Loading...
CCDA Packet - 01/13/2015 City of 'figArd Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY(CCDA) MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 13,2015 -6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less.Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated,it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard is any order after 7.30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.Please call 503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD-Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request,the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: h ttp://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m.The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL& CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA) MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 13,2015 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION •EXECUTIVE SESSION:The City Center Development Agency will go into Executive Session to discuss real property negotiations,under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 6:30 p.m. estimated time 1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7:15 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 2. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Tigard High School Student Envoy C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce D. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics B. CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 13-04 C. REVIEW AND CONFIRM UPDATES TO THE COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENT MATRIX •Consent Agenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion.Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Counall City Center Development Agency has twed on those items which do not need discussion. 5. APPROVE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 7:40 p.m. estimated time 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING-CONSIDERATION OF A + O APARTMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2014-00002) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR2014-00003),SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR2014-00004),AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW(SLR2014-00002) 7:45 p.m. estimated time 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss the performance evaluation of a public officer under ORS 192.660(2) (i).All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. 9: 15 p.m.estimated time 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m. estimated time SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR (AATU OF MATING) Tigard High School City Update 01/13/15 • Coin Drive for the Tigard Tualatin Foundation • Random Acts of Kindness make coming back easier Compliment Wall • Tigard Boys and Girls Basketball are going strong Games Tuesdays and Fridays, this Friday is at Lakeridge 7:15 • Powerhouse Coffee Shop is opening this coming week! • Monday, January 19th is a Badminton Tournament for spare clothes • Human Rights assembly and week coming in two weeks to Tigard O SPEAK(Students Promoting Emotional Awareness and Knowledge), Feminism, GSA, and African American speakers • Senior Citizens Prom February 15th RSVP at 503 431 5400 City Council Update January 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR I — / 3 - AoIS- Chamber Events (DATE OF MEETING) Good Morning Tigard (GMT),Thursday A.M. Networking 7:30 a.m.—Weekly • 1/15/15— Hosted by Great Bones at their Location • 1/22/15—Hosted by KPAM at the Tigard Chamber • 1/29/15— Hosted by SMArndt at the Tigard Chamber Other • Tigard Chamber Scholarship Applications now being accepted. Deadline is 3/6/15 • 1/13/15—530-7 p.m. Tigard Chamber"Cheers After Hours at Becoming You Hypnosis • 1/14/15—6-8 p.m. Tigard Young Professionals (TYP)After Hours at Nicoli's Sports Bar and Grill • 1/28/15—8 a.m. Young Professionals of Lake Oswego Educate at 8 Supported by TYP at Oswego Lake Country Club • 2/28/15— 10 a.m.—1 p.m—Tigard Chamber Bowlorama • 4/24/15—Save the date for 2015 Tigard Shining Stars Check our event calendar at http://business.tigardchamber.org/events/calendar/for locations and hosting companies Tigard Farmers Market Update • Working on implementing Manage My Market for improved vendor support and visibility of the TAFM and its vendors • Opening Day is Mother's Day May 10`h Downtown Updates • 3`d Friday is 1/16/15, come Explore Downtown Tigard • Art Walk and Street Fair Committees in full swing—Art Walk 5/1-15 and Street Fair 9/12/15 Learn what there is to do in Downtown Tigard on Facebook at www.facebook.com/exploredowntowntigard and at www.exploredowntowntigard.com TIGARV AREA C]%AkRMKET • re •WNT OWN •tigardyoungprofessionalsR.GING WI S�► s�" 'I cont coll"t collob«eb.clknb. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2-B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: January 13, 2015 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda (PLEASE USE SEPARATE SIGNUP SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #6), but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff: This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS& PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address 9 4w- City /1 State " e_ Zi :�Z7 Phone No. 5-s'j Name: MAW-4 a'r'e�+ Lc ✓� Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address 1 DA S5 15L-J -S 1' City �t a►r State Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address l 02.3( S AP-0- City P-eCity State Phone No.SG?1 E 2!I::z CITIZEN COMMUNICATION I:\ADM\CATHY\000 City Re rder-Rmorda Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 141216.doc AGENDA ITEM NO. 2-B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: January 13, 2015 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda (PLEASE USE SEPARATE SIGNUP SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM #6), but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting,subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: mt r y- Also,please spell yo name as it so s,if it will help the presiding officer prono e: Address Q g D S Q v4 City T 0 C State 6 R Zip 3 Phone No. Name: fru(, Also,please spell ur name s it sounds,if it will help the presiding o er p ons Address 731O Ktd +ice City t a State D Zip R'? Phone No. 5 b 'ol 6 19 o Name: f'l U Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address (�0 3-c, S'w )Z,ol A City State Zip—V 2 Phone No. (OV—) on CITIZEN COMMUNICATION 1AADM\CAT74Y\000 City Re rdu-Records Resources and Polidn\CCSignup\citisrn communication 141216.doc AIS-2085 4.A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/13/2015 Length (in minutes):Consent Item Agenda Title: Receive and File: Council Calendar and Council Tentative Agenda Submitted By: Carol Krager,City Management Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Consent- Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and file the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda for future council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is requested;these are for information purposes. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Council Calendar and the Tentative agenda for future Council meetings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A-Receive and File Items Attachments Council Calendar Tentative AlZenda MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor&City Council/City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Carol A. Krager,City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council/CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: January 6,2015 Janes 6 Tuesday City Council Special Meeting(Inauguration)—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall City Center Development Agency Meeting Cancelled 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 19 Monday Martin Luther King,Jr. Birthday—City Hall Offices Closed 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall February 3 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 16 Monday President's Day—City Hall Offices Closed 17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall March 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk(*). is\adm\city councilcouncil calendar\3-month calendar word format.doc Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM - Updated Form MeetingMeeting Inbox or Fubmitted By ---------------------Title---------------------------- Department # Date a Finalized 1892 01/06/2015 Carol Krager anuary 6, 2015 Special Meeting 1�=Inaugural Reception at 6:00 .m. Meeting at 6=30m 2081 01/06/2015 Carol Krager FESPE� mi�dnister Oaths of Office to Mayor John Cook, Councilor City Management 12/30/2014 ohn Goodhouse and Councilor Marc Woodard 2082 01/06/2015 Carol Krager lInaugural Remarks jCity Management 12/30/2014 2083 01/06/2015 Carol Krager IState of the City Address Cit Mana ement 12/30/2014 1991 01/06/2015 Norma Alley CCSPEC 5 Minutes - Elect a Council President to serve January City Management 12/29/2014 2015 through December 2016 otal Time: 45 Minutes Scheduled �I 189301 13/2015 arol Krager_]®Oanuary 13 2015 Business and CCDA Meeting I 2059 01/13/2015 can Farrelly CCBSNS 45 Minutes - CCDA Executive Session - Property Community 12/29/2014 I lNegotiations per ORS 192.660(2)(e) Develo ment 1970 01/13/2015 Carol Krager 115 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports lCity Manage111/03/2014 1 Time: 60 of 45 Minutes Scheduled STUDY SES ED 2061 01/13/2015Norma Alley ACONSENT I Consent Item - Consider Resolution to Amend the City City Management 12/29/2014 Council Groundrules, Superseding Resolution No. 13-04 I 2062 01/13/2015 Norma Alley CONSENT Consent Item - Review and Confirm Updates to the City Management 12/29/2014 Council Liaison Appointment Matrix 2085 1/13/2015 Carol Krager CONSENT Receive and File: Council Calendar and Tentative Agendfg]jcity management 12/31/2014 I 1960 01/13/2015 can Farrelly CCBSNS 1 5 Minutes - City Center Advisory Commission Community 12/29/2014 I ointments Development 1968 01/13/!nlPagenstecher Gary CCBSNS 2 90 Minutes - A+O Apartments Comprehensive Plan ommunity De v Laughlin D, Conf. I Amendment/Planned Development Exec. Asst. 1955 01/13/2015 Dana Bennett CCSTUDY 3 30 Minutes - Executive Session - PerformanceCity Management Bennett, D, HR I Evaluation of Public Officer ORS 192.660(2)(i) Director 1 � is\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session 0 Special Meeting Consent.Agenda ❑ :Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCD.A Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM- Updated Form Meeting Meeting Inbox or Date !S ubmitted By e ---------------------Title---------------------------- Department Finalized I 1930 01/20/2015 CAAarol Krager anuary 20, 2015 Workshop Meeting I Ma or Absent I 1890 01/20/2015 Carissa Collins CCWKSHO 1 45 Minutes - Second Quarter Budget Committee Financial and Info Collins C, Sr �MeetingServices M mt Analyst 2079 01/20/2015 Lloyd Purdy CCWKSHO 2 30 Minutes - Tigard Street Trail: Design Concepts Community =anager , Redev I �Development otal Time: 75 of 180 Minutes Scheduled I 1895 01/27/2015 Carol Krager _]®Vanuary 27 2015 Business MeetingI I 1973 01/27/2015 Norma Alley CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Cit Mana ement 11/04/2014 1967 01/27/2015 Toby La France TU DY 30 Minutes - Pavement Management Program and Street Financial and La France T, Maintenance Fee Discussion Information Fin/Info Svcs Services Director 1887 01/27/2015 udy Lawhead CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - Briefing on Capital Improvement PlanPublic Works McMillan K, Eng I CIP Projects Mana er 1934 01/27/2015 Loreen Mills CCBSNS Lh 20 Minutes - Establish a 10 year franchise agreement City Management FMilyls L, Asst to I Astound Broadband LLC Mana er 1953 01/27/2015 arissa Collins CCBSNS 3 15 Minutes - FY 2015 Second Quarter Supplemental Fin and Info Collins C, Sr I mendment Services lMqmt Analyst 1983 01/27/2015 Mark CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Adopt Ordinance adopting TVF&R Fire IrDevelopment mmunity 11/26/2014 I anDomelen Code Ordinance No. 14-02 1995 01/27/2015 can Farrelly CCBSNS 5 10 Minutes - Transfer city-owned property to the City ommunity Farrelly S, Redev I Center Development Agency Develo ment Project Manager 1996 01/27/2015 Dana Bennett CCBSNS 6 10 Minutes - City Manager Evaluation City Management Bennett, D, HR I Di rector otal Time: 80 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 2 � i:\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting Consent agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM - Updated Form Meeting Meeting Inbox or # Date IS ubmitted By e ---------------------Title---------------- Department Finalized 1896 02/03/2015 Carol Kra er ®IlFebrua ry 3 2015 CCDA Meeting �I 1961 02/03/2015can Farrell y CCDA 20 Minutes - Urban Renewal Tax Increment Revenue tevelopment ommunity Farrelly S, Redev Forecast P ect Mana er otal Time: 20 of 180 Minutes Scheduled I 1897 02/10/2015Carol Krage�It::11114ayor February 10, 2015 Business Meeting I Cook and City Manager Wine Absent I 1997 02/10/2015 Loreen Mills CCSTUDY 20 Minutes - Executive Session - Pending Litigation ORS City Management 12/29/2014 192.660 2 h 1992 02/10/2015 aro) Kracier 1 115 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports lCity management 1111/24/2014 =1 2046 02/10/2015 reer Gaston CCSTUDY 10 Minutes - Briefing on an Agreement with PGE for a Public Works Koellermeier D, Back-up Power Source for a Water Partnership Facility Public Works Dir I 2001 02/10/2015Steve Martin CCBSNS 1 5 Minutes - Consider a resolution adding an adjacent Public Works Martin S, ParksI l I cit property to Woodard Park �Manager 2048 02/10/2015 Doreen CCBSNS 2 15 Minutes - Renew Annexation Incentives - Community Pagenstecher G, ���Laughlin Resolution Development ssoc Planner 2015 02/10/2015 ohn FloydCCBSNS �NNEXATION 20 Minutes - ZCA2014-00002 SUMMIT RIDGE NO 5. Community Floyd J, Associate Develo ment Planner otal Time: 40 of 100 Minutes Scheduled I 1898 02/17/2015 Carol Kra er AA February 17 2015 Workshop Meeting I 2005 02/17/2015 Nadine CCWKSHO 1 20 Minutes - Tigard Municipal Court Annual Report to Administrative Robinson N, Robinson City Council Services Admin. Svcs. Manager 1998 02/17/2015 Debbie Smith- CCWKSHO 2 60 Minutes - Discussion on Storm water, Parks, and Financial and Info LaFrance T, Wa ar rans ortation SDCs and Fees Services Fin/Info Svcs Dir I 31 is\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting Fd Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Fleeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM - Updated Form Meeting Meeting Inbox or # Date ubmitted By [Type -------------- -Title---------------------------- Department Finalized 2049 02/17/2015 udy Lawhead CCWKSHO 3 10 Minutes - Briefing on an Agreement to Facilitate Public Works Goodrich J, Utility I Governance of the Willamette River Water Supply Div Manager 2055 02/17/2015 Judy Lawhead CCWKSHO 4 10 Minutes - Briefing on an Agreement with CWS Public Works McCarthy M, Regarding the Right of Way at the Southern End of 85th St/Trans Sr Proj Avenue En 2057 02/17/2015 Judy Lawhead CCWKSHOP 5 10 Minutes - Briefing on an Agreement Regarding Public Works McCarthy M, Revised Funding for the Pacific Highway/Gaarde St/Trans Sr Proj Street/McDonald Street Intersection Improvements En ]total Time: 110 of 180 Minutes Scheduled I 1929 02/24/2015 IlCarol Krager AA February 24 2015 Business Meeting I 1993 02/24/2015 JINorma Alley CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports IlCity Management 11/24/2014 2080 02/24/2015 ohn Goodrich CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Industrial Open Space Property Lease Public Works Lawhead, J, Sr. �Request Admin Spec. 2084 02/24/2015 Carol Krager CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - RECEIVE UPDATE FROM METRO COUNCILOR City Management Krager C, City DIRKSEN Recorder SSION IS FULL I 1877 02/24/2015 Judy Lawhead CONSENT Consent Item - Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Public Works Koellermeier D, Manager to Execute an Agreement with PGE for a Back- Public Works Dir up Power Source for a Water Partnership Facility 2050 02/24/2015 Judy Lawhead ACONSENT Consent Item - Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Public Works Lawhead, J, Sr. Agreement to Facilitate Governance of the Willamette Admin Spec. River Water Supply. 2056 02/24/2015 Judy Lawhead CONSENT Consent Item - Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Public Works Lawhead, J, Sr. Agreement with CWS Regarding the Right of Way at the Admin Spec. Southern End of 85th Avenue 2058 02/24/2015 Judy LawheadC7Gaarde Consent Item - Authorize the CM to Sign an Agreement Public Works Lawhead, J, Sr. Regarding Revised Funding for the Pacific Highway/ Admin Spec. St./McDonald St. Intersection Improvements I 41 is\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session its Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM-Updated Form ImeetingeetingMInbox or ubmitted ByI--------------------Title---------------------------- Department # Date a Finalized 1758 02/24/2015 Carol Krager CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - PLACEHOLDER - Google Franchise City Management Mills L, Asst to I reement Cit Manager 1977 02/24/2015 oanne CCBSNS 2 5 Minutes - Request for Permit Fee Refund on Stevie City Management Lutz L, Conf Exec I Ben tson Levin Ea le Project sst 1986 02/24/2015 gnes Kowa cz CCBSNS 3 90 Minutes - River Terrace Code Amendments Community Floyd J, Associate I Develo ment Planner I 198803/10/2015 Carol Kra er ®March 10 2015 Business Meeting I 2051 03/10/2 INorma Alle CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports IlCity Mana ement 12/16/2014 I 1966 03/10/2015 udy Lawhead CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Briefing on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Public Works Lawhead, J, Sr. I Districts Admin Spec. 2011 03/10/2015 Liz Lutz CCSTUDY 30 Minutes - Review of 2015 Community Grant Funding9vcs inancial and Info Lutz L, Conf Exec Re uests JAsst I 1874 03/10/2015 Judy Lawhead CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - Informational Public Hearing to Consider Public Works Berry G, Project Resolution Establishing Walnut Street & 112th Avenue Engineer Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement 006 03/10/2015 ohn Floyd CCBSNS �mendments 60 Minutes - Marijuana Facilities Development Code Community Floyd J, Associate I Develo ment Planner 2013 03/10/2015 ohn Floyd CCBSNS 3 25 Minutes - RIVER TERRACE DEVELOPMENT CODE Community IFloyd J, Associate MENDMENTS CONTINUANCE DATE IlDevelopment IPlanner I 1989 03 17 2015 arol Kra er ®march 17 2015 Workshop Meeting I 2086 r 3/17/2015P m McGuire CCWKSHO 1 20 Minutes - Joint Meeting with the Planning ommunity Caines C, Assoc Commission to Receive a Briefingon the Tigard Triangle Development Planner 1984 03/17/2015 Itarol Krager JCCWKSHO 2 20 Minutes - Update for Tigard Triangle Strategic Pla­n1city management Ilcainesc, Asc Pin r 5 � iAcitywide\tentagenda\Jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting Fd Consent Agenda ❑ :Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM - Updated Form Meeting Meeting Inbox or # Date ubmitted By e --- -------Title---------------------------- Department Finalized [Fyp 2060 03/17/2015 ohn Goodrich CCWKSHO 3 20 Minutes - Willamette Water Supply Project - Public Works Goodrich J, Utility I lPipeline Project by Other Agencies - Update Div Mana er otal Time: 60 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 1990 03/24/2015 JlCarol Kra er AA March 24 2015 Business Meeting I 2052 03/24/2015 Norma Alley CCSTUDY 115 Minutes - Council Liaison Re ortsCit Mana ement 12/16/2014 otal Time: 15 of 45 Minutes Scheduled 2009 3/24/2015 ohn Floyd CCBSNS 45 Minutes - Development Code Amendments: Trails, Community Floyd J, Associate I Electronic Signs, and Utility Cabinets Development Planner 2045 03/24/2015 Lloyd Purdy CCBSNS 25 Minutes - Economic Opportunity Analysis: Post �Developmen ommunity Pagenstecher G, I cknowled ement Plan Amendment tssoc Planner otal Time: 70 of 100 Minutes Scheduled I 201404/07/2015 arol Krager_ AA ril 7 2014 CCDA Meeting I 2016104/14/20151ICarol Kracier AA ril 14 2015 Business Meeting I 2053 104/14/2015 JINorma Alley CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports 11city Management 12/16/2014 =1 otal Time: 15 of 45 Minutes Scheduled I 1889 04/14/2015 udy Lawhead CCBSNS 15 Minutes - Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) JPublic Works �dmin awhead, J, Sr. Projects Spec. 2007 04/14/2015 ohn FloydCCBSNS Z0endment Minutes - Marijuana Facilities Development Code Community Floyd J, Associate - Continuance Date Development Planner otal Time: 45 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 2017 04/21/2015 Norma Alle ril 21 2015 Workshop MeetingI 201804/28/2015 Norma Alle ril 28 2015 Business Meeting I 6 � i:\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session 13 Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ :Meeting is Null Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 1/5/2015 4:34 PM - Updated Form Meeting Fubmitted ByMeeting ---------------------Title---------------------------- Department nbox or # Date a Finalized 054104/28/2015 Norma Alley CCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports it Mana ement 12 16 2014 otal Time: 15 of 45 Minutes Scheduled I 000 04/28/2015 Debbie Smith- 40 Minutes - Council Hearing on Storm water, Parks, and Financial and La France T, agar Transportation SDCs and fees Information Fin/Info Svcs Services Director otal Time: 40 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 7 � is\citywide\tentagenda\jan 5 2014.docx AIS-2061 4. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/13/2015 Length (in minutes):Consent Item Agenda Title: Consider Resolution to Amend the City Council Groundrules, Superseding Resolution No. 13-04 Submitted By: Norma Alley,City Management Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Consider a resolution updating and amending the City Council Groundrules and superseding Resolution No. 13-04. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Adopt the proposed resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At its special meeting of December 18,2014,one of the City Council's agenda topics was to review and discuss potential amendments to the City Council Groundrules as established by Resolution No. 13-04. Attached is a draft resolution prepared for Council review and consideration with requested changes. Once the groundrules are adopted,the mayor and council members will be asked to sign a Certificate of Acceptance of the Code of Conduct as defined in the groundrules. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Revise the resolution. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The last update to the Council Groundrules occurred on January 29, 2014,with the adoption of Resolution No. 14-04. Prior to this date updates were approved on August 28,2012,with the adoption of Resolution No. 12-35. Attachments Resolution Resolution Exhibit A Sign Off Page-Council Groundrules Code of Conduct CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 13-04 WHEREAS, the Council Groundrules were reviewed and updated on January 29, 2013, with the adoption of Resolution No. 13-04;and WHEREAS, newly elected officials and mid-term elected officials reviewed the groundrules during a special council meeting held December 18,2014;and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the groundrules at its December 18, 2014, special meeting and determined updating of the groundrules was desired. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Council Groundrules as outlined in Exhibit A represent the agreement of the Mayor and City Councilors and is hereby adopted. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor-City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 Exhibit A — Resolution No. 15- Tigard City Council Groundrules The Tigard City Council hereby adopts the following rules for government of its members and proceedings. (Tigard City Charter, Chapter N, Section 13). These rules will be reviewed and signed off on by each councilor annually. 1. Mandates are not discretionary. Any council or councilor who fails to abide by these is at risk of serious trouble and/or dysfunction. 2. Processes and Procedures are the rules the council sets to manage its own business. 3. Mutual Expectations reflect agreements and understandings among councilors to behave in certain ways. Once agreements are made, councilors who do not abide by them are likely to be mistrusted by their colleagues. 4. General Guidelines for Effective, Respectful Councils are basic rules of courtesy and respect that should guide any Council...or any other group for that matter. 1. Mandates ■ In no case should councilors direct the work of staff without prior approval of the department head or city manager. ■ Council members will not contact a board member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business or developer. Council members may contact the board member in order to clarify a position taken by the board. Council members may respond to inquiries from board members. Communications should be for information only. ■ Board members do not report to individual council members. Individual councilors have no authority to remove board members. ■ Be aware of the public nature of written notes calendars.voicemail messages, and e-mail. All written or recorded materials including notes,voicemail, text messages and e-mail created as part of one's official capacity will be treated as potentially "public" communication. ■ Respect the professional duties of city staff. Council members should refrain from disrupting staff from the conduct of their jobs;participating in administrative functions including directing staff assignments; attending staff meetings unless requested by staff; and impairing the ability of staff to implement policy decisions. ■ Reject gifts, services or other special considerations. ■ Councilors are encouraged to disclose potential conflicts of interest and excuse themselves from participating in decisions when an immediate family's or their own financial interests may be affected by the council's action. If in doubt, councilors are encouraged to discuss the matter with the city attorney. ■ Protect confidential information concerning litigation,personnel,property, or other affairs of the city. ■ Use public resources,such as staff time,equipment,supplies or facilities, only for city-related business. ■ A council member may be censured by the other council members for misconduct, nonperformance of duty or failure to obey the laws of the federal, state, or local government. 