is proposed in lieu of wheel stops along the northern parking lot boundary. Due the narrow width of the parking lots, dedicated parking lot lighting is not proposed. Exterior building lights will illuminate the parking lot surface. These standards are met. A.Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1.Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2.Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3.Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4.Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Response: Enclosed bicycle parking is located within each building. Each 22-plex building contains 16 enclosed bicycle parking spaces, and each 12-plex building contains 6 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. This standard is met. B.Covered parking spaces. Response: No parking structure is proposed for the site. These standards are not applicable. C. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Response: Per Table 18.765.2, one bicycle parking space is required for every two multifamily dwelling units. 141 dwelling units are proposed and a minimum of 70 bicycle parking spaces are required; 88 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. A. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2. Response: The proposed development consists of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. Per Table 18.765.2, minimum off-street parking requirements are: 1 parking space for each studio unit below 500 square feet in size R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 42 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak 1.25 parking space for each 1-bedroom unit 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom unit There is no maximum number of parking spaces allowed for multifamily development. The proposed multifamily project will include 55 1-bedroom units; 64 2-bedroom units; and 22 3- bedroom units. Therefore, a minimum of 203 parking spaces are required. In addition, an additional 15% of the minimum required parking (30 spaces) must be provided as visitor parking facilities. A total of 234 parking spaces are required; 234 spaces are provided. The following tables summarize the applicable minimum off-street parking requirements. Parking Spaces Required per MFR Unit Number of Units Proposed Parking Spaces Required 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 55 68.8 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 64 96.0 1.75 spaces/3-bedroom unit 22 38.5 Subtotal 141 203 15% additional onsite parking required for visitors - 30 Total MFR Units/ Parking Spaces Required 141 units 234 Type of Parking Space Off-Street Parking Provided Tuck-under garages 67 2 Driveway 67 Surface parking Standard 45 Compact 52 ADA 7 (3 surface and 4 tuck-under) Total Off-Street Parking Spaces Provided 234 Total compact spaces 52 (22% of total) M.CHAPTER 18.780 – SIGNS B. In the R-12, R-25 and R-40 zones. No sign shall be permitted in the R-12, R-25 or R-40 zone except for the following: *** 2. Every housing complex shall be allowed one permanent freestanding sign at each entry point to the housing complex from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped and not exceeding 32 2 Four of these spaces are ADA adaptable. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 43 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak square feet in area per sign face. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or private nuisance, as determined by the director considering the purpose of the zone; 3. Every platted subdivision shall be allowed one permanent freestanding sign at each entry point to the subdivision from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped, and not exceeding 32 square feet in area per sign face. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or private nuisance, as determined by the director considering the purpose of the zone; Response: The site is located in the R-25 zone and is subject to these regulations. The proposal includes a permanent freestanding entry sign wall at the entrance to the River Terrace East subdivision. The proposed entry sign wall would be located at the southeastern corner of the subject site and would be oriented toward Street A. See Sheet L1.1 for the proposed location of the sign, and Sheet L2.3 for the proposed sign wall design. The sign will be mounted on the face of a reinforced brick wall, integrated into the site and landscaping design, and will have an area of approximately 13 square feet. N.CHAPTER 18.790 - URBAN FORESTRY PLAN The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations: A.The following land use reviews: 1.Conditional use (Type III); 2.Downtown design review (Type II and III); 3.Minor land partition (Type II); 4.Planned development (Type III); 5.Sensitive lands review (Type II and III); 6.Site development review (Type II); and 7.Subdivision (Type II and III). Response: The requirements of this chapter apply to site development review, and are applicable to this application. A.Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1.Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; Response: The urban forestry plan for the River Terrace East Multifamily project has been prepared by David Haynes, RLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. Appendix D to this application narrative provides an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Sheets TC.1 and TC.2 provide the required tree canopy plan and calculations and soil volume specifications for trees to be planted. Sheet TC.3 provides a tree preservation and removal plan for trees adjacent to the site boundaries. 2.Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report of Appendix D includes the results of an on-site assessment of the sizes, condition ratings, and preservation ratings for all of the existing trees on and immediately adjacent to the proposed development site portion of the subject property. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 44 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Sheet TC.3 is a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. Protective measures for trees to be retained are included on this plan. There are some trees within 25 feet of the subject property on the north boundary, and tree protection fencing will be installed to protect them from encroachment or damage. The required right-of-way/street improvements for SW Roy Rogers Road will necessitate the removal of several existing mature trees that are located close to the existing pavement along Roy Rogers Road. In addition, the multifamily site development that is proposed will necessitate the removal of all of the existing trees within the proposed development footprint on the site. Significant site grading will be necessary to make the site drain properly, and retaining trees on site is not possible. 3.Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and Response: The proposed tree canopy meets both the parking lot and site coverage standards. The total parking lot area on site is 20,709 square feet. The minimum parking lot tree canopy cover area required is 33% in the R-25 Zone. Sheets TC.1 and TC.2 provide for anticipated tree canopy coverage of the parking area to cover 10,465 square feet, or 50%, of the parking lot area. The total project site area is approximately 216,500 square feet. The minimum site tree canopy cover area in the R-25 zone is 33%. The proposed landscaping plan provides for total site tree canopy coverage of 79,785 square feet, or 36.9% of the site. The minimum 1,000 cubic feet of soil per tree standard for the Tree Canopy Site Plan has also been met. These standards are met. 4.Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: Appendix D includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report prepared by David Haynes, RLA, which includes the required information and analysis required for such a report. O.CHAPTER 18.795 - VISION CLEARANCE AREAS Response: This section requires that clear vision areas be maintained between 3- and 8-feet in height at road/driveway and road/road intersections. These intersections include the road/driveway intersections at the northeastern and southeastern corners of the site. No landscaping, signs, or other improvements are proposed within the required clear vision triangles. P.CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS A.When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 45 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Response: This application is for development and this chapter is applicable. Most of the requirements of this chapter were addressed by the River Terrace East planned development application and Final Order, and are not addressed below. Response: Per 18.810.030.CC, a traffic study is required for new development. Kittelson and Associates, Inc., have prepared memorandum to the April 2015 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) as amended by a July 2015 memo. The March 15, 2016, transportation analysis for the proposed multifamily development is included in this report as Impact Study Report B in Section VI of this report. The analysis did not identify any mitigation measures beyond those identified in the initial TIA. These standards are met. Response: The on-site circulation is provided by access aisles; no streets are proposed. In addition, the site is located adjacent to Roy Rogers Road, a collector street, and new intersections at this location are prohibited. This standard is not applicable. Response: Wastewater collection for this area will be provided by the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard River Terrace Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Addendum (May 2014) defines the basin delineation and sewer service plan for the River Terrace East area (including the multifamily parcel). Public sewer infrastructure (pump station, sewer mains) is being constructed in the River Terrace Northwest Planned Development area west of Roy Rogers Road. This sewer infrastructure will provide service to the River Terrace East by an extension of the sewer main line across Roy Rogers Road at the location of the local road access just south of the multifamily site. The multifamily site will have a private, on-site conveyance system for sanitary sewer that will connect to a proposed public sewer line in interim access road south of the multifamily site. The extension of the public sewer line across Roy Rogers Road will be coordinated with the development schedule of the River Terrace East Planned Development multifamily and single family developments. The new sanitary sewer lift station being designed/constructed by Clean Water Services (currently under construction) will need to be operational prior to occupancy of any multifamily unit. In accordance with the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, wastewater will be pumped northward from the lift station to an existing sanitary manhole near the Scholls Ferry/Roy Rogers intersection and then to flow by gravity into the 21-inch Barrows Road sanitary sewer trunkline. Flows from this sanitary sewer drainage basin will ultimately reach the Durham Road Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Clean Water Services District. These standards are met. R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 46 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak Response: The Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan is attached as Impact Assessment Report D in Section VI of this report. The plan outlines compliance with River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Otak, 2014), River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance (Tigard, 2015), CWS Design & Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (CWS, 2007), and CWS Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook (CWS, 2009). The River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within Master Plan Basin T2_7a. The stormwater management system for the River Terrace East multifamily development is proposed in a single facility located southwest of the site in a portion of the existing Washington County “additional” right-of-way on the east side of Roy Rogers Road. The design of the facility will accommodate the proposed runoff from the east side of the proposed roadway improvements on Roy Rogers Road (MSTIP project), and portions of the upstream basin adjacent to Roy Rogers Road. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility and will outfall to the existing drainage ditch to the south. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design is currently proposing some modifications to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and the approved River Terrace East Planned Development stormwater management plan to combine/revise some proposed regional facilities and account for detention of basin flows in the existing wetland/pond that is south and east of the multifamily parcel. The final stormwater plan for the area will lessen the detention volume requirements of the multifamily storm facility, as there is additional storage volume available in the regional facility (Facility T2_6). Otak has been coordinating with Pacific Community Design to assure that detention standards are met at the Point of Compliance. Continued coordination and modelling will be completed with final design with resolution of regional stormwater facility volumes. These standards are met. Response: This section requires the undergrounding of utilities and provides a fee in-lieu of undergrounding in certain situations. As shown on Sheet P3.0, the on-site utilities will be undergrounded. This standard is met. Q.NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS A neighborhood meeting was held on February 17, 2016, regarding the preliminary plans for the project. A copy of the letter, mailing labels, affidavit of posting and mailing, and meeting notes is provided in Appendix E to this report. IV.CONCLUSION The request for Planned Development Concept Plan approval, Planned Development Detailed Development approval, and Site Development Review approval to develop 141 multifamily residential units has been shown to be consistent with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code for the plans for the River Terrace R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i f a m i l y 47 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-09-12 Revised Land Use Submittal\2016-09-12 RTE_MF_ApplNarr_FINAL.docx otak East multifamily project. West Hills Development, therefore, respectfully requests approval of these applications. L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Urban Forestry Plan\17857-Tree Plan Narrative_2016-09-12.docx Technical Memorandum To: City of Tigard From: David Haynes, PLA Copies: File Date: September 12, 2016 Subject: Supplemental Tree Plan Report – River Terrace East Multifamily Project #: 17857 Project Summary This Tree Plan Report covers the River Terrace East multifamily parcel, located east of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the PGE substation. The development will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97 acre site. The subject property includes Tax lots 1400 and 1401 of Washington County on Tax Map 2S1 6. The zoning for this lot is R-25, and it lies within the River Terrace Plan District. The property owner is Arbor Homes, LLC, c/o West Hills Development, 735 SW 158th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97006. This report supplements the Tree Plan sheets (TC.1 through TC.3) submitted for this project and includes a narrative section and data tables required by the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which includes the Proposed Tree Inventory with parking lot canopy coverage and soil volume. Specifications Existing Tree Inventory: Existing trees on the site have not been surveyed. All existing trees on the site will be removed, therefore tree protection and preservation specifications do not apply. An updated tree inventory and report will be provided at a later date. Soil Characteristics: The soils on the site are Aloha Silt Loam and Cornelius/Kinton Silt Loams and are considered to be adequate for tree planting, growth and vitality. Other than soil testing and amending to provide sufficient nutrient levels, no special measures are anticipated for improving these soils. 