1Page Exhibit A—Resolution No. 15- 2. Processes and Procedures Ending Time for Council Meetings ■ The chair or other members if the chair fails to remember may call for a point of order at or around 9 p.m. to review remaining agenda items. The council may reset or reschedule items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. ■ The council's goal is to adjourn prior to 9:30 p.m. unless extended by majority consent of council members present. If not continued by majority consent, the meeting shall be adjourned to the next scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to another regular or special meeting at another date and time. "Citizen Communication" ■ The"Citizen Communication"portion of the agenda is a regular feature on the council business meetings. To manage the agendas to allow council time to consider the remaining agenda items scheduled for the business meeting,this agenda item will be allotted a maximum of 20 minutes. This item will be placed near the beginning of the council agenda to give citizens a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. The mayor or the council president (if the mayor is absent) may ask speakers to keep their remarks to about two to five minutes. If a large number of speakers have signed up, the mayor might ask speakers to keep their comments closer to two minutes. ■ At the conclusion of the Citizen Communication period,the mayor,a council member or staff member will comment what,if any,follow-up action will be taken to respond to each issue. At the beginning of Citizen Communication at the next business meeting, staff will update the council and community on the review of the issue(s), the action taken to address the issue, and a statement of what additional action is planned. Council may decide to refer an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later council meeting. Budget Decisions ■ Budget cuts or increases are policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut"piece meal" or"across the board,"but rather should be made in service or program areas,giving staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. Council Liaisons ■ Council liaison assignments are determined by consensus of City Council. The goal is to have assignments evenly divided between council members. When making assignments consideration should be given to continuity and the background,experience and expertise of individual councilors. Should two or more Council members seek appointment to a position,preference of the longest serving Council member may be a consideration. ■ The role of the council liaison is to periodically attend board meetings,listen to the board discussion,set context for the board regarding council decisions/goals/policies and city priorities, answer questions and carry concerns and information to report back to the full council. Council liaisons may attend board meetings more frequently if attendance is requested by the board. Councilors should make their role clear to the board when attending a meeting as a council liaison. 21 Page Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- ■ Council liaisons are not to direct the business or decision-making process of the board and do not vote of matters before the board. ■ Council liaisons do not initiate,propose or advocate for their personal position on a matter before the board. ■ Council liaisons at times may advocate council actions on behalf of their assigned board. Great care must be taken to avoid the appearance of unfairness,conflict of interest or circumstances where such possibilities may exist (e.g.,Planning Commission quasi-judicial matters). ■ Council liaisons are expected to represent the city positively and promote constructive relationships with community volunteers and city partners. Failure to maintain positive relationships can result in the removal of a Councilor from committee assignments. City Council Compensation Section 2.44.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides for compensation for attendance at Council meetings and meetings for an intergovernmental board, committee or agency. The amount of the compensation for Council members may be reviewed and set annually by resolution of the City Council as part of the budget cycle. As part of the annual review,Council may elect to enter into an agreement with the Mayor or one City Councilor to assume additional responsibilities for additional compensation. The additional duties shall relate to representing the city on regional, state or federal issues and committees or task forces. The responsibilities and compensation shall be set by agreement between the Mayor or Councilor and the Council members. (Mayor Cook will serve as provided in Resolution No. 10-36: "The annual stipend for the Mayor shall be no more than $42,000. It is the expectation of the City Council that the assignments given to the Mayor, over and above usual and customary assignments... (Described in Section 6 of Res. 10-36...will require an average of twenty (20)hours each week during business hours.") 3. Mutual Expectations Communication among Councilors ■ Information received by a council member that affects the council should be shared with the whole council. The city manager is to decide on"gray areas,"but too much information is preferable to too little. ■ Councilors and the city manager agree to report and discuss any contact that might affect labor relations with the entire council in Executive Session. ■ No surprises or ambushes. ■ Bounce ideas off each other by phone or informal conversation, always mindful not to form a quorum. ■ Share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration from sources outside the public decision-making process with my fellow council members and staff. ■ It is the council's job to govern itself. If a discussion is going overly long or if a discussion becomes heated or tense,a council member may consider calling for a point of order to suggest taking a break or deferring the discussion to a future meeting. ■ The presiding officer should invite each councilor to express his or her opinion. 3Page Exhibit A —Resolution No. 15- Communication with Staff ■ Councilors are encouraged to avoid substantive contact with staff below the department head to avoid possible disruption of work,confusion on priorities and limited scope of responses. ■ City manager shares information equally with councilors. Communication with Boards and Commissions ■ Council members may attend any board meeting,which is open to any member of the public. However,council members should be sensitive to the way their participation could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Communication with Other Public Agencies ■ Council members will be clear about representing the city or personal interests. If a council member appears before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the council member must clearly state whether the statement reflects personal opinion or is the official position of the city. ■ If a council member is representing the city on a board,committee or at a public meeting, that council member will consistently support and advocate the city's official position on an issue and cannot foster or further a personal viewpoint that is inconsistent with the official city position. Communication on Behalf of the City or the Council ■ Do not provide the official response to communications directed to the full council. The city manager or mayor will coordinate the response on behalf of the city. It is appropriate for councilors to acknowledge receipt of communication and thank the sender. ■ It is the policy of the council that if councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then councilors have no comment. ■ Communication that represents the city's position on an issue should come through city hall and be provided by the city manager. Direct submittals or inquiries to the council or individual councilors should be referred to the city manager,or councilors may ask the city manager to look into an issue. ■ Make no promises on behalf of the council in unofficial settings. Council members will frequently be asked to explain a council action or to give their opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with citizens. It is appropriate to give a brief overview. Overt or implicit promises of specific action or promises that city staff will take a specific action are to be avoided. Use of Electronic Communications Devices During Council Meetings ■ Councilors shall not use electronic communication devices to review or access information regarding matters not in consideration before the council during a council meeting. ■ Councilors shall not access the internet but may access council packet information and personal review annotations concerning any matter pending before the council during a council meeting. Councilors are to keep their focus on the proceedings. 41 Page Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- 4. General Guidelines for Effective,Respectful Councils ■ Recognize that you are seen as a councilor at all times,no matter how you see yourself at any particular time. Thus,councilors are always treated by administration as council members. ■ Whenever you put anything in writing, assume that everyone in the city is looking over your shoulder. ■ If a communication is directed to an individual councilor,you may choose to respond as an individual or refer to the city manager. ■ Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the city manager,both as a group and individually. ■ Councilors are encouraged to take issues to the city manager first,giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. ■ In the absence of the city manager,councilors are encouraged to contact the assistant city manager. In the absence of both the city manager and the assistant city manager,councilors are encouraged to contact the department head,realizing that the department head will discuss any such inquiries with the city manager. ■ Communicate clearly,directly and respectfully. Focus on problems and solutions,not people. ■ Our goal is mutual confidence and respect with staff. Compliment staff members when they make good presentations. Be friendly. Attend staff occasions when you can. ■ Be courteous. ■ Honestly share concerns and opinions with each other. ■ Don't blurt it out on TV. ■ If you hold back in a meeting, follow up later with fellow councilors or the city Manager. ■ Spend some casual time together. ■ Practice civility,professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view,and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of democratic governance. This does not allow, however, council members to make belligerent,personal, slanderous,threatening,abusive,or disparaging comments. ■ Avoid personal comments that are intended to,or could reasonably be construed to, offend other members or citizens. If a council member is offended by the conduct or remarks of another member,the offended member is encouraged to address the matter early with the offending member. ■ Continue respectful behavior in private. The same level of respect and consideration of differing points of view deemed appropriate for public discussion should be maintained in private conversations. ■ Even private conversations can have a public presence. Council members should be aware that they are the focus of the public's attention. Even casual conversation about city business, other public officials or staff may draw attention and be repeated. ■ Understand proper political involvement. Council members,as private citizens,may support political candidates or issues but such activities must be done separate from their role as a council member. 5Page Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- ■ Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with respect by gi3dag them full attention demonstrated by eye contact and active listening:avoid interrupting them with.questions or comments. For many citizens, speaking in front of the council is a new and difficult experience. ■ Council members should commit full attention to the speaker. Comments,questions, and non- verbal expressions should be appropriate,respectful and professional. ■ Be honest with fellow council members, the public and others. ■ Credit others'contributions to moving our community's interests forward. ■ Make independent,objective,fair and impartial judgments by avoiding relationships and transactions that give the appearance of compromising objectivity,independence,and honesty. ■ Review materials provided in advance of the meeting. ■ Make every effort to attend meetings. ■ Be prepared to make difficult decisions when necessary. ■ Contribute to a strong organization that exemplifies transparency. ■ Make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into account the long-term financial needs of the city. ■ Promote meaningful public involvement in decision-making processes. ■ Treat council members,board members,staff and the public with patience,courtesy and civility, even when we disagree on what is best for the community. ■ Conduct myself in a courteous and respectful manner at all times. ■ Encourage participation of all persons and groups. 6Page Exhibit A — Resolution No. 15- Tigard City Council Groundrules The Tigard City Council hereby adopts the following rules for government of its members and proceedings. (Tigard City Charter, Chapter N, Section 13). These rules will be reviewed and signed off on by each councilor annually. 1. Mandates are not discretionary. Any council or councilor who fails to abide by these is at risk of serious trouble and/or dysfunction. 2. Processes and Procedures are the rules the council sets to manage its own business. 3. Mutual Expectations reflect agreements and understandings among councilors to behave in certain ways. Once agreements are made, councilors who do not abide by them are likely to be mistrusted by their colleagues. 4. General Guidelines for Effective, Respectful Councils are basic rules of courtesy and respect that should guide any Council...or any other group for that matter. 1. Mandates ■ In no case should councilors direct the work of staff without prior approval of the department head or city manager. ■ Council members will not contact a board member to lobby on behalf of an individual, business or developer. Council members may contact the board member in order to clarify a position taken by the board. Council members may respond to inquiries from board members. Communications should be for information only. ■ Board members do not report to individual council members. Individual councilors have no authority to remove board members. ■ Be aware of the public nature of written notes, calendars,voicemail messages,and e-mail. All written or recorded materials including notes,voicemail, text messages and e-mail created as part of one's official capacity will be treated as potentially "public" communication. ■ Respect the professional duties of city staff. Council members should refrain from disrupting staff from the conduct of their jobs;participating in administrative functions including directing staff assignments;attending staff meetings unless requested by staff; and impairing the ability of staff to implement policy decisions. ■ Reject gifts, services or other special considerations. ■ Councilors are encouraged to disclose potential conflicts of interest and excuse themselves from participating in decisions when an immediate family's or their own financial interests may be affected by the council's action. If in doubt, councilors are encouraged to discuss the matter with the city attorney. ■ Protect confidential information concerning litigation,personnel,property,or other affairs of the city. ■ Use public resources, such as staff time,equipment, supplies or facilities, only for city-related business. ■ A council member may be censured by the other council members for misconduct, nonperformance of duty or failure to obey the laws of the federal, state, or local government. I Page Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- 2. Processes and Procedures Ending Time for Council Meetings ■ The chair or other members if the chair fails to remember may call for a point of order at or around 9 p.m. to review remaining agenda items. The council may reset or reschedule items, which it feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment. ■ The council's goal is to adjourn prior to 9:30 p.m. unless extended by majority consent of council members present. If not continued by majority consent, the meeting shall be adjourned to the next scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to another regular or special meeting at another date and time. "Citizen Communication" ■ The"Citizen Communication"portion of the agenda is a regular feature on the council business meetings. To manage the agendas to allow council time to consider the remaining agenda items scheduled for the business meeting,this agenda item will be allotted a maximum of 20 minutes. This item will be placed near the beginning of the council agenda to give citizens a chance to introduce a topic to the City Council. The mayor or the council president (if the mayor is absent) may ask speakers to keep their remarks to about two to five minutes. If a large number of speakers have signed up,the mayor might ask speakers to keep their comments closer to two minutes. ■ At the conclusion of the Citizen Communication period, the mayor,a council member or staff member will comment what,if any,follow-up action will be taken to respond to each issue. At the beginning of Citizen Communication at the next business meeting, staff will update the council and community on the review of the issue(s), the action taken to address the issue,and a statement of what additional action is planned. Council may decide to refer an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later council meeting. Budget Decisions ■ Budget cuts or increases are policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut"piece meal" or"across the board,"but rather should be made in service or program areas,giving staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of the action. Council Liaisons ■ Council liaison assignments are determined by consensus of City Council. The goal is to have assignments evenly divided between council members. When making assignments consideration should be given to continuity and the background,experience and expertise of individual councilors. Should two or more Council members seek appointment to a position,preference of the longest serving Council member may be a consideration. ■ The role of the council liaison is to periodically attend board meetings,listen to the board discussion, set context for the board regarding council decisions/goals/policies and city priorities,answer questions and carry concerns and information to report back to the full council. Council liaisons may attend board meetings more frequently if attendance is requested by the board. Councilors should make their role clear to the board when attending a meeting as a council liaison. 2Page Exhibit A — Resolution No. 15- ■ Council liaisons are not to direct the business or decision-making process of the board and do not vote of matters before the board. ■ Council liaisons do not initiate,propose or advocate for their personal position on a matter before the board. ■ Council liaisons at times may advocate council actions on behalf of their assigned board. Great care must be taken to avoid the appearance of unfairness,conflict of interest or circumstances where such possibilities may exist(e.g.,Planning Commission quasi-judicial matters). ■ Council liaisons are expected to represent the city positively and promote constructive relationships with community volunteers and city partners. Failure to maintain positive relationships can result in the removal of a Councilor from committee assignments. City Council Compensation Section 2.44.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides for compensation for attendance at Council meetings and meetings for an intergovernmental board, committee or agency. The amount of the compensation for Council members may be reviewed and set annually by resolution of the City Council as part of the budget cycle. As part of the annual review,Council may elect to enter into an agreement with the Mayor or one City Councilor to assume additional responsibilities for additional compensation. The additional duties shall relate to representing the city on regional, state or federal issues and committees or task forces. The responsibilities and compensation shall be set by agreement between the Mayor or Councilor and the Council members. (Mayor Cook will serve as provided in Resolution No. 10-36: "The annual stipend for the Mayor shall be no more than $42,000. It is the expectation of the City Council that the assignments given to the Mayor,over and above usual and customary assignments... (Described in Section 6 of Res. 10-36...will require an average of twenty (20) hours each week during business hours.") 3. Mutual Expectations Communication among Councilors ■ Information received by a council member that affects the council should be shared with the whole council. The city manager is to decide on"gray areas,"but too much information is preferable to too little. ■ Councilors and the city manager agree to report and discuss any contact that might affect labor relations with the entire council in Executive Session. ■ No surprises or ambushes. ■ Bounce ideas off each other by phone or informal conversation,always mindful not to form a quorum. ■ Share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration from sources outside the public decision-making process with my fellow council members and staff. ■ It is the council's job to govern itself. If a discussion is going overly long or if a discussion becomes heated or tense,a council member may consider calling for a point of order to suggest taking a break or deferring the discussion to a future meeting. ■ The presiding officer should invite each councilor to express his or her opinion. 3Page Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- Communication with Staff ■ Councilors are encouraged to avoid substantive contact with staff below the department head to avoid possible disruption of work,confusion on priorities and limited scope of responses. ■ City manager shares information equally with councilors. Communication with Boards and Commissions ■ Council members may attend any board meeting,which is open to any member of the public. However, council members should be sensitive to the way their participation could be viewed as unfairly affecting the process. Communication with Other Public Agencies ■ Council members will be clear about representing the city or personal interests. If a council member appears before another governmental agency or organization to give a statement on an issue, the council member must clearly state whether the statement reflects personal opinion or is the official position of the city. ■ If a council member is representing the city on a board, committee or at a public meeting, that council member will consistently support and advocate the city's official position on an issue and cannot foster or further a personal viewpoint that is inconsistent with the official city position. Communication on Behalf of the City or the Council ■ Do not provide the official response to communications directed to the full council. The city manager or mayor will coordinate the response on behalf of the city. It is appropriate for councilors to acknowledge receipt of communication and thank the sender. ■ It is the policy of the council that if councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then councilors have no comment. ■ Communication that represents the city's position on an issue should come through city hall and be provided by the city manager. Direct submittals or inquiries to the council or individual councilors should be referred to the city manager,or councilors may ask the city manager to look into an issue. ■ Make no,promises on behalf of the council in unofficial settings. Council members will frequently be asked to explain a council action or to give their opinion about an issue as they meet and talk with citizens. It is appropriate to give a brief overview. Overt or implicit promises of specific action or promises that city staff will take a specific action are to be avoided. Use of Electronic Communications Devices During Council Meetings ■ Councilors shall not use electronic communication devices to review or access information regarding matters not in consideration before the council during a council meeting. ■ Councilors shall not access the internet but may access council packet information and personal review annotations concerning any matter pending before the council during a council meeting. Councilors are to keep their focus on the proceedings. 4 1 P a g e Exhibit A— Resolution No. 15- 4. General Guidelines for Effective, Respectful Councils ■ Recognize that you are seen as a councilor at all times,no matter how you see yourself at any particular time. Thus,councilors are always treated by administration as council members. ■ Whenever you put anything in writing,assume that everyone in the city is looking over your shoulder. ■ If a communication is directed to an individual councilor,you may choose to respond as an individual or refer to the city manager. ■ Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the city manager,both as a group and individually. ■ Councilors are encouraged to take issues to the city manager first,giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. ■ In the absence of the city manager,councilors are encouraged to contact the assistant city manager. In the absence of both the city manager and the assistant city manager, councilors are encouraged to contact the department head,realizing that the department head will discuss any such inquiries with the city manager. ■ Communicate clearly,directly and respectfully. Focus on problems and solutions,not people. ■ Our goal is mutual confidence and respect with staff. Compliment staff members when they make good presentations. Be friendly. Attend staff occasions when you can. ■ Be courteous. ■ Honestly share concerns and opinions with each other. ■ Don't blurt it out on TV. ■ If you hold back in a meeting, follow up later with fellow councilors or the city Manager. ■ Spend some casual time together. ■ Practice civility.professionalism and decorum in discussions and debate. Difficult questions, tough challenges to a particular point of view,and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of democratic governance. This does not allow,however,council members to make belligerent,personal,slanderous,threatening,abusive, or disparaging comments. ■ Avoid personal comments that are intended to, or could reasonably be construed to,offend other members or citizens. If a council member is offended by the conduct or remarks of another member, the offended member is encouraged to address the matter early with the offending member. ■ Continue respectful behavior in private. The same level of respect and consideration of differing points of view deemed appropriate for public discussion should be maintained in private conversations. ■ Even private conversations can have a public presence. Council members should be aware that they are the focus of the public's attention. Even casual conversation about city business, other public officials or staff may draw attention and be repeated. ■ Understand 1roper political involvement. Council members,as private citizens,may support political candidates or issues but such activities must be done separate from their role as a council member. 5Page Exhibit A — Resolution No. 15- ■ Be welcoming to speakers and treat them with respect by giving them full attention demonstrated b�eye contact and active listening; avoid interrupting them with questions or comments. For many citizens, speaking in front of the council is a new and difficult experience. ■ Council members should commit full attention to the speaker. Comments, questions, and non- verbal expressions should be appropriate, respectful and professional. ■ Be honest with fellow council members, the public and others. ■ Credit others' contributions to moving our community's interests forward. ■ Make independent,objective, fair and impartial judgments by avoiding relationships and transactions that give the appearance of compromising objectivity, independence, and honesty. ■ Review materials provided in advance of the meeting. ■ Make every effort to attend meetings. ■ Be prepared to make difficult decisions when necessary. ■ Contribute to a strong organization that exemplifies transparency. ■ Make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into account the long-term financial needs of the city. ■ Promote meaningful public involvement in decision-making processes. ■ Treat council members,board members, staff and the public with patience,courtesy and civility, even when we disagree on what is best for the community. ■ Conduct myself in a courteous and respectful manner at all times. ■ Encourage participation of all persons and groups. 6Page TIGARD CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES COUNCIL GROUNDRULES CERTIFICATION As a member of the Tigard City Council, I affirm that: ✓ I have read and understand the Council Groundrules including the Code of Conduct and its application to my role and responsibilities while serving on the City Council. ✓ I pledge to conduct myself by the Council Groundrules/Code of Conduct. ✓ I understand that I may be officially censured by the City Council if my conduct falls below these standards. Signature: Position: Signed this day of ,20__ AIS-2062 4. C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/13/2015 Length(in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Review and Confirm Updates to the Council Liaison Appointment Matrix Prepared For: Marty Wine,City Management Submitted By: Norma Alley, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Review,confirm agreements reached at December 18,2014,Council Groundrules meeting regarding the updated Council liaison appointment matrix. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Review and approve the attached updated council liaison appointment matrix prepared as a result of the City Council's discussion at its December 18,2014,meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Council,at its December 18,2014 Groundrules meeting,reviewed the Council liaison appointment matrix and reached consensus about representation to the numerous City of Tigard and regional boards,committees and commissions.An updated matrix is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Further amend the matrix if changes are agreed upon by the City Council. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION December 6,2011 January 24,2012 June 26,2012 January 10,2013 December 18,2014 Attachments 2015 Board&Committee Liaison Matrix Council Assiznment Meeting Calendar 2015 City Council Appointment Matrix Council Groundrule mtg 12/18/14 Committee Name Primary Alternate Meeting Frequency Time Staff Liaison Representative Rep Expectation Audit Committee Councilor Snider None 2- 3 times per year 2-hours per yr Debbie Smith-Wagar The Audit Committee is responsible for selecting the auditing firm and meets twice (minimum) with CPA firm reps appointed to perform the city's annual financial audit.Members participate in the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of any independent accountants engaged for the purpose of preparing and issuing an independent audit report or performing other independent audit, review or attest services. Budget Committee All Council None 3-4 consecutive Monday Toby LaFrance evenings in April &May The Budget Committee provides a public forum to obtain public views in the preparation of fiscal policy. Budget Subcommittee-Social Councilor Snider None 1 meeting in March Toby LaFrance Services 7 Reviews applications submitted by social service agencies for contributions from the city. Consists of 1 Council member and 2 citizen-members of the Budget Committee. Budget Subcommittee-EventsF All Council None Council Workshop or Toby LaFrance Study Session in March Reviews requests for contributions to community events. City Center Development All Council None First Tuesday of month Approximately 2 Sean Farrelly Agency hours per month Council members serve as the urban renewal agency's board. Clackamas River Water No voting member 1" Wednesday of the month, 9-11 a.m. Providers until 2016 None North Clackamas Water Commission Building, John Goodrich 14275 S Clackamas River Drive, Oregon Cit Comprised of six municipal water providers on the Clackamas River serving more than 300,000 people in Clackamas County. Participation is voluntary and funded through membership dues. The CRWP projects and staff are jointly funded but each individual organization retains autonomy. Conservation programs and services are provided to CRWP members. Members include Estacada,Lake Oswego,Gladstone, Tigard,and the North Clackamas Counter Water Commission,Oak Lode Water District,Sunrise Water Authority,South Fork Water Board and Clackamas River Water. 2015 Council Appointment Matrix-Page 1 Updated 12/18/14 Committee Name Primary Alternate Meeting Frequency Time Staff Liaison Representative Rep Expectation Community Development Block Councilor Marissa 2°d Thursday of the month Approximately Marissa Daniels Grant Policy Advisory Board Henderson Daniels at 7 p.m. Location rotates 2 hours month By IGA, Washington Co. established the Community Development Policy Advisory Board (PAB) to represent the County Consortium, make recommendations to the County Commissioners on all matters pertaining to the CDBG program. Includes a representative, generally an elected official, from the County and each of the 11 participating cities in the Co. Councilor Councilor 2nd Wednesday/month, Brian Rager/John Intergovernmental Water Board Woodard Goodhouse 5:30 .m., Water BuildingMonthly Goodrich To make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water issues and to carry out other responsibilities set forth in the IGA between -Tigard, Durham, King City and the Tigard Water District. Each jurisdiction is represented by a member + 1 at-large. Metro Joint Policy AdvisoryBeaverton Mayor Cornelius Mayor 2°d Thursday/month Mayor Cook & Commission on Transportation Do l Jef Dalin 7:30-9 a.m. @Metro 2-3 hours Kenny Asher monitor Tigard Mayor Cook to attend/monitor meetings on regular basis. 17-member committee provides a forum for elected officials and representatives of agencies involved in transportation to evaluate transportation needs in the region and to make recommendations to Metro council. Mayor's Appointment Advisory The Councilor serving as liaison to the committee that is recruiting will be the one Staff Liaison to the Committee that interviews applicants with the Mayor. committee interviewing The Mayor and one councilor. The councilor serving as the current City Council liaison will interview applicants for filling available seats on city boards, committees and commissions. For example,when interviewing applicants for the Planning Commission,the Mayor and the primary Council liaison will interview candidates with a meeting time and date to conduct the interviews coordinated by the staff liaison. Metropolitan Area 6 times a year, usually Wednesday, 1-5 pm at Communications Commission Councilor Woodard Louis Sears MACC headquarters in Beaverton Louis Sears MACC is the governing body that oversees the contracts for cable services and TVCTV. The Executive Committee meets separately to make recommendations to the Commission on administrative issues including budget and the review of the Executive Director. Regional Water Providers CouncilorNone Quarterly meeting John Goodrich Consortium Henderson T held at Metro Consortium is comprised of all water suppliers in the metro area. The Councilor appointee to this group represents the city on regional policy issues. 2015 Council Appointment Matrix—Page 2 Updated 12/18/14 Committee Name Primary Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Time Staff Liaison Representatives Expectation SW Corridor Plan Steering Mayor Cook Councilor Monthly 2-3 hours/mo. Transportation Committee Goodhouse planner Consists of project partner elected and appointed officials who make final recommendations to the Metro Council and other jurisdictions for the SW Corridor Plan Tigard-Lake Oswego Joint We have two primary seats: bimonthly-location Water Partnership Oversight Councilor Snider, Mayor Cook rotates between Tigard 2-4 hours/mo. Dennis Koellermeier Committee & Lake O Membership is comprised of staff and elected officials to govern water partnership between the cities. Washington County Mayor Cook Councilor 2"d Monday @ noon 2 hours per month Transportation Coordinating Committee I Goodhouse Beaverton City Hall I Planner WCCC reviews and comments on major land use and transportation issues and provides a forum for discussion which results in recommendations for a coordinated approach between jurisdictions. The Committee has specific authority on the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) and the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. Representatives to JPAC and MPAC from County and cities in the Co. will be on the policy body. Westside Economic Alliance Mayor Cook Councilor 3`d Wednesday @ 7:30-9 Plus Monthly Kenny Asher Goodhouse a.m. St. V's hospital break ast orum Create an environment conducive to business growth, working to influence decisions on policies and regulations impacting the economic vitality of the area. Willamette River Water Councilor None Monthly John Goodrich Coalition Henderson Mission of the coalition is to protect the Willamette River and to protect Tigard's water rights. 2015 Council Appointment Matrix-Page 3 Updated 12/18/14 Tigard Board & Committee Liaison Assignments Committee Name Primary Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Time Rereectatton Staff Liaison seutatave City Center Advisory Councilor Henderson Councilor 2 n Wednesday @ 6:30 p.m. 3-5 hrs/mo Sean Farrelly Commission Woodard This committee's role is defined in the City Charter and is to assist the Urban Renewal Commission in developing and carrying out an Urban Renewal Plan. Urban Renewal Funding Councilor Goodhouse Councilor As needed Sean Farrelly Selection Subcommittee Councilor Henderson Snider To encourage businesses to make improvements to storefronts or commercial facades in downtown by providing design assistance and/or matching funds and to make recommendations for various public art options that may be purchased with the urban renewal funds for the Main St./Green St. project. *Two council representatives required. Library Board Councilor Snider None 2nd Wednesday-7 p.m. Margaret Barnes This board advises Council on library policies, budget, facilities & other community needs to provide quality library service, per TMC 2.36.030. Neighborhood Involvement Councilor 3`d Wednesday/quarterly @ Committee Councilor Goodhouse Snider 7p.m. at Library 2nd fl. 6 hours/year Joanne Bengtson Charged with oversight for the Neighborhood Network program, encourages two-way communication between city and residents and encourages residents to be more involved Park&Recreation Advisory Bd. Councilor Woodard Councilor 2nd Monday@ 7 p.m. in the 2-3 hrs/mo Steve Martin Goodhouse Water Bldg To advise the Council on park and recreation policies, facilities, programs and budgets. Planning Commission Councilor Goodhouse Councilor 1st & 3rd Monday @ 7p.m. 2-3 hrs/mo Tom McGuire Snider Assists the City Council to develop, maintain, update and implement the Comprehensive Plan, to formulate the Capital Improvements Program, and to review and take action on development projects and development code provisions delegated to the Commission. Tigard Transportation Advisory Councilor Councilor Woodard 1s`Wednesday, 6:30 p.m., 1.5 hr. Transportation Committee Goodhouse library 2"d Floor Conf rm meetings Planner Advisory to council&staff regarding planning and development of a comprehensive transportation network, including development of plans and corresponding financing programs; development of funding mechanisms and sources to implement transportation projects and ensure adequate 2015 Council Appointment Matrix-Page 4 Updated 12/18/14 maintenance of the existing transportation infrastructure;public involvement and education in transportation matters and ways to improve traffic safety and accessibility in all transportation modes. Committee Name P Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Time Re resentative x ectation Staff Liaison .. . , .. . . Tuesda Youth AdvisoryCouncil Mayor Cook p.m. at r t tes locations @ 5:30 Councilor Henderson y P cations 3 hours/mo Marty Wine around City Hall Tigard students in grades 6-12 advise City Council on the best ways to build developmental assets for each youth in Tigard. The Youth Advisory Council also facilitates the development and implementation of programs and activities that are important to youth. I:\adm\city council\goals\2015 DRAFT council liaison appt matrix\updated 12-22-14.docx Invitation Only: League of Oregon Cities Legislative Committees are composed of city officials charged with analyzing policy and technical issues and recommending positions and strategies for the League. For more information regarding the committee process contact Angela Speier at aspeier@orcities.org Councilor Goodhouse Transportation Policy Committee Scope of Work The Transportation Policy Committee reviews policy decisions and recommends legislative positions and strategies related to: streets and roads; traffic safety; public transit; and rail. Meetings Committee members are appointed for two-year terms. It is anticipated that in even-numbered years, committees will meet three or four times between March and June; in odd-numbered years,they will meet once or twice in the fall on an as-needed basis. Councilor Woodard Finance and Taxation Policy Committee Scope of Work The Finance and Taxation Policy Committee reviews policy decisions and recommends legislative positions and strategies related to: property/income taxation; school finance; local government debt instruments; infrastructure funding; public budgeting; state revenue sharing; and financing economic development. Meetings Committee members are appointed for two-year terms. It is anticipated that in even-numbered years, committees will meet three or four times between March and June; in odd-numbered years, they will meet once or twice in the fall on an as-needed basis. 2015 Council Appointment Matrix—Page 5 Updated 12/18/14 Council Board& Committee Liaison Meeting Schedule (revised with Budget Committee dates) Mayor Cook JPACT Mayor Cook (monitors) 2"d Thursday @ 7:30 a.m. SW Corridor Plan Steering Comm Mayor Cook 2nd Monday @ 9-11 a.m. LOTWP Oversight Comm Mayor Cook, Councilor Snider 2"d Monday @ 5:30-7p.m. WCCC Mayor Cook 1/2nd Mon @ Noon WEA Mayor Cook 4`h Wednesday @ 7:30 a.m. CCDA All Council 15t Tuesday @ 6:30 Budget Committee All Council April 20, 27, May 4, 11 @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Subcommittee (events) All Council During regular Council meeting Mayors Appointment Advisory All Council Monday's as needed TYAC Mayor Cook(Alternate) 1"&3'd Tuesday @ 5.30 p.m. Councilor Snider LOTWP Oversight Comm Councilor Snider, Mayor Cook 2"d Monday @ 5:30-7p.m. Library Board Councilor Snider 2"d Wed. @ 7 p.m. Audit Committee Councilor Snider Jan/May/Nov as needed Budget Subcommittee (SSvc) Councilor Snider March 4 @ 5:30 p.m. Budget Committee All Council April 20, 27, May 4, 11 @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Subcommittee (event) All Council During regular Council meeting CCDA All Council 15` Tues @ 6:30 p.m. Mayors Appointment Advisory All Council Monday's as needed Plg Commis Councilor Snider(Alternate) 1"&3'd Monday @ 7p.m. NIC Councilor Snider(Alternate) 3'd Wed @ 7 p.m. Feb/May/Aug/Nov Councilor Henderson TYAC Councilor Henderson 15` & 3rd Tuesday @ 5:30 p.m. CDBG Councilor Henderson 2nd Thursday @ 7 p.m. Regional Water Supply Consort. Councilor Henderson Feb 4,June 3, Oct. 7 @ 7p.m. Willamette River Water Coalition Councilor Henderson 1" Wednesday @ 5 p.m. CCAC Councilor Henderson 2"d Wednesday @ 6:30 p.m. Urban Renewal Funding Selection Councilors Henderson & Goodhouse As needed CCDA All Council I" Tues @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Committee All Council April 20, 27, May 4, 11 @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Subcommittee (events) All Council During regular Council meeting Mayors Appointment Advisory All Council Monday's as needed Councilor Woodard MACC Councilor Woodard 2nd Thursday @ 1:30 p.m. Jan/Apr/June/Oct IWB Councilor Woodard 2nd Wednesday @ 5:30 p.m. PRAB Councilor Woodard 2nd Monday @ 5:30 p.m. LOC Finance/Taxation Councilor Woodard March & April 10-2 p.m., Salem CCDA All Council V Tuesday @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Committee All Council April 20, 27, May 4, 110 6:30 p.m. Budget Subcommittee (events) All Council During regular Council meeting Mayors Appointment Advisory All Council Monday evenings as needed CCAC Councilor Woodard(Alternate) 2nd Wednesday @ 6:30 p.m. TTAC Councilor Woodard(A) T' Wednesday @ 6:30 p.m. Councilor Goodhouse City Center Devel Agency All Council 15` Tuesday @ 6:30 p.m. Regular Council Meetings All Council 2nd, 3`d&4th Tuesdays @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Committee All Council April 20, 27, May 4, 11 @ 6:30 p.m. Budget Subcommittee (events) All Council During regular Council meeting LOC Transportation Councilor Goodhouse Fri, 10-2 in Salem in Fall (tba) Mayors Appointment Advisory All Council Monday's as needed Neighborhood Involvement Com Councilor Goodhouse 3rd Wed @ 7 p.m. Feb/May/Aug/Nov Planning Commission Councilor Goodhouse 1" & 3`d Monday @ 7 p.m. Tig. Transp Advisory Comm Councilor Goodhouse Vt Wednesday @ 6:30 p.m. Urban Renewal Funding Selection Councilors Goodhouse & Henderson As needed SW Corridor Plan Steering Comm Councilor Goodhouse(Alternate) 2nd Monday @ 9-11 a.m. Intergovernmental Water Board Councilor Goodhouse(A) 2nd Wednesday @ 5:30 p.m. Wash. Co. Coordinating Comm. Councilor Goodhouse(A) 1/2nd Mon @ Noon Westside Economic Alliance Councilor Goodhouse(A) 4`h Wednesday @ 7.•30 a.m. Park &Rec Advisory Bd Councilor Goodhouse(A) 2nd Monday @ 5:30 p.m. N MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor&City Council/City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Carol A. Krager,City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council/CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: January 6,2015 January 6 Tuesday City Council Special Meeting(Inauguration)—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall City Center Development Agency Meeting Cancelled 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 19 Monday Martin Luther King,Jr.Birthday—City Hall Offices Closed 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall February 3 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 16 Monday President's Day—City Hall Offices Closed 17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall March 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 17* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk(*). k\adm\city council\council calendar\3-month calendar word format.doc AIS-1960 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/13/2015 Length (in minutes):5 Minutes Agenda Title: City Center Advisory Commission Appointments Submitted By: Sean Farrelly,Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting -Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall Council appoint Deanie Bush,Sherrie Devaney,and Joyce Casey as voting members and Raviprakash Nagaraj as a non-voting alternate member to the City Center Advisory Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Approve a resolution appointing Deanie Bush,Sherrie Devaney,and Joyce Casey as voting members of the City Center Advisory Commission whose terms will expire December 31,2017,and Raviprakash Nagaraj as a non-voting alternate member whose term will expire December 31,2015. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Center Advisory Commission(CCAC)is the advisory body to the City Center Development Agency on urban renewal issues.There are currently three voting positions on the City Center Advisory Commission with terms that expire on December 31,2014.There are also up to two non-voting alternate positions that are vacant. Several applicants were interviewed on December 1st by the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee. The Committee recommended that Deanie Bush and Sherrie Devaney be re-appointed,and Joyce Casey be appointed as voting members and recommended that Raviprakash Nagaraj be appointed as an alternate member. Attachment 1 is a Resolution implementing these recommended appointees. Attachment 2 has biographical information on all four recommended appointees. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could decide to not approve some,or all,of the recommendations. This would necessitate reopening the recruitment. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION March 2014 Attachments Resolution CCAC Biozmt)hies Attachment 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPOINTEES BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION On January 13,2015 Tigard City Council will consider a Resolution to appoint Deanie Bush, Sherrie Devaney, and Joyce Casey as voting members, and Raviprakash Nagaraj as a non- voting alternate member of the City Center Advisory Commission. Deane Bush has been a Tigard resident for 22 years. She served on the City Center Advisory Commission from January 2012 to December 2014 as a voting member. She has been employed by Community Newspapers for 11 years. Her volunteer experience includes the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce serving as Vice President of the Deer Creek Elementary PSO. Sherrie Devaney owns Sherrie's Jewelry Box on Main Street. She is a resident of Gresham and has been a Tigard business owner for the past 18 years. She has served on the City Center Advisory Commission since January 2012. Prior to that she was on the CCAC public art subcommittee. Joyce Casey lives adjacent to the City Center Urban Renewal Area. She has lived in Tigard for the past six months and previously from 1996 to 1999. She is employed as the environmental resources chief for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. She was president of the Markham Neighborhood Association and president of the Squire Crest HOA in Portland. She serves on the Tigard Pedestrian and Bicyclist Subcommittee of the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee and also volunteers with the Adventure Cycling Association and the Friends of Trees. Raviprakash Nagaraj has been a Tigard resident for 14 years. He has been employed as an engineer with Intel for the past 25 years. His volunteer experience includes mentoring a student team in the Oregon Game Project Challenge. AIS-1968 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/13/2015 Length (in minutes): 90 Minutes Agenda Title: A+O Apartments Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Planned Development Submitted By: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Development Item Type: Public Hearing- Quasi-judicial Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE On December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended (by a vote of 4 to 3) approval of the applications below by the City Council, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report. Shall the Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the following applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from, i.e. allow conflicting uses on, 0.42 acres of significant wetlands, designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan's "Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map." The remaining 6.20 acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping of the existing ground surface to decrease the floodplain area without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the site. Approximately 2,780 cubic yards of material will be placed in the floodplain. Planned Development (PDR): Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan Review approvals are requested to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve more than six acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of easements to the city for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. A parking exception is requested to reduce required parking by 9.1 percent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST At its hearing on December 15, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval by the City Council, subject to recommended conditions of approval. The split 4 to 3 vote is recorded in the attached minutes (see AIS Attachment 3). In summary, the Planning Commission recommendation to council reflects the sense that the majority believe a balance of natural resource protection and development objectives has been achieved. The minority opinion is that it would be possible to avoid impacts to wetlands and meet the planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center, although at greater cost to the developer. The livability issues associated with the requested parking exception and increased traffic are in part addressed through recommended conditions of approval # 7 and # 8, as place holders for council deliberation, as described below. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY aProcedure for review: First, according to TDC18.390.080.D.2.b.ii, the decision on the Wetland and Stream Corridors map amendment (CPA) shall precede other actions. Second, a decision on impacts to the floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands (SLR) follows as that decision affects the net buildable area of the planned development proposal. Third,in the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR), separate actions shall be made on each element of the planned development application, i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval; Key Issues Summary - (See pages 7 and 8 of the Staff Report) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) TDC18.775.130 states, among other criteria, that "The Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource." If Council approves the application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" will be amended to remove the site from the inventory. (See applicant's ESEE Analysis,AIS Attachment 2, and Staff Report page 9). Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) Provided the council agrees to limit conflicting uses in significant wetlands as recommended in the ESEE, then the impacts to those wetlands and the associated vegetated corridor and the floodplain are subject to Tigard's sensitive lands review standards. The proposed development includes approximately 3,423 cubic yards of fill material within significant wetlands and 2,780 cubic yards of fill material in the floodplain. The applicant's coordination with Clean Water Services and Corps/DSL to mitigate for adverse impacts has satisfied the sensitive lands review criteria, and can be approved. (See AIS Attachment 1, Staff Report pages 12-20) Planned Development Review (PDR) Concept Plan The proposed Concept Plan substantially meets the approval criteria, subject to consideration of an enhanced mobility plan to promote walkability and transit use, addressed through recommended Condition #7, below. Detailed Plan The Detailed Development Plan approval Criteria are met or can be met, as conditioned. The following two issues and recommended conditions of approval relate to expected off-site impacts of the proposed development. Parking exception The proposed 9.1% (28 spaces) exception to the minimum parking requirement is less than the 10% allowed. The proposed mix of studio and one bedroom units and the availability of nearby transit can be reasonably expected to lower the demand for on-site parking. It is in the public interest to preserve wetlands to the south of the development site (Wetland a). Therefore, the proposed exception to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces requirement meets the criteria and may be granted. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and recommends condition of approval (# 7): "The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014." (See TriMet letter, Exhibit C to AIS attachment 1, Staff Report, and Staff Report pages 23-24) Funding future transportation Under the Purpose section of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District, TDC18.630.010.C. Development Conformance, states in part: "developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets . . . and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center." as a purpose statement, it serves as guidance and is not an approval criterion. The statement is highlighted to bring attention to critical improvements that will be necessary in the near future for development in the WSRC to occur. To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, should the applicant be conditioned, for example, to dedicate SW Lincoln Street from Oak Street to Lincoln, or construct a bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement (subject to nexus and rough proportionality)? Staff has recommended Condition #8: "The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, including the SW Lincoln Street extension." (See AIS attachment 1 Staff Report pages 27-28) Public Comment (See AIS attachments 4 and 5) has been generally concerned with the proposed development's adverse impacts on significant wetlands and on neighborhood livability due to increased traffic, particularly on SW 90th Avenue, and off-site parking demand due to the requested minimum parking space exception. At the Planning Commission hearing, two testified in favor of the project while seven opposed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS The proposal is a quasi-judicial land use case that comes before the City Council because of the request to remove significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridors map, a part of the city's natural resources inventory and Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the City's Park System and Trail System Master Plans apply to the proposal. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council has not previously considered these applications. The applications have been forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission with a 4-3 vote recommending approval. Attachments Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution Comments Received after 1/5/2015 Written Testimony at Hearing Staff Report Draft PC Minutes PC Public Comment ESEE Analysis 12/8/2014 Link to Applicant Materials CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA2014-00002, TO REMOVE .42 ACRES OF LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS FROM THE "TIGARD WETLAND AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP"INVENTORY. WHEREAS, Section 18.775.090 includes Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek;and WHEREAS, Section 18.775.090.A. states in order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0040) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130;and WHEREAS, Section 8.775.130 Plan Amendment Option,provides that any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safe harbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis,as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS"Design and Construction Standards;"and WHEREAS, Section 8.775.130.A further provides that the applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040;and WHEREAS, the applicant prepared an ESEE analysis (Appendix C of Application and a revised ESEE analysis dated 12-8-14) prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands on the subject property;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.390,Decision Making Procedures;and 18.775 Sensitive Lands;and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 15,2014 and recommended approval of CPA2014-00002 by motion with a 4-3 vote in favor,and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on January 13, 2015 to consider the request for a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and determined that the amendment will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of the City and meets all applicable review criteria. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 1 SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment,CPA2014-00002,is hereby approved. SECTION 2: The attached findings (Exhibit A) are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: The ESEE analysis (ESEE analysis revised, dated 12-8-14) (Exhibit B) shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory, as approved. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor,and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of 52015. Carol A. Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2015. John L. Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 2 r Exhibit A Agenda Item: 6_ Hearing Dau: ime:7:O0QM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION a FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 1[28/2015 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: A+ O Apartments Planned DevelopMent CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)2014-00002 Planned Development Review (PDR)2014-00003 Site Development Review (SDR)2014-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 2014-00002 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection (allow conflicting uses) from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands,designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan's "Wetlands and Stream Corridor Nfap." The remaining 6.20-acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping the existing ground surface to decrease the areal extent of the floodplain on the site without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the floodplain on the site. Planned Development Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan approval is requested for the plans to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve over 6-acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of pedestrian trail easements to the City for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. APPLICANT: DBG Oak Street,LLC C/o Skip Grodahl 2164 SW Park Place Portland,OR 97204 OWNER: Oland,Ltd. c/o The Othman Group 215 SW Washington Street,Suite 202 Portland, OR 97204 LOCATION: 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street; south of SW Oak Street opposite Ste' 90th Avenue;WCTM IS135AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100,4200, 4300,and 4400 and WCTM 1S135AD Tag Lot 1303. CP 1J11*OX1(WMR21114(li)13113/S1)R21144KXA 4./.-]lUD14(l0(A(2-A+O APAKIN.Wmfs, P.%GF.i OF 56 ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: MUE-1 and R1UE-2: mixed use employment districts. The MUE-1 and 2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office,research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible Frith employment character of the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE-1, the high densii7y mixed use employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE-2 requiring more moderate densities. MUR: mixed use residential districts. The I\fUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. A high densir..• (MUR-1) and moderate density (MUR-2) designation is available within the MUR zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space; Statewide Planning Goal 5; applicable Federal (USAGE), Oregon Department of State Lands, and Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues and regulations. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff tecormnends that Pluuung Conunission Lid that the proposed Comprehensive Plan z. mend neut, Sensitive Lands Revwx , and Planntd Development R.evie)x will not adveisely affect the health, safe-ty and wtlfatc of the Citi aad inerts the Appioval Standards as outlined to Section VI of this iepott Z'hetefoie, Staff recorritneads that the Plannmg Commission iecommund to Clic• Council APPROVAL, subject to the follou,lay tecotnmended Condition-, of Appioval and an^ modifications that irsult from the Commissioa's delibtiations (T'A21)141XX1(12 PI)RZ)144XKX)3/Si)R21)14(XXx)4;tiI.R2i114-IXYX12-A-O APARININT' PAG F,2 O 56 RECOMIIENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification ,with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city- the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. 4. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. 5. In the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area, extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. Under state law (CARS 358.905 and ORS 97.74) archaeological sites, objects and human remains ate protected on both state public and private lands in Oregon. If archaeological objects or sites are discovered during construction, all activities should cease immediately until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. If you have not already done so, be sure to consult with all appropriate Indian tribes regarding your proposed project. If the project has a federal nexus (i.e., federal funding,permitting,or oversight) please coordinate with the appropriate lead federal agency representative regarding compliance,with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA). 6. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent,with L-1 standards. 7. The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality,as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or gregCatigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 9. Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements,public utility issues,and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for (:1';\3)14-(XXX)1,'PDR2()14-(XXX)3;til?R21114(XXK)4,57.R2()14-( X*)2-A+(1 APARTM-NIN PAG-'3 3 OF 5G the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Clean Mater Services, and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. 11. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the Oak Street design which is anticipated to include a 20 foot paved half width, plus 8 foot planter with street trees and underground utilities,and 12 foot sidewalk in a 40 foot right of way half width. 12. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall obtain city approval of a design access report. 13. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 14. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 15. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain cit} and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them, including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. 16. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction,operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. 17. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District(1 VWD) of the design of water service to the site. 18. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valle; Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. 19. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site, the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 20. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Alanual,February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." THE FOLLOV qNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Services) for all work to be done on site. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. c3,.2n¢(xxx)2/PnR3)144Xxxn/9)x20144 X4'aR.zcnaaxxr,2-.A+()ARAKITI VINE r%(;1-'4 O 56 THE FOLLO%XgNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 24. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall contact the Plannmi Division (Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718- 2434) for a final site review to ensure consistency with this land use decision. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 25. Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation,sanitary sewer, storm drainage,water, etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenance plans.The developers engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,and are of high grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance 26. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shallobtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include 20 foot paved with, 8 foot planter with trees lights and utilities in a 40 foot row width. 27. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. 28. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city and C%'S approval of the complete construction of the stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. 29. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shaU obtain city approval of the complete construction of the pro'posed driveways. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. 30. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue (TVF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessar,construction prior to final inspection. 31. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THIS APPROVAL.SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. (.IIA20144XXX)2/PI)R 014-OfXlU3/S7)R2ol4-txK11Y4/SI.R20144XXX)2—A+O ARUITM N'N PV*1F 501+56 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History and Descn_ption The subject property is bordered on the west by the abandoned Oregon Electric Railroad alignment and has been used in recent times as pasture.The property is comprised of six parcels, four of which are currently developed with vacant single family residences along their Oak Street frontages. According to Washington Country records, the dwellings were built in the late 50s and early 60s. The property annexed into the City in 1987. Vicinity Information: The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center District and is zoned NWE-1,a high density mixed use employment district and MUR-1, a high density mixed use residential district. Lincoln Center north of Oak Street is an example of high-density mixed use employment development within this district,which generally extends east of Greenburg between Hall and Hwy 217. The MUR-1 district lies between the MUE-1 district to the west and Hall Blvd to the east, extending south of Locust to Hwy 217. The subject site is centrally located within these zones with like-zones adjacent. The immediate vicinity south of Oak Street is characterized by the Ash Creek drainageway and associated wetlands. The subject property contains an approximately 1100 foot reach of Ash Creek at its southern boundary located mid-wry between its confluences with Fanno Creek to the west and the South Fork of.ash Creek to the northeast. Proposal Description: The applicanes narrative states that "The general objectives in proposing the Planned Development Combined Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan for the A+O Apartments and the open space protection for a large portion of the site are to: • Help meet the need for multi-family housing in Tigard; • Provide market rate multi-family housing within a reasonable distance from the Washington Square Shopping Center, Lincoln Center, and other nearby commercial uses in a location that is (or is planned to be) well connected to those areas by pedestrian and bicycle pathways, public transit,and roads; • Provide an attractive living environment for project residents; • Border the apartment project with preserved open space to the south in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and Highway 217, as well as between the apartments and a developed neighborhood of detached single- family homes to the southeast; • Preserve and enhance valuable open space areas while utilizing portions of the overall site which are not significantly constrained by floodplain,wetlands,riparian areas, or significant vegetation for residential purposes; • Provide adequate parking for the needs of residents and visitors; avoid parking overflow into nearby neighborhoods." The proposed development plans provide for development of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four 4-story multi-family residential buildings located on an 11.17-acre gross area development site. The plans for the project provide for dedication of 0.32 acres of additional right-of-way for the widening of SW Oak Street across the site's frontage leaving a site area of 10.85 acres. 6.62 acres of the site is delineated wetlands (See Wetland Delineation Report and map by Pacific Habitat Services, Impact Assessment Report B). 4.23-acres of the net site is upland without either mapped 100-year floodplain or wetlands. The proposed development plans provide for the filling of 0.42 acres of previously degraded wetlands adjacent to the southern edge of the upland portion of the site. The development plans also use 0.21-acres of non-wetland area which juts southward into the wetlands as permanent open space. All of this area and the remaining wetlands area will be located to the south of a retaining wall (6.41-acres total south of wall)which will separate this area from the development site area of 4.44-acres. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND INTERESTED PARTIES The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the conceptual development plans for the project and to gather comments on those plans at Metzger Elementary School on February 20, 2014. Approximately 60 people attended that meeting including many nearby residents, representatives of CPO 4M, representatives of the Friends of Fanno Creek and the Tualatin Riverkeepers, and a reporter for the Tigard Times. Meeting notes from that (:PA21114-(X NN)2'PI)R2)141Hf1 N)3/',I)R2(114tKNN14,lq,R2114iK1(M12-.l+();IP.AR17,11•:NIti PAC�16 OF 50 meeting are included in Appendix B of the applicant's submittal, along with a copy of the notice which was mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the site. Affidavits regarding mailing of the notice and posting the site with a sign regarding the meeting are also included in Appendix B. Representatives of the project development team also met with CPO 4 on September 24,2014 to discuss the plans with the CPO members. In addition,representatives of the project development team met onsite with representatives of the Tualatin Riverkeepers organization on august 28,2014 to discuss the plans for the project and the status of the wetland-related permitting process. The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site boundaries and interested parties on November 3, 2014. The City received seven written comments identified below: Jim Long, 10730 SW 7Td Avenue, Chair CPO-4M, writes in opposition to the proposed impacts to wetlands and floodplain and to the parking exception, and further highlights issues associated with economic liabilities of buildings in the floodplain and impacts on views. Nancy Lou Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, writes in opposition to the proposed wetland impacts, in favor of their benefits for storm water filtration and habitat values. Kristin Prince, 10455 SW 901h Avenue,writes in favor of improving SW Lincoln Street through to SVS' Oak Street as part of the project approval to address potential adverse impacts to local streets. She notes that ownership of the property required for extension is the same as the owner of the property subject to the proposed development. Jill Warren, 9280 SW 80`h Avenue, as a participant in the Washington Square Regional Center Planning process, raises plan implementation issues associated with wetland and floodplain impacts. Dave Fahlman, 9055 SW Oak Street,writes in favor of improving SW Lincoln Street as a condition of approval to address increased traffic and the limited capacity of SW 90` Avenue. Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SV' 89``'Avenue, writes in favor of extending SV' Lincoln Street and to full improvements to SDS'Oak Street. Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeeper Advocacy& Communications Manager, questioned whether wetland impacts have been sufficiently avoided by reducing building footprints through increased building height. He further questions the applicant's proposed use of a remote Tualatin River wetland mitigation bank over available local Ash Creek sites. RESPONSE: Commenters are generally concerned with the proposed development's adverse impacts on significant wetlands and on neighborhood livability due to increased traffic, particularly on SW 90`'' Avenue, and off-site parking demand due to the requested minimum parking space exemption. The review criteria and findings in this staff report substantively address these issues. SECTION V. ISSUES SUMMARY NOTE: Procedure for review: according to TDC18.390.080.13.2.b.ii, the decision on the Wetland and Stream Corridors map amendment (CPA) shall precede other actions. A decision on impacts to the floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands (SLR) follows as it can affect the net buildable area subject to the planned development proposal. According to TDC18.350.020.D, in the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR) . . . 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. Wetland Impacts (CPA) TDC18.7 7 5.130 states "The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource." (:YAM14-(MKN12/Pl)R201401MM)3,'.q)R2014-(KMN)4/b7.R2014(MNR12-A+O ARARnl)- 11 13AGA-,701 56 Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District.See page 11. Planned Development(PDR) Parking Exemption TDC18.350.050.4. requires that"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." The plans for the project include public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SD('Oak Street, Oak Street sidewalks along the property's frontage, and primary pedestrian routes through the site. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1%, should the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014?See page 21. TDC18.350.070.C.5.d is one of five criteria that must be addressed to warrant the requested parking space exemption: "Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses;" Although the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F,staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, shall the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriN4et's comment letter dated December 4, 2014?See Page 24. Funding future transportation TDC 18.630.010.C. states: "developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center." To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) should the applicant be asked to consider, for example,a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a frill street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement?See page 28. SECTION YI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA The following summarizes the criteria applicable to this decision in the order in which they are addressed: A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.130 Sensitive Lands,Plan Amendment Option B. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.070.B Floodplain 18.775.070.D Drainageways 18.775.070.E Wetlands C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18.350 Planned Developments 18.520 Commercial Zoning districts 18.630 Washington Square Regional Plan Standards 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation CYA20141KKX)2/1'D1U)14(XxN).3,'ti'13R2)144NMM /57.R20141ANM)2-A+0AYARTNIININ PAG I{8C)1:5G 18.715 Density Computations 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.765 Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan 18.795 Vision Clearance Areas 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors"map. Applicable Provisions Of The C4's Implementing Ordinances: 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek A subject property contains locally significant wetlands identified on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Stream Corridors"map. A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. The applicant has applied for the Plan Amendment Option to remove Goal 5 protections from .42 acres of significant wetlands to allow the proposed development. 