808 SW Third Ave. Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 Page 2 Tree Plan Report 9/12/16 L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Urban Forestry Plan\17857-Tree Plan Narrative_2016-09-12.docx Proposed Trees: There are 196 trees proposed to be planted throughout the site. Each of the trees is assigned a number that can be found on both the plan sheet and in the Appendix of this report. There are attributes listed for each tree. Parking Lot Canopy Coverage: The total parking lot area for the project is 18,235 square feet. The total qualifying mature tree canopy area directly over parking lot provided is 7,768 square feet or 43% coverage. The minimum Parking Lot mature canopy coverage of 30% (5,471 square feet) has been met. Overall Site Canopy Coverage: The total project site area is approximately 216,500 square feet. The proposed canopy cover is 79,785sf or 36.9% of the site. The minimum site canopy coverage of 33% (71,445 square feet) has been met. Street Trees: The Roy Rogers Rd frontage has a curb length of 758’ linear feet which calls for 19 street trees at 40-foot spacing. The proposed number of street trees on this frontage is 25, which meets the standard. The tree species along Roy Rogers Rd. include Dove Tree (Davidia involucrata), Marina Strawberry Tree (Arbutus ‘Marina’) and Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana). The proposed local street bordering the site to the south has a curb length of 250’ linear feet which calls for 6 street trees at 40-foot spacing. The proposed number of street trees on this frontage is 7, which meets the standard. The tree species proposed for this frontage will be Yulan Magnolia (Magnolia denudata). Two trees that are not on the Tigard Tree List are proposed on the property. They are: 1)Street and site tree: Butterfly Magnolia, Magnolia ‘Butterflies’; height 15’ – 20’; spread: 15’. Size information is from the Missouri Botanical Garden website, www.missouribotanicalgarden.org, accessed 3/28/16. 2)Site tree: Dawn Redwood, Metasequoia glyptostroboides, height 60’, spread 25’. Size information is from Michael Dirr, Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, 5th Edition, p. 662. Height is assumed to be in the middle of the range cited by Dirr. Signature of Approval I hereby attest that: 1. The Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; 2. The Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and 3. The Supplemental Report meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ______________________________________________ David D. Haynes, PLA Appendix Tree Data Table River Terrace East Multi-family Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan September 9, 2016 Submitted to: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97224 Prepared by: Otak, Inc. 808 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 287-6825 Tammi Connolly, PE Water Resources Engineer Jeremy Tamargo, EIT Water Resources Designer Otak Project No. 17857 Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan River Terrace East Multi-family Washington County, Oregon PROJECT SUMMARY Date: September 9, 2016 Washington County Casefile: Clean Water Services Project No. Corps Project Number: DSL Permit Number: Delineation Number: Project Type: Residential Development Project Location: Washington County, Oregon Latitude/Longitude: 45°25’30”N;122°51’00”W Plan Prepared By: Otak, Inc. Stormwater Manuals Cited: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management, June 2007. City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, July 2015. Table of Contents R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t i otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Site Description................................................................................................................................................. 1 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Drainage Basins ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2 Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Land Slopes ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Hydrologic Soil Group .............................................................................................................................. 4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quantity ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Conveyance ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table of Contents R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y ii otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Tables Table 1: Swale Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2: Flow Frequency Results ................................................................................................................... 6 Figures Figure 1A: River Terrace Master Plan Figure 1A Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Area A) Figure 1B: River Terrace Master Plan Figure 1C Proposed Zoning Figure 2: Existing Drainage Basins Figure 3: Proposed Drainage Basins Figure 4: Proposed Drainage Basins - Offsite Appendices Appendix A: Hydrology Appendix B: Water Quality Calculations Appendix C: Water Quantity Calculations Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 1 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Introduction The River Terrace East Multi-family project is a proposed residential development in Tigard, Oregon. The 4.95 acre development will consist of 141 residential units in nine buildings along the western boundary of the proposed River Terrace East subdivision. The project will also include private roadways, sidewalks, private driveways, utilities, and a stormwater management system. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility. Background The River Terrace East Multi-family development project is located within the River Terrace Community: a master planned region in the City of Tigard. The River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Master Plan) divided the area into regional drainage basins, each of which is to include a regional stormwater management facility (see Figures 1A-1B). The River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within Master Plan Basin T2_7a. Design Criteria Development of the project area will follow four sets of design criteria: •River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Otak, 2014) •River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance (Tigard, 2015) •CWS Design & Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (CWS, 2007) •CWS Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook (CWS, 2009) Site Description The proposed River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within the City of Tigard and the River Terrace Community, bordered by a power substation to the north and SW Roy Rogers Road to the west (see Vicinity Map). The proposed development is located at 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, which is identifiedastaxlots1400and1401oftheWashingtonCountyTaxAssessor’sMap 2S106. The River Terrace East Multi-family property is currently farmland with one single-family dwelling, a barn and a gravel driveway located on the property. Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 330 feet in the northeastern corner to 277 feet at the southwest corner of the property. The proposed development will add approximately 3.52 acres of new impervious surface to the Tualatin River watershed. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 2 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Vicinity Map Soils Existing onsite soils in the northern portion of the property consist of silty loams classified as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C, while the southern portion of the property consists of Aloha silt loams classified as HSG C/D soils. For a conservative stormwater management approach, these soils were classified as HSG D soils in the TRUST modeling exercise. The area is underlain by clayey residual soils derived from the basalt bedrock, identified as various types of silt loam. These soil types generally exhibit low to moderate infiltration rates and relatively high runoff rates. Drainage Basins Existing Conditions Runoff from the 4.95 acre River Terrace East Multi-family property currently drains generally to the southwest (see Figure 1). The existing ground cover within the property consists primarily of agricultural land, with a minimal amount of impervious surface from a residential rooftop, a barn Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 3 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx and a gravel driveway. Existing slopes range from approximately 5 percent at the southern end of the property up to approximately 9 to 12 percent at the northern end of the property. The stream channel located south of the property shows signs of degradation and incision, which was likely caused by undetained flows released by developed properties located upstream of the site. Proposed Conditions Stormwater runoff from the site will continue to drain south towards the existing stream channel and wetland area. Drainage basins have been delineated for all runoff which will be collected and conveyed to the proposed stormwater management facility. These post-development drainage basins are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The River Terrace East Multi-family project area was designated as stormwater management Strategy Area A. Strategy Area A areas utilize a conveyance system to collect and drain stormwater to one regional stormwater facility which meets both water quality treatment and water quantity requirements. A total of 10.44 acres will drain to the proposed stormwater management facility, of which 7.52 acres will be impervious surface. Approximately 3.52 acres of new impervious area from the proposed River Terrace East Multi-family project site will be routed to the stormwater facility, while an additional 4.01 acres of impervious area from two offsite basins will also be conveyed to the facility (see Appendix A).The proposed facility is an extended dry basin with two water quality swales located within the facility. The combined stormwater facility, in conjunction with the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development, will meet water quality and detention requirements for both the onsite impervious areas as well as the offsite basins. Hydrology As required by the CityofTigard’sRiverTerraceMasterPlan , analysis of the runoff flows in each drainage basin was performed using the Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST). TRUST is a continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool which implements a flow-duration based design standard. The model routes local rainfall data from a more than 50 year period of record though the input drainage basins. The Lower Tualatin Pump Station gage applies to the River Terrace East site. For the TRUST analysis, areas tributary to each regional stormwater facility were treated as individual basins. Each drainage basin was delineated by pervious and impervious areas, and then overlain by land use cover, land slope, and hydrologic soil group information from GIS data. Land Use Land use data used in TRUST modeling is obtained from a GIS database, which identifies land cover types in the River Terrace planning area from 2002 prior to development in the area. This land Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 4 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx use data reflects pre-development ground cover conditions in the following categories: • Impervious • Wetland • Lawn • Pasture • Forest In the TRUST pre-developed scenario, the basin land cover was modeled according to the GIS categories listed above. To represent post-developed conditions in the Mitigated scenario, all pervious areas were input as Lawn, and all roadways, sidewalks, and rooftops were input as Impervious. Land Slopes Land slope data is also from a GIS database developed for the River Terrace planning area. LIDAR data reflecting predevelopment surface grades for the River Terrace area was analyzed to delineate the area into the following slope categories: • Flat (0-5% slope) • Moderate (5-15% slope) • Steep (>15% slope) Hydrologic Soil Group The hydrologic soil group database in GIS was obtained from the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the River Terrace planning area. Hydrologic soil groups range from A soils which consist of gravelly sands with a high rate of water transmission, to D soils which consist of clays with very slow infiltration rates. Water Quality The City of Tigard’s River Terrace standards and CWS standards require water quality treatment for runoff from new impervious areas, in order to help improve the water quality in downstream creeks. Runoff from the water quality storm event is generated by 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in a four-hour period. Two onsite vegetated swales, located within the proposed extended dry basin above the 10 percent inundation water surface elevation (2 foot depth in pond), have been designed to meet water quality standards. The East Swale has been designed to treat runoff from the proposed onsite roadways, sidewalks, and residential units. The West Swale has been designed to treat runoff from the offsite substation and the right-of-way improvements, including SW Roy Rogers Road. Table 1 summarizes the design parameters for the two water quality swales. Water quality flow rate and swale sizing calculations are included in Appendix B. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 5 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Table 1: Swale Design Parameters East Swale West Swale Bottom Width (ft) 3 4 Side Slopes (xH:xV) 4:1 4:1 Minimum Depth (ft) 1.5 1.5 Flow Depth (in) 4.5 4.0 Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.005 Length (ft) 101 101 Water Quality Flowrate (cfs) 0.32 0.36 Residence Time (minutes) 9 9 Peak Velocity (fps) 0.19 0.19 Water Quantity Stormwater detention is required for River Terrace East Multi-family project to mitigate for the increased runoff rates resulting from development of the site. The Master Plan has previously identified the general location and size of the regional facilities for the River Terrace Community. The three sets of design standards being followed require various levels of detention: •CWS requires that the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year post-development rates will not exceed their respective 2-year, 10-year, and 25 -year pre-development runoff rates. •City of Tigard River Terrace standards requires flow duration matching for storm event frequencies between 50 percent of the 2-year storm event to the 10-year event, and the peak discharge flow rate during the 25-year event to be limited to the pre-developed 25-year peak runoff rate. By following theCityofTigard’swaterquantitystandards,CWSstandardswillalsobemet. Flow duration curves were computed for the proposed extended dry basin using the TRUST software. TRUST creates flow duration curves for pre-developed and mitigated flows for over 50 years of flow data and compares the results. The storage volumes and flow control structures were modified in TRUST until the extended dry basin met the flow duration and flow frequency standards for events between 50 percent of the 2-year and the 10-year event, and the 25-year event (see Appendix C). Flow control will be achieved through a standard CWS flow control structure on the pond outlet pipes. Details of the flow control structure design will be included in the final River Terrace East Multi-family Stormwater Management Plan. Table 2 summarizes the flow frequency results for the proposed extended dry basin. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 6 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Table 2: Flow Frequency Results Recurrence Interval Pre-developed Flow (cfs) Mitigated Flow (cfs) 50% of the 2-year 0.42 0.23 2-year 0.84 0.46 10-year 1.40 0.68 25-year 1.66 0.80 A total of approximately 107,000 cubic feet of storage is required to meet water quantity requirements for the onsite basin as well as the offsite basins. Since the onsite extended dry basin only contains 57,340 cubic feet of storage, the additional storage volume will be provided within the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development. The point-of-compliance for both the multi-family development and the remainder of River Terrac e East is the culvert beneath SW Roy Rogers Road, which has been modeled in TRUST by others. Conveyance During final design, the stormwater conveyance networks will be sized using the 25-year, 24-hour storm event with the condition that the hydraulic grade lines remains at least one foot below the rim elevations at manholes and catch basins, per CWS standards. The conveyance analysis will also verify the capacity of the catch basins and determine a system-wide emergency overflow route should system components fail during a 100-year storm event. Storm outfalls will be armored to protect channel banks. Conclusions The proposed River Terrace East Multi-family development will meet or exceed stormwater requirements set by CWS and the City of Tigard. The development will consist of 141 residential units in nine buildings and will create approximately 3.52 acres of impervious area. An onsite extended dry basin, in conjunction with the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development, will meet detention requirements for the proposed development as well the offsite basins. Two swales, located within the onsite extended dry basin, will meet water quality requirements. The conveyance system will be sized during final design to convey the 25-year, 24- hour storm event while maintaining a minimum of one foot of freeboard. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i -f a m i l y 7 otak \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx References CWS, 2007. Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management , Clean Water Services, June 2007. CWS, 2009. Low Impact Develop ment Approaches Handbook, Clean Water Services, July 2009. Otak, 2014. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan, Otak, Inc., September 2014 . Tigard, 2015. River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance, City of Tigard, April 13, 2015. F i g u r e s River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan Figure 4A: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area A) River Terrace East Multi-family Figure 1A T2_6 WQ2_5ac T5_6b WQ2_7a WQ3_2A WQ2_5b WQ4_4a WQ4_4b WQSMB WQ2_7b WQ3_2b WQ5_6c Basin T2_7a 37.7ac Basin T3_2a 33.4ac Basin T2_5a 32.9ac Basin T5_6b 29.6ac Basin T4_4a 28.8ac Basin T2_6a 26ac Basin T2_5b 31.5ac Basin T5_6c 25.5ac Basin T8_4b 38.2ac Basin T8_4a 19.9ac Basin T2_7b 16.7ac Basin T2_6b 16.1ac Basin T4_4b 14.9ac Basin SMB 10.4ac Basin T8_6 8.2ac Basin T3_2b 7.3ac Basin T2_5c 9ac Basin T5_6a 6.1ac Basin T8_3f 17.2ac Basin T9_3a 25.4acBasin T7_3a 14.3ac River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan 0 1,000 Feet ± Data on this map is from Washington County and Metro's RLIS database. This information was developed at multiple scales and accuracies. No warranty is made with this map. Figure 4B: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area B) Legend River Terrace Study Area Existing or Future Street Proposed Subbasins Overland Flow Direction 10 ft. Contour Line Regional Stormwater Facility Water Quality and Quantity Water Quantity Only Sensitive Areas Significant Wetlands Inventoried Wetlands Natural Resource Buffers Existing Drainageway Stormwater Conveyance Pipes With Street LIDA No Street LIDA Swales/Ditches With Street LIDA No Street LIDA Printing Date: 9/8/2014 Document Path: L:\Project\16800\16851\GIS\WNR\Fig4-StormwaterConceptPlanDiagram.mxd Figure 1B River Terrace East Multi-family A p p e n d i c e s A p p e n d i x A H y d r o l o g y HydrologicSoilGroupashingtonCounty,Oregon (RiverTerraceastMulti-family NaturalResources ConseratonSerce ebSoilSurvey NationalCooperativeSoilSurvey /12/2016 age1of4 511390 511440 511490 511540 511590 511640 511690 511390 511440 511490 511540 511590 511640 511690 45°25'30''N 45°25'30''N 45°25'17''N 45°25'17''N N Mapprojection:WebMercatorCornercoordinates:WGS84Edgetics:UTMZone10NWGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters MapScale:1:2,010ifprintedonAportrait(8.5"x11")sheet. HdrologcSolGrou HdrologcSolGrouSummarbMantashngtonCountOregon(OR06 Mauntsmbol Mauntname Ratng AcresnAOercentofAO 1 Alohasiltloam C/D 5.5 60.3 7B Cascadesiltloam,3to7 percentslopes C 0.0 0.0 11B CorneliusandKintonsilt loams,2to7percent slopes C 0.1 1.5 11C CorneliusandKintonsilt loams,7to12percent slopes C 2.2 24.1 11D CorneliusandKintonsilt loams,12to20 percentslopes C 1.1 11.4 30 McBeesiltyclayloam C 0.2 2.7 TotalsforAreaofnterest 1000 HydrologicSoilGroupashingtonCounty,Oregon RiverTerraceastMulti-family NaturalResources ConseratonSerce ebSoilSurvey NationalCooperativeSoilSurvey /12/2016 age3of4 Descrton Hydrologicsoilgroupsarebasedonestimatesofrunoffpotential.Soilsare assignedtooneoffourgroupsaccordingtotherateofwaterinfiltrationwhenthe soilsarenotprotectedbyvegetation,arethoroughlywet,andreceiveprecipitation fromlong-durationstorms. ThesoilsintheUnitedStatesareassignedtofourgroups(A,B,C,andDand threedualclasses(A/D,B/D,andC/D.Thegroupsaredefinedasfollows GroupA.Soilshavingahighinfiltrationrate(lowrunoffpotentialwhenthoroughly wet.Theseconsistmainlyofdeep,welldrainedtoexcessivelydrainedsandsor gravellysands.Thesesoilshaveahighrateofwatertransmission. GroupB.Soilshavingamoderateinfiltrationratewhenthoroughlywet.These consistchieflyofmoderatelydeepordeep,moderatelywelldrainedorwelldrained soilsthathavemoderatelyfinetexturetomoderatelycoarsetexture.Thesesoils haveamoderaterateofwatertransmission. GroupC.Soilshavingaslowinfiltrationratewhenthoroughlywet.Theseconsist chieflyofsoilshavingalayerthatimpedesthedownwardmovementofwateror soilsofmoderatelyfinetextureorfinetexture.Thesesoilshaveaslowrateofwater transmission. GroupD.Soilshavingaveryslowinfiltrationrate(highrunoffpotentialwhen thoroughlywet.Theseconsistchieflyofclaysthathaveahighshrink-swell potential,soilsthathaveahighwatertable,soilsthathaveaclaypanorclaylayer atornearthesurface,andsoilsthatareshallowovernearlyimperviousmaterial. Thesesoilshaveaveryslowrateofwatertransmission. Ifasoilisassignedtoadualhydrologicgroup(A/D,B/D,orC/D,thefirstletteris fordrainedareasandthesecondisforundrainedareas.Onlythesoilsthatintheir naturalconditionareingroupDareassignedtodualclasses. RatngOtons ggegatonMethodDominantCondition omonentecenttoffoneSecfed ebeakRleHigher HydrologicSoilGroupashingtonCounty,Oregon RiverTerraceastMulti-family NaturalResources ConseratonSerce ebSoilSurvey NationalCooperativeSoilSurvey /12/2016 age4of4 TRUST Input - Pre-developed Scenario 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family Sum of Area_ac HydrolGrp landuse Slope Total C impervious Flat 0.081 Moderate 0.344 Steep 0.060 impervious Total 0.484 lawn Flat 0.567 Moderate 4.732 Steep 0.678 lawn Total 5.977 pasture Flat 0.007 Moderate 0.030 Steep 0.062 pasture Total 0.099 C Total 6.560 D forest Flat 0.003 Moderate 0.098 forest Total 0.100 impervious Flat 0.185 Moderate 0.358 Steep 0.073 impervious Total 0.616 lawn Flat 0.973 Moderate 1.934 Steep 0.300 lawn Total 3.207 D Total 3.923 Grand Total 10.483 TRUST Input - Mitigated Scenario 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family Sum of Area_ac HydrolGrp LandUse Slope Total C Impervious Flat 0.499 Moderate 3.724 Steep 0.597 Impervious Total 