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis. A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant has submitted an ESEE analysis (appendix C of Application and a revised ESEE analysis dated 12-8- 14) prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands on the subject property. This provision is met. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites (.rAa)144XXxn/1n)R•xna-(xrx)3l.T»na-(KXxw/SIIU)1¢c,(Xxn_-A+o nNnx• Iif-.Nrt*S PAG i=.9c 1,756 within the Tigard Planning Area; The applicant's ESEE analysis dated December 8, 2014 addresses the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, identifying the impacts to the resource site and a comparison of comparable sites within the Tigard Planning area. Although the wetlands identified for removal are degraded, their association with .ksh Creek makes them continue to be significant. Sites that could accommodate the proposed program were few- and included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units and a larger site at Hunziker Road and Wall Street with some wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the multi-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss,or partial loss, of the resource; The applicant's ESEE analysis states that"Prohibiting conflicting uses would keep the wetland intact and likell limit the footprint of the proposed development activity to the existing houses on SW Oak Street. The houses would be remodeled or torn down and replaced by new houses. As there will be no change in density, prohibiting conflicting uses would impact the potential densities planned for (and required) in the Washington Sqr an Regional Center Implementation Plan. The economic benefits for local businesses from developing a high density apartment complex would not be realized. The applicant would also realize far less economic benefit from remodeling or replacing the four houses. There will be a loss in short term construction jobs required when the apartment complex is developed." This provision is met. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The applicant states: "Developing the property, while achieving the Washington Square Regional Center Plan's minimum density requirements, would be very difficult without the proposed wetland filling to provide a more regular shaped development site. If the site configuration is not "squared up," a very inefficient site development pattern would be necessary with a resultant increase in residential building heights in order to meet the minimum prescribed density for the site. While we have not done a final site and building design for development on a non- reconfigured development site, the project team estimates that it would be necessary to have residential buildings with four- to six-stories of residential units atop two levels of parking garages within the buildings on such a site. Six- to eight-story buildings would provide a much more significant variation from the existing single-story through three-story residential buildings to the north, east and south of the site than the proposed three-story above single level parking garage buildings than are currently proposed with the proposed reconfigured site. The taller buildings that would be necessary would require significantly different and much more expensive building construction techniques than is proposed. The current proposal is for wood frame construction over concrete single-level parking garages or concrete slabs. Additional parking levels would require ramps between levels at a significant construction cost. Additional levels of residential units would, at a minimum, require more expensive wood frame construction, or alternatively push the construction type to steel frame or concrete construction. DBG, LLC is trying to develop an economically viable residential development at close to the minimum density prescribed for the site by the zones applied to it, while making a reasonable attempt to respect the lower building heights of the existing residential neighborhood to the north,east and southeast of the site. In order to bear the additional costs of construction that would be necessary to develop on the non-reconfigured site, we would likely need to increase the density further to bear the costs, and that would result in even taller buildings adjacent to the relatively low profile neighborhood." Several sites were identified in the Tigard Planning Area which included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units, a site adjacent that was unavailable, and a larger site at Hunziker Road with some (]'.k2f)14-1XKX)2/MR20tai-4XXX03/ti1)112)14-(XXX)4,'ti1,R2()14-(X)002_:\+0 Al"'XIVINIS PAG J;11)01;56 wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the multi-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The ESEE analysis has been prepared by wetlands biologist John van Staveren, PWS of Pacific Habitat Services based upon their on-site delineation of the wetlands on the site and an assessment of the quality and condition of the area which is proposed to be filled.The ESEF, analysis was reviewed by other team members including land use attorney Steven Pfeiffer,land use planner Jerry Offer,and civil engineer Mike Peebles. This provision is met. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. On approval of this request the site would be removed from the inventory. This provision can be met. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the ESEE analysis addresses the requirements of this section. The subject property contains Goal 5 safeharbor protection of significant wetlands. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Tx,?e IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development proposal for 215 apartments, the A+O Apartments. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendment is justified by and ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant concludes that `limiting conflicting uses would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A limit decision will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting all conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland can be minimized (only 6% of wetlands on site will be impacted) and the remaining resource can be enhanced.There will be a relatively high level of economic,social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland (through its enhancement) and to the community,and strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals.The recommendation is to limit conflicting uses within the significant wetland." Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center(WSRC) Plan District. It is clear that the development proposal substantiall;, implements the planning goals, including density, for the Vr'SRC and minimizes its footprint given the project's 215-unit goal and the requested parking exception. A majority 94%of the wetlands are protected and enhanced on site,with a 3.2:1 off-site mitigation for the 6% of wetlands being adversely affected. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal (CWS SPL, reverse of Figure 2) provides a CWS Tier II Site Alternatives Analysis for impacts to the Vegetated Corridor,which is also useful for comparing incremental adverse economic consequence of not allowing conflicting uses. If Council approves the application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Ilgard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"will be amended to remove the site from the inventory. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Cit; Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive PlanAmendment. CPA2014(KKK)2,1'1)R2014(UXM)3,'SI)R2014(NKX)4,'SI.R2)14(MMMY-)-A+0 APAR'1U1 TPi1 PAGI'.1101`56 B. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) for impacts to the Ash Creek floodplain, drainage ways,and wetlands/associated vegetated corridor. 18.775.020 G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the hearings officer. 1. The hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. The proposed sensitive lands permit request for these landform alterations would normally be reviewed by means of a Type IIIA procedure by the City of Tigard's hearings officer. Howei-er, since the sensitive lands permit request is being reviewed as a combined application request including a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the concurrent applications will be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council, with the Cit; Council being the actual decision-making body. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e.Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size,outside of floodway areas. According to the applicant's submittal, the A+Q Apartments include approximately 423 cubic yards of material removal and 3,423 cubic yards of fill material within significant wetlands and 395 cubic yards of fill within the floodplain outside of the wetlands portion of the site. The plans do not include any ground disturbances or alterations within the Ash Creek floodway. The proposed development within the floodplain does not include any activities related to existing structures, accessory structures or utilities, or any structures proposed for human habitation. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. Appendix F of the applicant's submittal includes a Joint Corp/DSL permit application (APP056389) for development within wetlands associates with Ash Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River. The necessary permits have been applied for.This provision is met. As governed by CWS "Design and Construction Standards," the necessary permits for all "development," as defined in Section 18.775.020.A, shall include a CWS service provider letter, which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any, for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the agency to issue a stormwater connection permit. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal includes a CWS Service Provider Letter (SPL) and Natural Resources Assessment Report by Pacific Habitat Services. The SPL specifies conditions and requirements necessary for the applicant to comply with CWS water quality and protection standards. Implementation of these requirements will be ensured by a condition of approval of the Council's final order.This provision is met. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. (.'A11)14-(XXK)2,T'DR2()144OX)3fSIMR2U14-OCXX)4iti7JU114(XKX12-A+OAPAR1M}NIN P.'I,1 1201-'56 According to the applicant's narrative,proposed buildings B,C,and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill within the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2' above the existing floodplain elevation. The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation.The proposed building site minimizes the potential for flood damage.This provision is met. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection B of this section, the director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer subsections M and N of this section. Base flood elevation (BFE) has been determined for this project area. The BFE is shorn on Federal Emergency Management Agency TEMA) map number 410276059C for the City of Tigard, Oregon, Washington County revised February- 18,2005. The floodplain boundary is shown (elevation 163) on the Existing Conditions plan (Sheet P1.1). This provision is met. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1, Vegetated Corridor Widths," and "Appendix C, Natural Resource Assessments," of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services,1994. According to the Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. May 9, 2014 Natural Resource Assessment for the subject site, the proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor measured 50 feet wide.Therefore,the following wetland regulations would apply to 1.44 acres of the site. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. According to the applicant's narrative, a wetland delineation of the wetland areas on the site was done by the professional wetland scientists of Pacific Habitat Services. The delineated wetland boundary stakes provided by that on-site delineation were surveyed and mapped by the surveyors of Otak, Inc. The actual locations of wetlands on the site vary slightly from what is shown on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map. A copy of the Wetland Delineation report for the site by Pacific Habitat Services is included in the applicant's submittal as Impact Assessment Report B. The wetland boundary and associated vegetated corridor are illustrated clearly on Figure 3, PHS Natural Resource Assessment Report, Appendix D. This provision is met. 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in subsections B through E of this section. This application includes proposed development in the Ash Creek floodplain, drainageways, and within wetlands (and associated vegetated corridor). The City Council is the decision-making body under concurrent review-A ith the requested comprehensive plan amendment Type IV procedure. Impacts to these sensitive areas are addressed in findings for their respective approval criteria below. 18.775.070.B Within the 100-year floodplain, The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: (-PA20144XXX)2,/PI)R2014-("XI3,/SDI 2)14tXXX9,'tiI.R'6114-(XXXi2-A+O A11:LR FUN I1 PAGE 13OF 56 applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Report E,Preliminary Storm Drainage Report by Otak,Inc.According to the report, the fill area is approximately 0.35 acres. Figure 3 shows the proposed development in relation to the 100- year floodplain boundary (elevation 163). Proposed buildings B, C, and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill -within the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2'above the existing floodplain elevation.The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; A zero rise analysis has been completed and is included in the applicant's submittal as Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. This criterion is met. 3. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map,except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community development code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; The site of the proposed development includes both commercial plan designations and residential plan designations. The proposed development plans show floodplain modifications within portions of the site which have a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of MUE-1. Portions of the site which include the residential MUR-1 Comprehensive Plan Map designation include proposed modifications to wetlands. However, no modifications to the 100-year floodplain are proposed within the MUR-1 area.This criterion is met. 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; A zero rise analysis has been completed and a memorandum is included as Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage Report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not be an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation.This criterion is met. 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Staff has determined that the Center Loop Trail alignment on SW Oak Street is preferred to the Ash Creek alignment along this reach of Ash Creek. The City Engineer has determined that a 12-foot wide multi-modal path within the Oak Street right of way along the property's frontage will be a required public facility improvement for this project.This criterion is met. 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; (:NA2114-(XXX)2/PDR2()14(NKX)3/SDR2)14-(XXK14/q R3)141KXX12-A+0:V1AK1W-X1$ PAGE 14 01: The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. A wildlife habitat assessment, further floodplain analysis and other related studies will need to be completed prior to construction of this trail. The actual alignment of the trail will need to be determined by the City in concert with resource permitting agencies prior to the final design and construction of the trail. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant's submittal includes a CWS SPL (appendix D) and a U. S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE)/Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL)permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of die City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known,the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS:According to the analysis above,the floodplain criteria are met. 18.775.070.D Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: A storm water ditch, or drainageway,475 square feet in area (0.01 acre) is located in the northwestern portion of the site that carries stormwater from SW Oak Street and the adjacent condominium complex to the north of Oak Street. The Natural Resource Assessment by PHS characterizes this ditch as non-jurisdictional and therefore without an associated vegetated corridor. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O apartments minimizes impacts to wetland/floodplain/drainage-,vays by pushing the proposed area of development towards SW Oak Street. This results in impact to an existing ditch in existing public drainage easement on the western portion of the site. It is proposed that the existing ditch/drainageway be relocated into a public storm sewer pipe with an outfall to the wetlands to the south. The proposed alteration of this section of the drainageway on the southern portion of the site is limited to only the area that is necessary to construct the proposed storm sewer to replace the existing open drainage ditch, and therefore will limit drainageway disturbances to only what is necessary for the proposed use. This criterion is met. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O Apartments will replace an existing open drainage ditch into a public storm drainage pipe located in a public drainage easement that will extend the existing public storm drainage system and convey existing runoff from the upstream basin.The proposed public (:PA2014-(XXX)2/PDR2(114(KNM).i/S[)R2014(XXX)4/S].R2t)14(xxx)2-A+O.SPAR PME' 't5 PAGE'15 OF 5G storm drainage pipe will outfall to a rip-rap pad and drain into wetlands and .ash Creek. The plans provide for appropriate erosion control plans designed to City and CWS standards so that the proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off- site effects or hazards to life or property.This criterion is met 4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; According to the applicant's narrative, the open drainage ditch to be removed will be replaced with a public storm pipe in a new alignment that will have adequate capacit- to convey to the upstream runoff. This criterion is met 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, a small portion of the existing drainage ditch at its southern end will not be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. This portion will be replanted with seed mix to prevent erosion. The area to be replaced and put into a storm drainage pipe will be covered by pavement and landscaping associated with the proposed apartments designed consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.475 and related standards as addressed elsewhere in this report.This criterion is met. 6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum now in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; According to the applicant's narrative, the existing drainage ditch will be replaced with a public storm sewer pipe in a new alignment (to be covered by a public drainage easement).The proposed storm drainage pipe has been sized to provide adequate capacity to convey the maximum anticipated flow from upstream basin in accordance with the 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The public easement will be located within the drive-aisle/parking area of the proposed multi-family development The City will have access to public storm manholes for maintenance of the proposed public storm sewer. This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; A CWS Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (,appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSL/ US Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive pian. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known, the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the drainageways criteria are met. 18.775.070.E Within wetlands. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050, General Provisions for Wetlands,wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a the 50-foot vegetated corridor for (:1),12()1411(MK12/1'1)]U)14-(KKK)3,'51)R2()14(KKK)4/SI.R2014-(XKK)2-A+O APAR1:\IENN PACE,.16 OF 56 Wedand A,as shown in Figure 3 of Pacific [labitat Services' Natural Resource Assessment for the subject site. The proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor. Therefore, the following wetland regulations apply to a total of 1.44 acres of the site. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan floodplain and wetland map not is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; The applicant has requested wetlands to be removed from the designation of locally significant wetlands on the Cit; of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors" Map by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment portion of this application. If that request is approved, these wetlands will no longer be designated as significant wetland on the Plan's floodplain and wetland map. As such, a sensitive lands permit can be approved in accordance with this section for both the wetland and its associated vegetative corridor.This criterion is met. 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; .'according to the applicant's narrative, the proposed filling of 0.42 acres of wetlands is limited to only what is necessary to "square up" the developable portion of the site to accommodate the proposed 215-unit apartment complex and related parking and recreation facilities without creating any more wetland site disturbance than is absolutely necessary. The proposal includes ground level parking under two of the proposed residential buildings, a request for an exception to the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces in order to limit the area of development, and a retaining wall along the full width of the project's southern development boundary to limit impacts to sensitive areas. Given the findings in the applicant's ESEE analysis, this criterion is met. 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; According to the applicant's narrative, the 0.42 acres of proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site has been designed to be on the edges of or outside of the floodplain on the site. A storm sewer system has been proposed to replace the surface drainage through the wetlands on the western portion of the site. These measures have been designed in order that on-site and off-site drainage will not be adversely affected by the proposed wetlands modifications.This criterion is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, an erosion control plan addressing the City and Clean Water Services' erosion control requirements will be submitted as part of final grading plans, as well as part of any state or federal permit applications. Disturbed areas will be replanted if not covered by impervious surfaces. This criterion is met. 6.All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All other applicable sensitive lands approval standards related to the proposed development application are reviewed in findings within this staff report.This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; CP.121114-OO1M12/1'UILJ114(XXH)3,/til)lt2)1MNKMW/SLR2Ul4-IXX r--.1+0 W,UUNMI XI S PAGI:1701-56 A CWS Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (Appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSL/ US Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit application (Appendix F). This criterion is met. 8.The provisions of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal,shall be met; The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, are addressed further in this staff report, below. This criterion is met. 9. Physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplain and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been satisfied. The following Comprehensive Plan policies address physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplains and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, and recreation and open space. Findings address satisfaction of these policies with regard to the proposed plans for wetland modifications. Natural Resources 1.The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible,restore natural resources in a variety of methods to: A. contribute to the City's scenic quality and its unique sense of place; B. provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and buffering between differential land uses; C. maximize natural resource functions and services including fish and wildlife habitat and water quality; and D. result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high level of biodiversity. 7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible on public and private lands. 8. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore the diverse ecological and non-ecological functions and services of streams,wetlands, and associated riparian corridors. 11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse methods including, but not limited to: education, incentives, planned development standards and regulations, and conservation easements. The City addresses the above policies dealing with wetlands, water resources, riparian areas and wildlife habitat through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the standards of that permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the wetlands, habitat,and floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. In addition, application of the planned development parking exemption has been requested to help minimize the development footprint. Hazards 1. The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development: A. areas having a severe soil erosion potential;- B. otential;B. areas subject to slumping,earth slides,or movement; C. areas having slopes in excess of 25%;or D. areas having severe weak foundation soils. The City of Tigard's development review application process implements this policy through the requirement of a geotechnical report as part of the required impact assessment of a proposed development. The current application includes a site specific geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnical Resources, Inc. that report demonstrates that CPA2ri4(XXX)2.l'1)R2014-(X*X)3/51)R2()14-tXXXg/S1.R3)14tXXXr--.