4.821 Pervious Flat 0.155 Moderate 1.381 Steep 0.203 Pervious Total 1.739 C Total 6.560 D Impervious Flat 0.647 Moderate 1.887 Steep 0.217 Impervious Total 2.751 Pervious Flat 0.513 Moderate 0.503 Steep 0.156 Pervious Total 1.173 D Total 3.923 Grand Total 10.483 A p p e n d i x B W a t e r Q u a l i t y C a l cu l a t i o n s Water Quality Calculations 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family Impervious Area East Swale IA 3.52 ac Proposed Impervious (Onsite) 153,293 ft2 West Swale IA 4.01 ac Proposed Impervious (Offsite ROW & SUB) 174,458 ft2 CWS Standards Water Quality Volume and Flow: WQV = 0.36 in x IA / 12 in/ft (CWS, 4.05.06) WQF = WQV/14400 (CWS, 4.05.06)(4 hours) Water Quality Volume and Flow East Swale WQV 4,599 ft3 Water Quality Volume Proposed Impervious WQF 0.32 ft3/s Water Quality Flow (Onsite + Offsite RTE & SUB) West Swale WQV 5,234 ft3 Water Quality Volume Proposed Impervious WQF 0.36 ft3/s Water Quality Flow (Offsite ROW) Onsite Swale (East Swale) 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family User-Supplied Data Variable Name Unit Side Slope 1 SS1 4 SS1:1 Side Slope 2 SS2 4 SS2:1 Swale Width W 3 feet Lengthwise Slope S 0.005 feet/foot Peak Flow Rate Qpeak 0.32 cfs Swale Height Height 1.5 feet Manning Coefficient n 0.24 Computed Data Variable Name Unit Depth d 4.50 inches Cross-sectional Area A 1.69 sf Wetted Perimeter WP 6.10 feet Hydraulic Radius R 0.28 feet Computed Peak Qpkcalc 0.31 cfs Flow Rate Computed Peak Vpkcalc 0.19 ft/sec Velocity Computed Length L 101 feet Height d W SS1 SS2 11 S Qpeak = Peak flow rate, cfs Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet Onsite Swale (West Swale) 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family User-Supplied Data Variable Name Unit Side Slope 1 SS1 4 SS1:1 Side Slope 2 SS2 4 SS2:1 Swale Width W 4 feet Lengthwise Slope S 0.005 feet/foot Peak Flow Rate Qpeak 0.36 cfs Swale Height Height 1.5 feet Manning Coefficient n 0.24 Computed Data Variable Name Unit Depth d 4.26 inches Cross-sectional Area A 1.92 sf Wetted Perimeter WP 6.93 feet Hydraulic Radius R 0.28 feet Computed Peak Qpkcalc 0.36 cfs Flow Rate Computed Peak Vpkcalc 0.19 ft/sec Velocity Computed Length L 101 feet Height d W SS1 SS2 11 S Qpeak = Peak flow rate, cfs Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet A p p e n d i x C W a t e r Q u a n t i t y C a l c u l a t i o n s TRUST PROJECT REPORT 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:17857_RTE_MF Site Name:River Terrace East MF Site Address: City: Report Date:9/9/2016 Gage:Lower Tualatin Pump Station Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2014/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.00 Version Date:2016/03/03 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use RTE MF_Predev Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 0.007 C, Pasture, Mod 0.03 C, Pasture, Steep 0.062 C, Lawn, Flat 0.567 C, Lawn, Mod 4.732 C, Lawn, Steep 0.678 D, Forest, Flat 0.003 D, Forest, Mod 0.098 D, Lawn, Flat 0.973 D, Lawn, Mod 1.934 D, Lawn, Steep 0.3 Pervious Total 9.384 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.266 IMP MOD 0.702 IMP STEEP 0.133 Impervious Total 1.101 Basin Total 10.485 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use RTE MF_MIT Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.155 C, Lawn, Mod 1.381 C, Lawn, Steep 0.203 D, Lawn, Flat 0.513 D, Lawn, Mod 0.503 D, Lawn, Steep 0.156 Pervious Total 2.911 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.146 IMP MOD 5.611 IMP STEEP 0.814 Impervious Total 7.571 Basin Total 10.482 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater SSD Table - RTE MF PondSSD Table - RTE MF Pond 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 6 Mitigated Routing SSD Table - RTE MF Pond Depth:7.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 EDB 1 - Offsite Pond SSD Table Hydraulic Table Stage Area Volume Outlet (feet) (ac.) (ac-ft.) Struct NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed 0.000 0.126 0.000 0.673 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.134 0.067 0.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.500 0.153 0.230 0.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.500 0.173 0.433 0.707 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.500 0.198 0.692 0.720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.500 0.229 1.032 0.733 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.500 0.277 1.525 5.385 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.500 0.307 1.993 9.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.500 0.346 2.593 11.98 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 7 EDB 1 - Offsite Pond Bottom Length:98.65 ft. Bottom Width:98.65 ft. Depth:5 ft. Volume at riser head:1.1478 acre-feet. Side slope 1:3 To 1 Side slope 2:3 To 1 Side slope 3:3 To 1 Side slope 4:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:4 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Notch Type:Rectangular Notch Width:0.265 ft. Notch Height:0.462 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter:2.861 in.Elevation:0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Extended Dry Basin Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0556 0.224 0.012 0.052 0.000 0.1111 0.226 0.025 0.074 0.000 0.1667 0.227 0.037 0.090 0.000 0.2222 0.229 0.050 0.104 0.000 0.2778 0.231 0.063 0.117 0.000 0.3333 0.232 0.076 0.128 0.000 0.3889 0.234 0.088 0.138 0.000 0.4444 0.235 0.102 0.148 0.000 0.5000 0.237 0.115 0.157 0.000 0.5556 0.238 0.128 0.165 0.000 0.6111 0.240 0.141 0.173 0.000 0.6667 0.241 0.155 0.181 0.000 0.7222 0.243 0.168 0.188 0.000 0.7778 0.245 0.182 0.195 0.000 0.8333 0.246 0.195 0.202 0.000 0.8889 0.248 0.209 0.209 0.000 0.9444 0.249 0.223 0.215 0.000 1.0000 0.251 0.237 0.222 0.000 1.0556 0.253 0.251 0.228 0.000 1.1111 0.254 0.265 0.234 0.000 1.1667 0.256 0.279 0.239 0.000 1.2222 0.257 0.293 0.245 0.000 1.2778 0.259 0.308 0.251 0.000 1.3333 0.261 0.322 0.256 0.000 1.3889 0.262 0.337 0.261 0.000 1.4444 0.264 0.351 0.267 0.000 1.5000 0.266 0.366 0.272 0.000 1.5556 0.267 0.381 0.277 0.000 1.6111 0.269 0.396 0.281 0.000 1.6667 0.271 0.411 0.286 0.000 1.7222 0.272 0.426 0.291 0.000 1.7778 0.274 0.441 0.296 0.000 1.8333 0.276 0.456 0.300 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 8 1.8889 0.277 0.472 0.305 0.000 1.9444 0.279 0.487 0.309 0.000 2.0000 0.281 0.503 0.314 0.000 2.0556 0.282 0.519 0.318 0.000 2.1111 0.284 0.534 0.322 0.000 2.1667 0.286 0.550 0.327 0.000 2.2222 0.287 0.566 0.331 0.000 2.2778 0.289 0.582 0.335 0.000 2.3333 0.291 0.598 0.339 0.000 2.3889 0.293 0.615 0.343 0.000 2.4444 0.294 0.631 0.347 0.000 2.5000 0.296 0.647 0.351 0.000 2.5556 0.298 0.664 0.355 0.000 2.6111 0.300 0.680 0.358 0.000 2.6667 0.301 0.697 0.362 0.000 2.7222 0.303 0.714 0.366 0.000 2.7778 0.305 0.731 0.370 0.000 2.8333 0.307 0.748 0.373 0.000 2.8889 0.308 0.765 0.377 0.000 2.9444 0.310 0.782 0.381 0.000 3.0000 0.312 0.799 0.384 0.000 3.0556 0.314 0.817 0.388 0.000 3.1111 0.315 0.834 0.391 0.000 3.1667 0.317 0.852 0.395 0.000 3.2222 0.319 0.870 0.398 0.000 3.2778 0.321 0.887 0.402 0.000 3.3333 0.323 0.905 0.405 0.000 3.3889 0.325 0.923 0.408 0.000 3.4444 0.326 0.941 0.412 0.000 3.5000 0.328 0.960 0.415 0.000 3.5556 0.330 0.978 0.420 0.000 3.6111 0.332 0.996 0.439 0.000 3.6667 0.334 1.015 0.465 0.000 3.7222 0.336 1.034 0.498 0.000 3.7778 0.337 1.052 0.535 0.000 3.8333 0.339 1.071 0.576 0.000 3.8889 0.341 1.090 0.621 0.000 3.9444 0.343 1.109 0.669 0.000 4.0000 0.345 1.128 0.720 0.000 4.0556 0.347 1.147 0.932 0.000 4.1111 0.349 1.167 1.314 0.000 4.1667 0.351 1.186 1.804 0.000 4.2222 0.352 1.206 2.369 0.000 4.2778 0.354 1.225 2.984 0.000 4.3333 0.356 1.245 3.621 0.000 4.3889 0.358 1.265 4.251 0.000 4.4444 0.360 1.285 4.848 0.000 4.5000 0.362 1.305 5.386 0.000 4.5556 0.364 1.325 5.848 0.000 4.6111 0.366 1.346 6.221 0.000 4.6667 0.368 1.366 6.510 0.000 4.7222 0.370 1.386 6.734 0.000 4.7778 0.372 1.407 7.011 0.000 4.8333 0.374 1.428 7.234 0.000 4.8889 0.376 1.449 7.449 0.000 4.9444 0.378 1.470 7.657 0.000 5.0000 0.379 1.491 7.859 0.000 5.0556 0.381 1.512 8.056 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 9 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:32 AM Page 10 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:9.384 Total Impervious Area:1.101 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.911 Total Impervious Area:7.571 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.835944 5 year 1.182691 10 year 1.401203 25 year 1.664267 50 year 1.851183 100 year 2.030855 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.458923 5 year 0.603821 10 year 0.705407 25 year 0.84047 50 year 0.946106 100 year 1.056158 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 1.156 0.673 1950 0.433 0.359 1951 1.386 0.665 1952 0.816 0.381 1953 0.919 0.399 1954 1.467 0.393 1955 0.857 0.335 1956 1.783 0.703 1957 0.485 0.315 1958 0.659 0.397 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 11 1959 0.658 0.398 1960 0.440 0.299 1961 0.944 0.681 1962 0.662 0.398 1963 1.045 0.546 1964 1.400 0.557 1965 0.794 0.766 1966 1.218 0.407 1967 0.577 0.381 1968 0.838 0.620 1969 1.101 0.428 1970 1.221 0.393 1971 0.836 0.421 1972 1.160 0.628 1973 0.840 0.424 1974 1.067 0.750 1975 0.734 0.358 1976 0.979 0.394 1977 0.358 0.338 1978 1.573 0.733 1979 0.637 0.348 1980 1.079 0.405 1981 1.574 0.756 1982 1.521 0.569 1983 1.295 0.401 1984 0.848 0.453 1985 0.783 0.630 1986 0.326 0.297 1987 0.829 0.564 1988 0.612 0.553 1989 0.728 0.346 1990 0.708 0.387 1991 0.650 0.359 1992 0.808 0.375 1993 0.885 0.394 1994 0.471 0.389 1995 1.392 0.943 1996 1.656 0.769 1997 0.874 1.020 1998 0.570 0.345 1999 0.823 0.710 2000 0.413 0.633 2001 0.405 0.278 2002 1.288 0.394 2003 1.009 0.414 2004 0.389 0.357 2005 0.322 0.397 2006 0.748 0.401 2007 0.674 0.554 2008 0.405 0.661 2009 0.848 0.666 2010 0.925 0.348 2011 0.748 0.391 2012 0.533 0.416 2013 1.234 0.665 2014 1.502 0.384 Ranked Annual Peaks 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 12 Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.7833 1.0203 2 1.6560 0.9426 3 1.5739 0.7688 4 1.5732 0.7657 5 1.5207 0.7562 6 1.5018 0.7498 7 1.4673 0.7334 8 1.3997 0.7100 9 1.3922 0.7027 10 1.3858 0.6805 11 1.2946 0.6733 12 1.2883 0.6662 13 1.2336 0.6653 14 1.2208 0.6650 15 1.2176 0.6605 16 1.1599 0.6327 17 1.1564 0.6303 18 1.1014 0.6278 19 1.0786 0.6201 20 1.0665 0.5690 21 1.0448 0.5638 22 1.0093 0.5570 23 0.9792 0.5542 24 0.9441 0.5528 25 0.9253 0.5457 26 0.9188 0.4531 27 0.8845 0.4276 28 0.8742 0.4242 29 0.8573 0.4211 30 0.8481 0.4160 31 0.8477 0.4138 32 0.8399 0.4069 33 0.8383 0.4045 34 0.8362 0.4012 35 0.8285 0.4010 36 0.8234 0.3989 37 0.8160 0.3983 38 0.8082 0.3978 39 0.7939 0.3975 40 0.7834 0.3966 41 0.7485 0.3945 42 0.7480 0.3942 43 0.7343 0.3940 44 0.7278 0.3928 45 0.7083 0.3926 46 0.6739 0.3907 47 0.6623 0.3891 48 0.6591 0.3870 49 0.6580 0.3839 50 0.6498 0.3814 51 0.6371 0.3805 52 0.6123 0.3747 53 0.5771 0.3591 54 0.5701 0.3587 55 0.5332 0.3582 56 0.4854 0.3571 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 13 57 0.4710 0.3482 58 0.4395 0.3476 59 0.4331 0.3456 60 0.4132 0.3448 61 0.4047 0.3377 62 0.4045 0.3353 63 0.3889 0.3149 64 0.3585 0.2991 65 0.3257 0.2967 66 0.3222 0.2776 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 14 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.4180 799 766 95 Pass 0.4279 742 694 93 Pass 0.4378 701 650 92 Pass 0.4478 661 615 93 Pass 0.4577 615 588 95 Pass 0.4676 588 563 95 Pass 0.4776 562 532 94 Pass 0.4875 538 514 95 Pass 0.4974 508 493 97 Pass 0.5074 471 471 100 Pass 0.5173 440 455 103 Pass 0.5272 417 430 103 Pass 0.5372 400 413 103 Pass 0.5471 380 395 103 Pass 0.5570 361 377 104 Pass 0.5669 347 357 102 Pass 0.5769 324 349 107 Pass 0.5868 302 337 111 Fail 0.5967 286 319 111 Fail 0.6067 276 307 111 Fail 0.6166 263 290 110 Pass 0.6265 245 276 112 Fail 0.6365 240 261 108 Pass 0.6464 228 244 107 Pass 0.6563 217 228 105 Pass 0.6663 208 214 102 Pass 0.6762 197 197 100 Pass 0.6861 193 186 96 Pass 0.6961 183 171 93 Pass 0.7060 180 134 74 Pass 0.7159 171 101 59 Pass 0.7259 164 63 38 Pass 0.7358 158 38 24 Pass 0.7457 149 24 16 Pass 0.7556 138 17 12 Pass 0.7656 134 12 8 Pass 0.7755 127 9 7 Pass 0.7854 123 9 7 Pass 0.7954 113 8 7 Pass 0.8053 108 7 6 Pass 0.8152 104 7 6 Pass 0.8252 101 5 4 Pass 0.8351 95 5 5 Pass 0.8450 91 5 5 Pass 0.8550 87 5 5 Pass 0.8649 83 5 6 Pass 0.8748 83 5 6 Pass 0.8848 79 4 5 Pass 0.8947 74 4 5 Pass 0.9046 73 3 4 Pass 0.9146 71 3 4 Pass 0.9245 69 3 4 Pass 0.9344 66 3 4 Pass 0.9443 63 2 3 Pass 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 15 0.9543 61 2 3 Pass 0.9642 61 2 3 Pass 0.9741 58 2 3 Pass 0.9841 55 1 1 Pass 0.9940 54 1 1 Pass 1.0039 53 1 1 Pass 1.0139 52 1 1 Pass 1.0238 50 0 0 Pass 1.0337 48 0 0 Pass 1.0437 47 0 0 Pass 1.0536 44 0 0 Pass 1.0635 44 0 0 Pass 1.0735 41 0 0 Pass 1.0834 40 0 0 Pass 1.0933 40 0 0 Pass 1.1033 37 0 0 Pass 1.1132 36 0 0 Pass 1.1231 36 0 0 Pass 1.1330 35 0 0 Pass 1.1430 34 0 0 Pass 1.1529 34 0 0 Pass 1.1628 30 0 0 Pass 1.1728 30 0 0 Pass 1.1827 29 0 0 Pass 1.1926 29 0 0 Pass 1.2026 29 0 0 Pass 1.2125 29 0 0 Pass 1.2224 26 0 0 Pass 1.2324 26 0 0 Pass 1.2423 25 0 0 Pass 1.2522 24 0 0 Pass 1.2622 24 0 0 Pass 1.2721 23 0 0 Pass 1.2820 23 0 0 Pass 1.2920 22 0 0 Pass 1.3019 21 0 0 Pass 1.3118 21 0 0 Pass 1.3217 20 0 0 Pass 1.3317 18 0 0 Pass 1.3416 18 0 0 Pass 1.3515 18 0 0 Pass 1.3615 17 0 0 Pass 1.3714 17 0 0 Pass 1.3813 16 0 0 Pass 1.3913 14 0 0 Pass 1.4012 11 0 0 Pass The development has an increase in flow durations of more than a 110% for the full range of flows. 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 16 Water Quality 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 17 POC 2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 18 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 19 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:44 AM Page 20 Mitigated Schematic 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 21 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 17857_RTE_MF.wdm MESSU 25 Pre17857_RTE_MF.MES 27 Pre17857_RTE_MF.L61 28 Pre17857_RTE_MF.L62 30 POC17857_RTE_MF1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 4 PERLND 5 PERLND 6 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 10 PERLND 11 PERLND 16 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 RTE MF_Predev MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 4 C, Pasture, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 5 C, Pasture, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 6 C, Pasture, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 22 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 9 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 10 D, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 11 D, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 D, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 4 0 6 0.06 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 5 0 6 0.06 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 6 0 6 0.06 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 9 0 6 0.05 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 10 0 4 2 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 11 0 4 2 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 23 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 18 0 4 1 100 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.7 11 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.7 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 18 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 4 0.15 0.8 0.3 4 0.7 0.4 5 0.15 0.8 0.3 4 0.7 0.4 6 0.15 0.7 0.3 4 0.5 0.4 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.6 0.25 4 0.5 0.25 10 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 11 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 18 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 4 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 IMP/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 IMP/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 24 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** RTE