\+()APAR'1:MFNTS PAU."19(1156 the proposed development site will be suitable for development without undue soil erosion and that the site does not contain slopes in excess of 25%;areas subject to slumping, sliding,or earth movement;or weak soils. 7. The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels, flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100- year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless: A. The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area. 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and,where possible, find ways to restore and enhance these areas. 11. The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. The City has addressed these above policies dealing with floodplain development and landform alterations through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the approval standards of the sensitive lands permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. Parks Recreation and Open Space 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. 22. City-owned property may be used for private wetlands mitigation considered on a case-by-case basis. This policy allows,but does not require developers to provide local wetlands mitigation. The applicant has proposed off-site mitigation with this project.The City Parks Director has commented that private wetland mitigation on city- owned property has proved difficult administratively in the past and that city property will need to be used in the future for city projects that require mitigation. In this case, city owned property is not available for private wetland mitigation. Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. Policy 1. The City shall create and interconnected regional and local system of on- and off-road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods,parks, open spaces,major urban centers and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include the provision of a public pedestrian trail easement within the privately owned wetland area adjacent to Ash Creek. This trail easement segment is provided to serve the Washington Square Regional Center Trail that is called for in the Parks Master Plan and is called for as multi-use path M-9 on maps and tables of the Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan. The development plans also provide for a public pedestrian path easement for the future development of a connecting trail between SW Oak Street and the future Washington Square Regional Center Trail. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the wetlands criteria are met. [:PA2014-(XKXr2,'PllR201MXXX)3;SI)R.21i14-(XXX) /.J,]J( )14 9K)I- \+()APAIMAUXIN PAG 1,'19 OF 56 CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find, and recommend to Council, that the applicable sensitive lands review criteria for floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands are met or can be met as conditioned, subject to a determination that Goal 5 protections can be removed, as requested by the applicant. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Planned Development Concept and Detailed Plan Reviews (PDR) for the 215 unit planned development. 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.020 Process 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. 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. The applicant has elected to develop this project through the planned development process. In this case, the applicant is also applying for a concurrent review of the planned development concept plan and the detailed development plan. Separate concept plans and detailed plans have been submitted,requiring separate actions by the commission and council. 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria 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. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates areas on the site that are intended to be preserved as open space in the form of wetlands and enhanced wetland; active open space and recreation areas near the proposed building locations; and passive landscape areas. The applicant's narrative, along with the applicable supplemental reports in the Appendix, describe how the natural open space, active open space, and passive open space areas are to be used and how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site. 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. The planned development concept plan illustrates how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site. This criterion is met. 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. (P:13)14-(XXXY)_'PllR20144X X).3/til)R3)144XXX 4/SI.RZ)14-(XXX)2-A+O APARTNIEN7S P:1C.fi 21 Of 56 The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, along with the aerial photo of the site and its environs, Sheet P2.1, illustrates how the proposed development will fit into the street and land use pattern of the neighborhood. This criterion is met. 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. The plans for the project include the provision of an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the site's frontage. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates the general areas on the site where the applicant is offering to provide public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, and a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SV' Oak Street. Primar; pedestrian routes through the site are also illustrated. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1°16, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan *maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 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. The planned development concept plan illustrates the proposed development pattern for four muld-story multi- family residential buildings on the northern portion of the site, along with associated recreation and parking facilities. The concept plan provides for approximately 4.16 acres of the site to be developed with multi-family dwellings at a net density of between 50 and 60 units per net acre, and for approximately 6.2-acres of the site to be retained as wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek. Limited public access to the wetlands area is provided for through the provision of public pedestrian access easements to be dedicated to the City of Tigard for future trail development. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development plan for the A+O Planned Development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek, along with significant enhancements to the wildlife habitat values of the wetlands through the removal of invasive vegetation and the planting of significant number of native trees. This work to restore the wetlands on the site would not occur unless there was a development project occurring primarily on the upland portion of the site, along with a relatively minor amount of wetland filling to create additional developable area. The practicality of intensive development of the upland portion of the site is dependent upon the proposed wetland filling to create a more usable development footprint, and is also dependent upon having flexibility with regard to certain development standards such as by reducing the amount of on-site parking to be provided; by not providing individual decks or porches for all units as would be required through the Site Development Review approval standards; and by accounting for shared open spaces through looking at the larger development plan. In addition, it is noted that proposed A+O Apartments Planned Development will further the objectives of the Washington Square Regional Center plan by providing desired relatively intense residential development in close proximity to shopping opportunities at Washington Square and other nearby centers; close proximity to employment opportunities at Washington Square, Lincoln Center, and other nearby office and commercial centers; and within close proximity to transit opportunities on SW Greenburg Road, SW Locust Street, and SW Hall Boulevard. While the proposed development will be fairly intensive compared to the existing neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-family residences to the south and east of the site, the proposed A+O (:P;12014(XAX12,'PI)IZ2)14(XXX(3/ti'i)R2()144XXX4,/',],")14-(MXX)2-A+(1APAR"f], N PAGN21OF56 Planned Development will provide a step down in intensity from Washington Square and Liucoln Center to those existing neighborhoods. The A+O Planned Development will be developed at a density (52 units/acre) which is low in the range of residential densities allowed by the MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site of the proposed development(50 units/acre minimum,no maximum). This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are substantially met. However, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014, as conditioned below. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the proposed Concept Plan substantially meets the approval criteria and recommend approval of the Concept Plan to the City Council,subject to consideration of an enhanced mobility plan. 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements C. Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions,with the following modifications: 1. Lot dimensional standards. The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80%of the minimum size required in the base zone. There is no applicable minimum lot size in the underlying MUE-1 and MUR-1 districts. The site size will be 10.95 acres after dedication of additional road right-of-way for SW Oak Street.This standard is met. 2. Site coverage. The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such as streets and sidewalks. The concept plan provides for less than 40% of the gross planned development site area to be developed and over 60%of the site to be retained as natural and enhanced wetlands. Therefore,the proposed concept plan clearly meets this standard. Additionally, 25% percent of the portion of the site which is planned to be developed with the apartments will be landscaped and not covered by buildings or pavement.This standard is met. 3. Building height. In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the structure be set back from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2 times the height of the building. No increase in building height is request beyond that allowed by the underlying zones. This standard is met. 4. Structure setback provisions: No exceptions to the applicable base zone setback standards are requested. All buildings within the proposed A+O Apartments Planned Development will be required to meet all applicable setback and building separation standards of the underlying zones and of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. No garage entrances will enter onto SW Oak Street. Both parking garages will have entrances internal to the site.This standard is met. 5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. No exceptions are requested to an}' other standards of the base MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts. This standard is met. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: (:PA2U144)0(X»AII)R_2014(KNK13Jti1)R3)1419KXA/U.R20144XXX)2-A ()APAR1'MINI'S PAG 22OF56 A.The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. According to the applicant's narrative,the proposed detailed development plan has been designed to be completely consistent with the concept plan, except for providing additional details on how the site is to be developed. No changes to the residential densities, amounts of open space and landscaping, land usage; effects upon environmentally sensitive areas or hazardous areas; or the proposed pattern of development are proposed. 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; No land division is proposed. Therefore, the provisions of Chapters 18.420 and 18.430 are not applicable to the proposed final development plan.This criterion is met. 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. 2. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. The commission may grant an exception to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer that the resulting access will not be detrimental to the public safety considering emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of transportation using the site (vehicles,bicycles,pedestrians,and transit). No exception to the applicable access,egress and circulation standards is requested. 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. Where a project site encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be aggregated for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project site, as deemed appropriate by the commission. No density bonus is requested. 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. No exception to the applicable minimum landscaping requirements is requested. 5. Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone ii a. The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than 10% of the required parking; and An exception to the minimum required on-site parking space standard is requested to allow the proposed A+O Apartments to be served by 278 on-site parking spaces rather than the 306 on-site spaces which normally would be required for this type and size of development. The requested 28 fewer parking spaces would represent a 9.1 percent reduction from the normally required amount of on-site parking. Criterion(a) is met. (:PA2t)14-(XXXY?,`P1)R2(114(XXX)3/.%)R2t1141NNN14/S1,R2014(XNXI2-A+0 AVAR NII-,N7\ YALE 23O 56 b.The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature,e.g., a nursing home,and which has a low demand for off-street parldng;or The proposed mix of apartment units in the project with a relatively high number of smaller unit types (64 studios and 98 1-bedroom units) and the absence of larger dwelling units should result in fewer residents per dwelling unit than would be typically expected in a suburban multi-family project.Therefore,it is reasonable to anticipate that the lesser number of residents per unit would translate to a lesser demand for on-site parking spaces as compared to a typical suburban multi- family development. The applicant argues that the City of Tigard's minimum parking space standard is oriented more to the demand for parking spaces for a typical multi-family project with larger dwelling units than is currently proposed. Criterion(b)is met. c. There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that the property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement;or The applicant has not identified any opportunities for shared parking. d. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses; or According to the applicant's narrative, the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F. A portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of several transit stops. This is illustrated by the Transit Availability Map in that report which shows one-quarter mile radii from the closest transit stops to the site at: 1) the west side of SVG' Greenburg Road at the entrance to the Washington Square shopping center; and 2) at the intersection of SVG'Hall Boulevard and SW Locust Street. The TriMet Trip Planner service provided on Triblet's website says that there currently are three transit stops within one-half mile walking distance of the SVC' 8900 SVG' Oak Street within the site for TriMet Bus Route 43 on Hall Boulevard or S4Y,'Locust Street.The TriMet Trip Planner indicates that there are three transit stops within six-tenths of a mile walking distance for TriMet Bus Routes 76 and 78 on SW Greenburg Road. Maps of these routes and basic schedules are included in the Impact Assessment report.The proximity of the site to these bus transit stops and the frequency of transit service means that good public transportation service will be available to serve the proposed multi-family development. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. e. There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features of the site which make it in the public interest to grant an exception to parking standards. The request for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces derives from efforts to minimize the amount of wetland area needed to be filled to provide on-site parking. Multiple attempts were made to lay out the site plan to provide all of the normally required parking on-site without providing on-street parking.All such alternative plans would have required additional wetland filling and/or increased building heights to provide additional parking. Additional wetland filling would not have been in the public's interests in preserving this existing resource area.Criterion(e)is met. FINDING: The proposed 9.1% (28 spaces) exception to the minimum parking requirement is less than 10% allowed. The proposed mix of studio and one bedroom units and the availabiliv;of nearby transit can reasonably be expected to lower the demand for on-site parking. It is in the public interest to preserve wetlands to the south of the development site (Wetland A). Therefore, the commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and recommends the following condition of approval: CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership v(ithin a quarter mile of the subject site, (TA2)14-(KXK)2,'P1)]L')A)]4(XMX)3 rSDIU)14(RKx)4/SI AU)14(XXX)2-A+O APAW1WIFN11 PACE 24 OF 56 including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. 6. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional requirements in the applicable zone. No exception to the dimensional standards for signs is requested. 7. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The commission may grant an exception to the visual clearance requirements,when adequate sight distance is or can be met; No exception to the vision clearance requirements is requested. 8. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks, and 18.810.060, Lots. Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis, and nothing in this section shall obligate the city engineer to grant an exception. The commission has the authority to reject an exception request. The commission can only grant an exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by the city engineer. The city engineer may determine that certain exceptions to the street and utility standards are permissible when it can be shown that: An exception to the public street improvement standards is requested to allow a narrower than the normal WSRC Plan minor collector street. TDC Section 18.630.100 states the recommended roadway functional classification map and street cross-sections in the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan shall govern the improvement and construction of major streets within the WSRC Plan District. The WSRC Plan calls for a minor collector section along SW Oak Street which includes 43.5-feet from centerline right-of way and a 29.5-feet from centerline paved width (5.5-foot half center lane, 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane,8-foot parking). The applicant proposes a modified minor collector section for this street to provide 40-feet from centerline collector street right-of-way, and 26-feet of pavement from centerline to curb (12-foot travel lane, 6-foot bike lane, 8-foot parallel parking). The 3.5-foot reduction in the street width is the result of removing the center lane in the street section (subtract the 5.5-foot half center lane) and widening the travel lane (add 2-feet to travel lane). A supplemental memo to the Transportation Impact Study addressing turn lane warrants is included in report C in the Impact Assessment portion of the applicant's submittal. The City Engineer agrees with the applicant's assertion that the center turn lane is not warranted but has determined an alternative design will better serve multimodal transportation options: the SW Oak Street half section will 40 feet from center line and include a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LID, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike/ped path. a. Public safety will not be compromised, and The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) description refers specifically to improving accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district. Not having a left-turn along the site frontage does not impact the ability to provide multimodal access into the office/commercial uses. The WSRC also highlights improving access to residential areas specifically for pedestrians and cyclists with autos as a secondary consideration ("as well.' and the need for traffic management techniques to protect neighborhood streets. The proposed design helps accomplish these objectives by: 1) Removal of center left-turn lane reduces north-south pedestrian crossing distance/exposure; 2) Narrower cross section reduces potential traffic speeding issues through more compact environment and reduces appearance of a wide street that might otherwise encourage cut-through traffic;and 3) still accommodates on-street parking and sidewalks. SW Oak Street is currently posted,%ith 25 MPH speed signs. This speed will help keep travel on the street safe with on-street parking.This criterion is met. (:PA2t)14(1NN)2/PllR_'x)144XXX)3/SDR3)14-(XXXA/SI230144OX12-A+-0APAJUMENTS PAGE 25O 56 b. In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a conforming design; and Maintenance costs would not be anticipated to be increased due to the reduced right-of-way and street width that are requested. The reduced 3.5-feet of pavement width would require less street sweeping and pavement overlay/maintenance in the future. This criterion is met. c. The design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of pollutant treatment. The reduced pavement width will also decrease the impervious surface which will reduce stormwater runoff from Oak Street.The proposed planter strip width will provide area for LIDA-facilities (stormwater planters,swales) that can provide stormwater quality treatment for the impervious area within the public right-of-way. In addition, the narrower right-of-way allows the proposed development to be constructed further north, reducing impacts to wetlands located to the south of the site. This criterion is met. FINDING: The city engineer has determined that the applicant's proposed exception to the street standards is not permissible. Instead, the City Engineer adopts a revised section for SW Oak Street 40 feet from center line including a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LIDA planter and a 12-foot vide separated bike/ped path. For those chapters not specifically exempted under the planned development chapter, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested. The following standards apply to the proposed planned development. 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in commercial zones is presented in Table 18.520.1. The western portion of the site is zoned MUE-1 and the eastern portion of the site is zoned MUR-1,as illustrated on the Existing Conditions/Site Assessment Plan,Sheet P1.1. Table 18.520.1 of the Community Development Code lists use types that are permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited in the various commercial zoning districts in the City of Tigard. Household living is listed as a permitted use 1n both the MUE-1 and MUR-1 districts in this table,with a footnote which says that all permitted and conditional uses may be subject to special development standards of Section 18.630. The proposed multi-family residential use is considered a Household Living use type,and thus is permitted in both zoning districts applied to the site. 18.520.040 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Any development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.This standard is met. B. Development standards. Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: MUE-1 Standard Proposed Minimum lot size: None 10.85 acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width (:I.AZI 4-(XXXY)4'131)R2()14-(XXX)3/'�llR2()144XXX)4/",I RZ)14-(XXX)2-A+0 APARIMEN1I: PAGE,26()V56 Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Minimum side yard: 0 28-feet(Building A west side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south property line Minimum building height: 2 stories 4-stories Maximum building height: 200 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 85% 75%of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement: 15% 25%of total apartment site Minimum density. 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./net acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u. /net acre total MUR-1 Minimum lot size: None 10.85-acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 6.9-feet Building D stair tower) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 11.2-feet(remainder of Building D face) Minimum side yard: 0 15-feet (Building D east side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south Minimum building height: 2 stories 4 stories Maximum building height: 75 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 800/10 75% of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement:: 15% 20%of total apartment site Minimum density: 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u./acre total FINDING: Table 18.520.2 above, shows that the proposed development plans are consistent with the applicable development standards in the MUR-1 and MUE-1 zoning districts. The applicant has not applied for any variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title are addressed further in this staff report.The applicable commercial development standards are met 18.630 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN DISTRICT 18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Purpose. 1. This chapter will implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the recommendations contained in the Phase II Implementation Plan Summary Report,prepared by a task force appointed by the City of Tigard. 2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan target growth capacity for the Washington Square regional center will be met by permitting mixed use development within the regional center at densities appropriate for an urban center. 