MF_Predev*** PERLND 4 0.007 COPY 501 12 PERLND 4 0.007 COPY 501 13 PERLND 5 0.03 COPY 501 12 PERLND 5 0.03 COPY 501 13 PERLND 6 0.062 COPY 501 12 PERLND 6 0.062 COPY 501 13 PERLND 7 0.567 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 0.567 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 4.732 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 4.732 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.678 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.678 COPY 501 13 PERLND 10 0.003 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 0.003 COPY 501 13 PERLND 11 0.098 COPY 501 12 PERLND 11 0.098 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 0.973 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.973 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 1.934 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 1.934 COPY 501 13 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 25 PERLND 18 0.3 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 0.3 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.266 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 0.702 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 0.133 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 26 END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 27 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 17857_RTE_MF.wdm MESSU 25 Mit17857_RTE_MF.MES 27 Mit17857_RTE_MF.L61 28 Mit17857_RTE_MF.L62 30 POC17857_RTE_MF1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 16 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 EDB 1 - Offsite Pond MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 9 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 28 18 D, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 9 0 6 0.05 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 18 0 4 1 100 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 18 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.6 0.25 4 0.5 0.25 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 18 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 29 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 IMP/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 IMP/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 30 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** RTE MF_MIT*** PERLND 7 0.155 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 7 0.155 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 8 1.381 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 8 1.381 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 9 0.203 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 9 0.203 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 16 0.513 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 16 0.513 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 17 0.503 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 17 0.503 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 18 0.156 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 18 0.156 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 1.146 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 2 5.611 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 3 0.814 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 6 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 16 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 SSD Table - RTE -010 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 EDB 1 - Offsite-011 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 31 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 9 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.125500 0.000000 0.673022 0.500000 0.134300 0.067000 0.679997 1.500000 0.153400 0.230000 0.693735 2.500000 0.173000 0.433000 0.707207 3.500000 0.197800 0.692000 0.720427 4.500000 0.229200 1.032000 0.733409 5.500000 0.277200 1.525000 5.385257 6.500000 0.306600 1.993000 9.438066 7.500000 0.345800 2.593000 11.97605 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 2 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.223390 0.000000 0.000000 0.055556 0.224902 0.012453 0.052355 0.111111 0.226419 0.024989 0.074041 0.166667 0.227942 0.037610 0.090682 0.222222 0.229470 0.050316 0.104710 0.277778 0.231002 0.063107 0.117069 0.333333 0.232540 0.075983 0.128243 0.388889 0.234083 0.088945 0.138518 0.444444 0.235631 0.101993 0.148082 0.500000 0.237184 0.115126 0.157065 0.555556 0.238742 0.128347 0.165561 0.611111 0.240305 0.141653 0.173642 0.666667 0.241874 0.155047 0.181363 0.722222 0.243447 0.168528 0.188769 0.777778 0.245026 0.182097 0.195894 0.833333 0.246610 0.195754 0.202770 0.888889 0.248198 0.209498 0.209420 0.944444 0.249792 0.223331 0.215865 1.000000 0.251391 0.237253 0.222123 1.055556 0.252995 0.251264 0.228210 1.111111 0.254605 0.265364 0.234139 1.166667 0.256219 0.279553 0.239921 1.222222 0.257838 0.293833 0.245567 1.277778 0.259463 0.308202 0.251086 1.333333 0.261092 0.322662 0.256486 1.388889 0.262727 0.337213 0.261775 1.444444 0.264367 0.351854 0.266959 1.500000 0.266012 0.366587 0.272045 1.555556 0.267662 0.381411 0.277037 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 32 1.611111 0.269317 0.396327 0.281940 1.666667 0.270977 0.411335 0.286760 1.722222 0.272642 0.426436 0.291500 1.777778 0.274313 0.441629 0.296165 1.833333 0.275988 0.456915 0.300757 1.888889 0.277669 0.472295 0.305280 1.944444 0.279355 0.487768 0.309736 2.000000 0.281046 0.503334 0.314130 2.055556 0.282741 0.518995 0.318463 2.111111 0.284442 0.534750 0.322738 2.166667 0.286149 0.550600 0.326957 2.222222 0.287860 0.566545 0.331122 2.277778 0.289576 0.582584 0.335236 2.333333 0.291298 0.598720 0.339299 2.388889 0.293024 0.614951 0.343315 2.444444 0.294756 0.631278 0.347284 2.500000 0.296493 0.647702 0.351208 2.555556 0.298234 0.664222 0.355089 2.611111 0.299981 0.680839 0.358928 2.666667 0.301733 0.697553 0.362726 2.722222 0.303490 0.714365 0.366485 2.777778 0.305253 0.731275 0.370206 2.833333 0.307020 0.748282 0.373890 2.888889 0.308793 0.765388 0.377537 2.944444 0.310570 0.782593 0.381150 3.000000 0.312353 0.799896 0.384729 3.055556 0.314140 0.817299 0.388275 3.111111 0.315933 0.834801 0.391789 3.166667 0.317731 0.852403 0.395272 3.222222 0.319534 0.870104 0.398724 3.277778 0.321343 0.887906 0.402146 3.333333 0.323156 0.905809 0.405540 3.388889 0.324974 0.923813 0.408906 3.444444 0.326798 0.941918 0.412244 3.500000 0.328626 0.960124 0.415555 3.555556 0.330460 0.978432 0.420871 3.611111 0.332299 0.996842 0.439479 3.666667 0.334142 1.015354 0.465946 3.722222 0.335991 1.033969 0.498146 3.777778 0.337846 1.052686 0.535103 3.833333 0.339705 1.071507 0.576216 3.888889 0.341569 1.090432 0.621068 3.944444 0.343438 1.109460 0.669347 4.000000 0.345313 1.128592 0.720807 4.055556 0.347192 1.147828 0.932153 4.111111 0.349077 1.167169 1.314740 4.166667 0.350967 1.186614 1.804237 4.222222 0.352862 1.206165 2.369925 4.277778 0.354762 1.225821 2.984810 4.333333 0.356667 1.245583 3.621466 4.388889 0.358577 1.265451 4.251822 4.444444 0.360492 1.285425 4.848470 4.500000 0.362413 1.305506 5.386847 4.555556 0.364338 1.325693 5.848008 4.611111 0.366269 1.345988 6.221878 4.666667 0.368204 1.366390 6.510896 4.722222 0.370145 1.386900 6.734009 4.777778 0.372091 1.407518 7.011933 4.833333 0.374042 1.428243 7.234108 4.888889 0.375998 1.449078 7.449067 4.944444 0.377959 1.470021 7.657479 5.000000 0.379926 1.491074 7.859910 END FTABLE 2 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 33 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 2 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1006 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1007 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 6 RCHRES ROFLOW RCHRES INFLOW END MASS-LINK 6 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 34 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 35 Mitigated HSPF Message File 17857_RTE_MF 9/9/2016 11:53:45 AM Page 36 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2016; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com