3. A mixed use regional center will contain a variety of districts that vary in scale, predominant use, and character. Distinct districts, connected to each other and to the rest of the region by a multi-modal transportation system,will provide a range of working, living and shopping opportunities. 4. Improved multi-modal transportation links, higher densities, variety of land uses, and enhanced environmental qualities will all contribute to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth. 5. New mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in established areas, are appropriate for the regional center. B. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Washington Square f:P.�2014-(XKM)Z PDIL2(114-(XXX)3iSI)R2014 XXX9i's]At3)1401%X72—A+O,1P 1R'['%Il N]' PAGE 27 OF 56 Regional Center Plan District, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. C. Development conformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in new non-single-family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the development and building codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. As reviewed in this staff report, the project meets or has been conditioned to meet the design standards in this Chapter and other development standards required by the development and building codes and would contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition, developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. The applicant's submittal did not address this provision. Both public comment and the WSRC plan identify the continuation of SW Lincoln Street through to SDG'Oak Street as a critical future transportation infrastructure improvement. Public commenters worry that the limited capacity of SDG'90' Avenue will not be able to handle increased traffic generated by the development. The Regional Center Plan identifies a collector system at Oak-Lincoln-Locust to distribute east/west traffic between Locust and Oak Streets and improve accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district and to improve access to residential areas for bicyclists and pedestrians,as well as autos. According to the WSRC plan, District C, Lincoln Center-Ash Creek, is an area "slated for high density office and residential development. Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, it will be important for this area to provide easy pedestrian and bicycle access between homes and jobs. A particular goal is to protect the Metzger neighborhood from impacts of increased traffic, while assuring free-flowing vehicular movement throughout the district." In addition, "Metro has established goals for the region to reduce the number of trips by auto relative to those made by transit, pedestrian and bike travel. Pedestrian and bike facilities developed in concert with new housing and offices will be a step toward achieving theses regional goals." The applicant's traffic analysis concludes that intersections remain functional with the development's added traffic, but does recommend improvements to the SDG'Oak and 90th Avenue intersection.However,it does not satisfactorily address the additional traffic on SW 90th, a 50-foot local street, as the primary route north to SW Locust for southbound Greenburg/Hwy 217 trips originating from the proposed development. To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) the applicant could consider, for example, a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path xithin a bike/ped easement. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects,such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionality. 18.630.020 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1.All applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district,except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370 and subsections C through E of this section; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. This standard is met. CPA2014-(XXX)2PI)R2014(XXX)3tSl)R2(114-(XXX)4/Si,lt3)WXXX)2-:X+OAPAR'I'i\U-N'!1 11AG?29O 56 18.630.040 Street Connectivity A. Purpose. The standards provide a way for creating continuity and cormectivity within the Washington Square regional center (WSRC). They provide incremental street and accessway development that is consistent with WSRC needs and regional and state planning principles for connectivity. The primary objective is to create a balanced,connected transportation system that distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets. B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Section 18.370.010 where topography,barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. L Design option. a.Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance option. a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than 1-1/2 the straight-line distance. The site of the proposed development is located on the south side of SDG' Oak Street. Ash Creek and its associated floodplain and wetlands are located on and to the south of the subject site, with Oregon State Highway 217 — a controlled access highway- located further to the south. These existing conditions make the development of further streets to the south impracticable. Local streets to the north include SW 90th Avenue directly to the north, SW 87th Avenue to the east,and the planned intersection with the SW Lincoln Street to the west. SDG'Oak Street in front of the subject site is designated a collector street. All of the proposed buildings will have major entrances within 100 feet of SW Oak Street.This standard is met. 18.630.050 Site Design Standards Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan may be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C.2,governing criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. A. Building placement on major and minor arterials. 1. Purpose. Architecture helps define the character and quality of a street and can make a strong statement about the overall community and city at large. The placement and design of buildings provides the framework for the streetscape and defines the edges of the public right-of-way. Architecture and ground floor uses can activate the street, either by its design presence or by those who come and go from it. At intersections,investing in building frontages can create gateways and special places that add to the character of the area. 2. Standard. Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along major and minor arterial streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on major and minor arterial streets. The site fronts only on S\X' Oak Street. SW Oak Street is a collector (minor arterial). Buildings B, C, and D Occup}- approximately 660'o of the frontage.This standard is met. B. Building setback. 1. Purpose. Buildings and investment in architecture is most conspicuous when it is visible from the street. The presence of buildings closely sited at the edge of the right-of-way creates an envelope for the street and a sense of permanence. 2. Standard.The minimum and maximum building setback from public street rights-of-way shall be in accordance with Table 18.520.2. CP N3)14(KMK12/PUR21)14lKKK)3,'SI)RX114(XXX)4,'S1.R3)144XXX)2_.1+0AYARIM-NIS R\(;I (W 56 As addressed above under the Section 18.520, the front yard setbacks from SW Oak Street are met. C. Front yard setback design 1. Purpose. The front yard is the most conspicuous face of a building and requires special attention. Places for people and pedestrian movement helps create an active and safer street. Higher level of landscape anticipates a more immediate visual result. 2. Standard. For setbacks greater than 0 feet, landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to the applicable standard in subsection E of this section. Hard- surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.B and Table 18.520.2. The front yard area between the sidewalk along SDS Oak Street and the fronts of proposed buildings B, C and D and parking areas to the sides of buildings will be landscaped with a combination of lawn, planter beds, and trees which will enhance the pedestrian environment along SSC'Oak Street.This standard is met. D.WlloW connection to building entrances. 1. Purpose. As density increases and employee and resident populations increase, it is expected that more people will move between businesses within the WSRC. Provisions should be made to encourage people to walk from business to business, and housing to business rather than use automobiles. 2. Standard. A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner adjacent to a public street intersection are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.11 and Table 18.520.2. According to the applicant's narrative and plans, all building entrances will be connected to the public sidewalk along SW Oak Street by a network of internal site sidewalks. All private sidewalks between the building entrances and SW Oak Street sidewalk will be at least six feet wide and constructed of concrete. This standard is met. E. Parking location and landscape des'_ 1. Purpose. The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas. 2. Standard. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary street(s) shall be identified by the city where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage. When abutting public streets, parking must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 parking lot screen standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is eight feet or is equal to the adjacent building setback, whichever is greater. All other site landscaping shall be landscaped to an L-2 general landscaping standard. The L-1 and L-2 standards are more fully described in Section 18.630.090. (Ord. 12-09 S 1) According to the applicant's narrative and plan set, all parking areas on the project will be located to the sides or rear of proposed buildings, or within first level parking garages of buildings A and D. Parking areas to the sides of buildings are no further forward than even with the adjacent front building elevation. Parking areas adjacent to buildings along SW Oak Street are will be screened by landscaped areas which include low level screening plant materials consistent with the Irl parking area screening and planting size standards. All planting areas between parking areas and Ski` Oak Street are at least 10-feet deep, except where reduced to accommodate required patios (7'.1N14•tKKK)2,'P1)RJ,14-(XNx13,'S1)R'0na-(XXXK/.S].R21na(KX)n2-n+0;1PAXI'M1 ENTS YRCIi N)OF56 for ground level dwelling units. All other site landscaping will be provided at sizes consistent with the L-2 planting standard. However, the applicant states that`landscape materials in these areas will need to be kept trimmed to allow for clear vision areas at the intersections of these driveways with SW Oak Street." According to the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.2) Blue Oat Grass and Kin> k_innick are specified. Pursuant to 18.630.090, Landscaping and Screening,within these landscaped areas "L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. 111 L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years." 'Visual Clearance Areas require 3-8 foot clear and allow trees. This standard is not met. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C, and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.630.060 Building Design Standards All new buildings constructed in the MUC,MUE and MUR zones within the WSRC shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in 18.370.010.C.2, criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. A. Ground floor windows. 1. Purpose. Blank walls along the street frontage tend to be neglected, and are not pedestrian friendly. Windows help keep "eyes on the street" which promotes safety and security, and can help create a lively street frontage by displaying activities and products within the building. Lighting at night from ground floor windows also adds to the presence of activity and the sense that someone is home. 2. Standard. All street-facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner. According to the applicant's narrative, only building D will have a portion of its front building face along SW Oak Street located within 10-feet of the street property line — and that is the stair tower which will be set back 6.5 feet. The front building elevations of buildings B, C,and D will all be located between 10 feet and 11.2 feet back of the street property line. Nevertheless, measured between three feet and nine feet above grade, buildings B and C will provide a minimum of 50%of their ground floor wall areas with windows and doorway openings at these distances which are just beyond 10-feet— so technically they are not subject to this standard. Buildings A and D are set back more than 10 feet;therefore, these building are not required to satisf- this standard. This standard is met. B. Building fagades. 1. Purpose. Straight, continuous, unarticulated walls lack interest, character and personality. The standard provides minimum criteria for creating a diverse and interesting streetscape. 2. Standard. Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least one foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection,such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. According to the applicant's narrative,all facades that face a public street provide at least one of the variations listed in the standard at intervals of no less than every 50 feet along the facade. None of the proposed buildings will exceed a length of 205 feet;therefore,the pedestrian connection through a building standard is not applicable to any of the proposed buildings. This standard is met. (:13 LA21114-UIXXI?/PDR21114(XXX)3/SDR211144XXXR/ti1.R2(1144XXX)2-%+0 1P.1RTIMIiNTS PAGR 31 OF 56 C. Weather protection. 1. Purpose. Weather protection is encouraged to create a better year-round pedestrian environment and to provide incentive for people to walk rather than drive. 2. Standard. Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Weather protection is provided at all entrances to the buildings through the use of overhangs or canopies as shown on the building elevations plans. This standard is met. D. Building materials. 1. Purpose. High quality construction and building materials suggest a level of permanence and stature appropriate to a regional center. 2. Standard. Plain concrete block,plain concrete,corrugated metal,plywood,sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than two feet. The project does not use materials listed above in the standard as prohibited exterior finish materials. Plain concrete is used as a foundation material, but the plain concrete will not be revealed for more than two feet. Proposed building materials will include Hardie board,Hardie panels,and vertical metal panels. Deck and patio railings will be constructed of acrylic or metal,as identified on Sheet A3.10. This standard is met. E. Roofs and roof lines. 1. Purpose. Roof line systems that blur the line between the roof and the walls of buildings should be avoided. This standard simply states that roofing materials should be used on the roof and that wall finish materials should be use on building walls. The premise is that future buildings in the WSRC should have a look of permanence and quality. 2. Standard. Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The materials of roofs and roof lines are different from the materials used on the building elevations so as to avoid blurring the distinction between the roof and walls as required by the standard. This standard is met. F. Roof-mounted equipment. 1. Purpose. Roof top equipment, if not screened properly, can detract from views of adjacent properties. Also roofs and roof mounted equipment can be the predominant view where buildings are down slope from public streets. 2. Standard. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. According to the applicant's narrative, all roof-mounted equipment is screened from the view of adjacent public streets.This standard is met. 18.630.070 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations. Residential only developments within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-40 zone, 18.780.130.B; nonresidential developments within the MUC zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.130.C; nonresidential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130.13 and nonresidential development within the MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements of the C-N zone,18.780.130.E. (.TA2(114(KKKn,`PI)R2014(XXX)3.",I)R20141N111(W,'SI.R211144KKX)3 \+O gPARTMI NIN P\(,1;32 Of 56 2. Sign area limits. The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted. 3. Height limits. The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted. 4. Sign location. Freestanding signs within the Washington Square regional center shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. According to the applicant's narrative, an integral wall sign is provided on the west elevation of building C at the building's corner near SW Oak Street. The area of the western building face is 2,388 square foot. The area of the proposed sign is 143 square feet,or less than 6 percent of the total wall face. The sign area does not exceed 15% of the area of the building face on which it is mounted and will not extend above the building's roofline. To verify these specifications meet the applicable sign standards a sign application will be required prior to installation of any signage.This standard is met. 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other subsections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. A. L-1 parking lot screen. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets. The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title.The setback shall be a minimum of eight feet between the parking lot and a public street. L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31h-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. B. L-2 general landscaping.The L-2 standard applies to all other trees and shrubs required by this chapter and Chapter 18.745 (except those required for the L-1 parking lot screen). For trees and shrubs required by Chapter 18.745, the L-2 standard is an additional standard. All L-2 trees shall be 21/:-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. These landscape standards apply to the areas adjacent to SW Oak Street between Buildings B and C,and between C and D.As reviewed above,the applicant has not met the standard for L-1 and has been conditioned to meet it. FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Plan District standards are not all met but can be met with the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionality,arecommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS,AND CIRCULATION 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. The proposal is for 215 multi-family units and associated access and parking, which is considered development; CY.4�-014-0(NN)2/Pi)R2014(K"13i SI)R?1)14tNXX)4/%;J R2li4(XXX)2-,1+n.1MWI M!Nl;S PACE 33 OF SG therefore these standards apply. 18.705.030 General Provisions 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. As shown in the applicant's site plan, the three proposed driveways are directly connected to SW Oak St. This standard is met. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses,to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) walkways will connect from all primary (and secondary) multi- family building entrances to the parking areas and common open spaces and facilities planned to serve the project. Primary crossings of drivewa; aisles will be marked by paint or contrasting pavement.These standards are met. H. 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). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a preliminary sight distance analysis concluding that, with certain improvements at the SW 90`s Street intersection, adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met, but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting (:PAZ)14-(XXX)2/Pl)R2()14-(XXX)3/1'DR2)14—(XXX)4/Sl.lt21)14—(XXXP--A+O A13.1LW1'M1sh"tS PAG i34UIQ5G adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway.The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from city engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area any collector or arterial street. 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. 4.The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a minimum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet.The standard is met. I. 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. TABLE 18.705.2 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE Dwelling Units Min. Number of Min. Access Min. Pavement Width Driveways Required Width 1-2 1 15' 10' 3-19 1 30' 24'if two-way, 15'if one-wa;: curbs and 5'walkwa required 20-49 1 30' 24'if two-wa- or 2 30' 15'if one-uay:curbs and 5'walka-ay required 50-100 2 30' 24'curbs and 5',%alkway required Standards for parking greater than 100 cars is not specified in Table 18.705.2. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width would provide a level of access similar to that required for the largest development size listed. The standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards are not all met but can be met through the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS: Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and.",ASHTO. CP:1'3I744MMX)2/VURL014-(XMX)3/SDR3)14(XXX)4/SIJU)14-(XXX)?-A+()APARTNII Xl%S PACE 35 OF 5!. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18.715.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. 18.715.020 Density Calculation A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site acres: 1.All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain, b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%, e. Drainage ways,and d.Wetlands, e. Optional: Significant tree groves or habitat areas, as designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Tree Grove Map"or"Significant Habitat Areas Map'; 2.All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20%of gross acreage, b. Multifamily development: allocate 15% of gross acreage or deduct the actual private drive area; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimpm number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. C. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in subsection B of this section by 80% (0.8). The project site is zoned with a combination of the NIUE-1 (7.88-acres) and MUR-1 (3.4 acres) zoning districts. Pursuant to Table 18.502.2, the minimum densit-i for both zones is 50 units per net site acre,and no maximum. Based on the following density calculation,a minimum of 205 units are required. Gross site area 11.17 acres -Public right-of-way dedication 0.32 acres Net site area 10.85 acres Initial net site area 10.85 acres -Remaining jurisdictional 6.20 acres wetlands/floodplain -Private drive area (drive aisles required for fire arms onW 0.60 acres Net/Net site area 4.05 acres Minimum units required 50 units/acre x 4.05 acres =205 units proposed density 215 units/4.05 acres = 53.1 units/acre (;PA2014-(KKK)2'Pl)R2(114{NNK).3,1U)RZ)14-gKx)41.q R2 t14-(NNKr_-A+O APARTAIITP[S PAGE'30 01;56 FINDING: The proposal is for 215 units, or 53.1 dwelling units per net acre. This exceeds the minimum density required. This standard is met. 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE STANDARDS These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise,visible emissions,vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation,the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340- 28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare,whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: The proposal is for multi-family development, which is permitted within the MUR-1 and N[IJE-1 zones. These Environmental Performance standards will apply to the apartments after construction and be subject to compliance with the applicable code enforcement provisions. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Maintenance responsibility. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his or her agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all landscaping and screening used to meet the requirements of this chapter according to applicable industry standards. B. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping and screening required by this chapter shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping and screening shall be installed according to applicable industry standards; 2. All plants shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z60, 1-2004, and any future revisions); and 3. All landscaping and screening shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. C. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the requirements of this chapter have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the city such as the posting of a bond. 18.745.040 Street Trees (.PA20144NXX)2/PDIC)14iM100.3i SDR2014(XXXAjS1.R2)141XWX12-A+0 APART M WN PAGE 37()1.56 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 11), Planned Development (Type III), Site Development Review (Type II) and Subdivision (Type II and III) permits. 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 6 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 (3) years (per the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual) for each tree below the minimum required. As shown in the Landscape Plan (Sheets L1.1/2) the applicant proposes planting of fifteen katsura trees along the site's SW Oak Street frontage within planter strips between the curb and sidewalk is in order to provide the required number of street trees and planting locations consistent with Section 18.745.040. This standard is met. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 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. E. Screening:special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas (i.e., nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less (TA2(1141 OR-71T1MM 4-(XXX)3.'.SD1U)1 44 X N K)4,'SI.R3)14-4 K 1(K C-A+0 APARTMI Nl'ti PAGI:38 OF 5G conforming. Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), planned development (Type III), and site development review (Type II) permits only. 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; 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. As indicated in Table 18.745.1, a Type D buffer is required for parking lots with 50+ spaces along the south perimeter of the property. According to Table 18.745.2,a 10-20 foot buffer with a 6 foot hedge, fence, or wall with trees and shrubs for screening is required.As shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheets Ll.l/2),the applicant proposes an alternative to the buffer and screening standards to account for the retaining wall and limited space afforded the project's proximity to wetlands to the south.The applicant proposes that slats will be added to the proposed 42 inch high chain link fence atop the retaining wall after a pathway is placed through the wetland (unlikely to occur in the near future) and before proposed screening trees planted at the base of the retaining wall become an effective screen on their own. Given the information provided, it is unclear whether the proposed alternative screening plan would sufficiently reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual pollution created by the elevated parking lot as seen from the south from other vantage points besides the potential trail. To ensure the alternative screening plan is sufficient, the applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates they will be effectively screened from view. 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. 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. The applicant states that the refuse containers within the project will be screened from views by 6-foot tall CM block enclosures.This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Landscaping and Screening standards have not been fully met but can be met through the following condition of approval. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south. 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.010 Purpose and Applicability B. AnulicabW1y_ 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. (:PA3)141XXXa/PDR2U14(XXX).3/',13112)14(XNX)4/SI.R2014(XAX)2- 1+(1.WARI'MINTS PAG1s3901;5G The applicant proposes using the "franchised hauler review method" method provided for by Code Section 18.755.040.F. The 215-unit muld-family project will be served by two roughly 200 square foot trash and recycling enclosures conveniently located for use by all residents. The outdoor trash enclosures will be constructed of split- faced CMU block, with wood and metal accents. The apartment management company will contract for twice a week trash and recycling pick-up by Pride Disposal—the franchised hauler serving the area of the site. This method and frequency of pickup was suggested by representatives of Pride Disposal because of the site constraints posed by the site's slope making the location of additional collection facilities impractical and difficult to access by Pride Disposal's collection vehicles. A comment letter from Pride Disposal regarding the plans for solid waste collection and recycling facilities is enclosed as Impact Assessment Report D. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed mixed solid waste and recycling plan meets the standard. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions E. 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. The applicant has requested parking space exemption of 9.1% (28 spaces) as allowed under the Planned Development chapter. Provided the exemption is granted, the proposed development will meet the minimum parking standard,including the visitor parking requirement of 40 spaces (.15 x 266 minimum required spaces). G. 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. Disabled parking space are provided consistent with the state requirements. This standard is met. 18.765.040 General Design Standards B.Access drives.With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 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 for parking space orientation of 90 degrees. As permitted by that figure's allowance of up to 50% compact spaces, the proposed development plan provides for 115 of the total 278 on-site parking spaces to be compact spaces,or 48 percent of the spaces proposed.The general design standards are met. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 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 locate 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. B. Covered parking spaces. 1. When possible,bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. CPA3U14((MM)2/PI)1220144RXX)3jSI)RZU141MMM14/ti1.R2114fMMM12-A+OAP WMINIS PA 1{41iUIQ5G 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case,the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground,wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least two and one-half feet by six feet long, and,when covered,with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased.At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6.Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. E. 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. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in 18.370.020.C.5.e. Pursuant to Table 18.7 65.2, one bicycle parking space is required for every two multi-family dwelling units, or a minimum of 108 bicycle parking spaces are required. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 108 covered bike parking spaces are provided.This standard is met. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements H. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 requires a minimum of 1 parking space for each studio unit below- 500 sq. ft. in size; 1.25 parking space for each 1-bedroom unit; 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom unit, and 1.75 parking spaces for each 3- bedroom unit for multi-family development projects. The proposed multi-family project will include 64 studios; 98 1-bedorrm units; and 53 2-bedroom units. There will be no 3-bedroom units.Therefore, a minimum of 266 parking spaces are required based solely upon the unit types and counts. In addition, an additional 15% on top of the required parking spaces based on unit sizes and numbers is required as visitor parking facilities. Therefore, a grand total of 306 parking spaces are required. The proposed development plan provides for a total of 278 on-site parking spaces to be provided including: a) 37 garage parking spaces and b)241 surface parking spaces. The proposed plan therefore will provide 28 fewer on-site parking spaces than would typically be required for the size and make-up of the proposed multi-family residential development. The applicant has requested an exception to the required number of on-site parking spaces as allowed under Code Section 18.350.070.C.5 for Planned Developments, above. Provided the exception is granted,the proposed development can meet the standard. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in subsection H of this section: 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; religious institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use. The applicant acknowledges that the on-street parking provided by the SW Oak Street improvement may not count toward the required minimum parking spaces. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements can be met. (:Pn21n4(XN)02/1'1)R2n4-(xXx),i/,g)R2(n44XXX)4;s].R2n4(HXX)2-A+O APMUPMFNiti P-NGE.41 01:56 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements 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; The urban forestry plan for the A+O Apartments has been prepared by David Haynes, RLA — a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Sheets TC.lthrough TC.3 of the application plan set provide the required tree canopy plan and calculations. Soil volume specifications for trees to be planted are included on Sheet TC.3.This standard is met. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual (UFM); The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report of Appendix E of the applicant's submittal 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. An assessment of existing trees located within the area to be preserved as wetlands was not conducted. Sheet TC.1 is a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. Protective measures for trees to be retained are included on this plan. The required right-of- way/street improvements for Ste' Oak Street, as well as the applicant requested additional road width for on-street parking,will necessitate the removal of several existing mature trees. This standard is met. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and The proposed landscaping plan provides for anticipated tree canopy coverage of the parking area to cover 57,282 square feet of the 98.317 square foot total parking lot area, or 58 percent of the parking lot. The minimum parking lot tree canopy cover area required is 33 percent in both the MUE-1 and AIUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site. In addition the proposed landscaping plan provides for total anticipated tree canopy coverage of 78,785 square feet of the total 180,774 square feet of development area, or 44% of the development area. Finally, the minimum 1,000 cubic feet of soil per tree standard for the Tree Canopy Site Plan has also been met. Therefore, the proposed Tree Canopy Plan satisfies the standards of Section 18.790.030.A.3.This standard is met. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report prepared by David Haynes,RLA,which includes the required information and analysis required for such a report. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the urban forestry plan requirements are met. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation B. Tree Establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030 A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of the previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in Section 11,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. FINDING: The applicant's proposal does not address tree establishment. Therefore, a condition of approval is added for the applicant to provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Alanual Section 11, Part 2. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per Section 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per Section 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. (x'AZ)14 xxxt2/Pt)R2()144xKK)3/'7)82(1144KKM)4/S]")14-(KKAY)-,N+O.1PWIMSTI\ PAC1:4201:56 Section 11, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan. This can be met through a condition of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable urban forestry tree inventory and establishment standards have been met.To ensure compliance,the following conditions are applied: CONDITIONS: Prior to any ground disturbance work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection treasures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. FINDING: The Preliminary Landscaping Plan, Sheets Ll.l and L2.2, illustrates the applicable required clear vision triangles at these intersections. This standard 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. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development has been designed to preserve as much of the existing wetlands and habitat area on the site as practical, while still providing with an intensive residential development as envisioned with the intensive standards and density allowances of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the underlying MITE-1 and NIUR-1 zoning districts. Residential development area has been limited to the northern portion of the site near SW Oak Street to minimize impacts on the wetlands and to reduce the area that needs to be committed to automobile circulation.The site slopes downward away from SW Oak Street, thereby necessitating filling the site in order to provide building and site access per AM requirements and to provide cover/depth for the stormwater management system (water quality and detention) prior to outfall to the south into the wetland area, and to provide relatively level areas for the buildings to be located. This filling of the northern portion of the site along with the relatively dense development pattern necessitated removal of all of the existing C:1';12)14-(KX)02'VDR2f)14-(xxx).3/SI)R�)14-(XX))4/U.R2ti14(KXX)2—A+(1 APAW111dENIN PAGF 43 OF 56 trees.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 According to the applicant's narrative, all of 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 Geotechnical Resources,Inc. That study is included as report C in the Impact Assessment portion of this report. The recommendations of the study mA be utilized in developing the final grading plan for the project The geotechnical report offers the following conclusion: "The site is mantled by 1.5 to 23.5 ft of silt, which is underlain by basalt which has decomposed to the consistency of sand. Beneath the decomposed basalt, the site is underlain by predominantly decomposed, extremely soft basalt to the maximum depth explored (26.5 ft). In our opinion, the structural loads of the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread footings established in structural fill or in the medium stiff silt or dense to very dense sand that mantles the site. The following sections of this report provide our conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation and earthwork, foundation support, lateral earth pressures, subdrainage and floor support,pavement design, and seismic design considerations. [Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geotechnical Resources, Inc., page 3)."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. The four multi-family residential buildings have been situated to maximize sunlight and air into as many dwelling units as practical 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; The preserved open space area on the southern portion of the site will separate the proposed multi-family development project from detached single-family development to the south by over 400-feet Trees to be planted to the south of and near the base of the retaining mall will help screen the proposed development from views from the south,as will screening materials at the top of the wall and parking area trees.Although the areas immediately to the west of the site are currently developed with detached single-family residences, that area is zoned MUE-1 and is anticipated to be redeveloped with intensive residential, institutional, and/or office development which should be similar in intensity as the proposed A+O Apartments. Nevertheless, landscaping is proposed to be provided on the western portion of the subject site to help provide a buffer between these neighboring uses. This criterion is met. b. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: i. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust,or to provide a visual barrier, ii. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; iii. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; iv. The required density of the buffering; and v. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Section 18.745.050.E-1 typically requires the screening of parking lots and loading areas from views from adjacent areas. Table 18.745.1 specifies that a Type D buffer of at least 10- feet to 20-feet of width and differing levels of plant materials and fences/walls or hedges between parking lots and areas of single-family development. These buffer standards would therefore apply along the southern and eastern edges of the proposed parking lot because the parking area might be visible from existing single-family development to the southeast and east, and Hwy 217 if not adequately buffered and screened. C)'.12014-1kxM12JPl)]tA)14/A1tx13i';I)R2114(KMN)4iSI.It2114-(* Mf2-A+nAPARTh11N11 PACK 44OF5G The applicant requests an exception to the parking area buffer and screening standards, as provided. The proposed landscape plans were prepared by David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect. The plans propose that an alternative buffer be allowed to the standards of Section 18.745.050.E.1 to screen the parking lots.The parking area will be well separated from the existing neighboring single-family uses to the south and southeast for which buffering and screening is required. The neighboring single-family uses will be located over 400 feet away from the proposed parking area. As such, views of the parking area would be distant and there would be little, if any, discernible noise or odor effects from use of the parking area upon those neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed wetland area plantings of ash trees and the proposed dense planting of western red cedar trees at the base of the proposed retaining wall will provide much more screening of views of the parking area than would a buffer on the actual edge of the parking lot,with such a buffer designed to the relatively narrow width and plant density standards of Table 18.745.1. The western red cedar trees especially will provide adequate evergreen screening of views of the parking area. In addition, to address concerns on the screening from the future pedestrian path near Ash Creek, it is proposed that fence fillers (slats, fabric,etc.) be provided along the southern edge of the proposed parking lot if the trail is constructed prior to tree growth providing the required landscape buffer/screening to the parking area from the trail. Fence fillers will be added to the chain-link fence on top of the retaining wall and adjacent to the southern edges of the parking area in order to supplement the screening provided by the cedar trees for up to five years,in order for tree growth to provide adequate screening. FINDING: The applicant submitted an alternative landscape plan to the required parking lot screening,prepared by a registered landscape architect,that arguably attains the same level of buffering and screening or better with alternate materials and methods. Staff finds that the applicant has not considered %icws from Hwy 217 or the effects of headlight at night and therefore recommends the applicant provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south,as conditioned above. c. 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. The proposed apartments will include two trash and recycling enclosures within the project's parking area. These enclosures will be constructed of CMU walls with steel gates. Landscaping will be provided adjacent to these trash enclosures to provide near-view screening.Their locations relatively deep into the parking area and site will provide them with adequate screening from adjoining properties,as will the intervening landscaping outside of the parking area. Mechanical equipment on the rooftops of the buildings will be screened from views from neighboring properties by parapets included on the buildings.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; This is a residential development,therefore, this criterion does not apply. 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. C:PA2ii14(xxx)./PI)1131141KX1(13/S1-)R2o14-1(xx91'S1.R2014-{NKAl2—A+0 APAR'1MJ-N l\ PAG F'45 01`56 The exterior elevation articulation standards of this section are superseded b; Section 18.630.060.B. The standards of that section are addressed below. 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. As illustrated on the floor plans, Sheets A2.10 through A2.40, all ground level dwelling units will be provided with patios or decks. Minimum sizes of these decks or patios will be 48 square feet. N inimum dimensions of any of the decks or patios will be 6 feet of depth. As practical, decks are oriented to maximize solar exposure, but are designed to provide a reasonable degree of privacy. This criterion is met. 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: L 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. The proposed 215 residential units will all be studios, 1-bedroom, or 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed development would be required to provide 43,000 square feet of 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: Open area north and west of Building A: 4,247 sq. ft. Community gardens,plaza,and other areas south of Building B: 4,307 sq. ft. Pool,pool deck.,plaza,and barbecue pavilion south of Building C: 6,769 sq. ft. Wetlands overlook plaza south of parking area: 1,478 sq ft. Other usable gl&n space and plaza area 2.478 sft Total Usable Active Open Space provided 19,280 sq. ft. In addition, 2,196 square feet of indoor recreation space is provided within Building C, including the following. an activity/media room (492 square feet); and exercise room (487 square feet); an activity/media room and kitchen (548 square feet)• and a rooftop patio ,(669 squa_rc fect) Total Indoor Recreation Space 2,196 sq. ft. Passive recreation areas are provided including the upland areas adjacent to the wetlands and landscape beds throughout the site. Total outdoor passive recreation space 24103 sa ft. Total required recreation space 45,579 sq. fL As allowed by subsection 6.c.iv. above, the combined shared usable outdoor recreation areas, additional indoor recreation area, and passive use open space facilities totals 45,579 square feet of combined area, or 212 square feet per each dwelling unit. This exceeds the minimum standard of 200 square feet of shared outdoor recreation and open space facility per unit. This criterion is met. (.P-�Xan4(XXX/M)R3)144XXX)3/g3R3)141X XglSI.R2)1A-(XX102-A+OAPAWMiHNlti PAGL 46(]I,i6 All of the proposed usable outdoor recreation areas will be located in fairly open areas and should be readily observable from a number of dwelling units, the parking area, and the sidewalks and drive aisles within the development site. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development is consistent with the minimum number of access points required by Chapter 18.705 (minimum of two access points required; three access points provided). The site plan has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. The project development team met with a representative of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District during the development of the site plans. Modifications to the plans were made to accommodate the Fire District's concerns. The plans have also been provided to Pride Disposal, the trash and recycling service provider for the site area. The plans provide for the dedication of a 20-foot %-ide public pedestrian easement along Ash Creek for future development of a pathway or boardwalk, as called for by the City of Tigard Parks System Master Plan which discusses a Washington Square Regional Center Trail looping around Washington Square, and following Ash Creek as its primary route. An easement for a connecting trail to SW Oak Street is also proposed to be provided. This criterion is met. 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. This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for such landscape installation. The proposed development plans (Sheet P2.4, Overall Open Space Analysis Plan) call for 48,367 square feet of landscaped area on the site, or 25 percent of the 193,406 square foot development site area. This total landscaped area does not include the minimal use areas below the proposed retaining wall, which also includes the trees and shrubs which have been proposed to provide the required screening and buffering for the parking area. The landscape plan was prepared by and under the direction of David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon.This criterion is met. 9. Public transit: a. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a quarter mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: i.The location of other transit facilities in the area;and ii.The size and type of the proposed development. b.The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as: i.A waiting shelter; ii.A turn-out area for loading and unloading;and iii. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. c. If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the development and the requirement. The northeastern portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of TriMet transit service bus stops at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW I.ocust Street,and portions of the northwestern portion of the proposed development site are slightly more than one quarter mile of TriMet transit stops on NW Greenburg Road. There currently is no transit service on SW Oak Street adjacent to the project site. Tri-Met provided a letter dated (PA2014-(KKK)2/1'I)R2(114.(KKK)3i SI)R2O14�KxKM'Sl,IL2fI4-(kKK)2-A+0 APARTMi N-FS, PAG I S 47 01`56 December 4, 2014 at the City's request which outlines measures to improve access to transit from the subject site including improved sidewalk connectivity and lighting and obtaining an easement for placement of a transit shelter. The city shared TriMet's comments with the applicant who was amenable to considering the suggested improvements. As conditioned above, the applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMees comment letter dated December 4,2014.Therefore, this criterion is met. 10. Parking: a.All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; b. Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. The proposed parking areas within the multi-family development project have been designed consistent with the applicable design standards of Chapter 18.765, as reviewed in the findings to that chapter, below. This criterion is met. 11. Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as green streets,porous concrete, or eco roofs. The proposed storm drainage system within the apartment project has been designed consistent with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.810,as reviewed in the findings to that chapter,below.This criterion is met. 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. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The project site includes a substantial area which is within the 100-;ear floodplain of.ash Creek. The applicant is proposing to preserve the floodplain area on the site within a private open space area for long-term preservation. The plans note that the applicant is willing to provide a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of a pedestrian path near Ash Creek,plus an easement for a pedestrian connection between that path and SW Oak Street.This criterion is met. 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. The open space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following: a. Minimal use facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by reserving areas for minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes,wetlands,streams,or 100-year floodplain). b. Passive use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use. c. Active use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation,pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use. d. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat or covenants. (:PA-'4114)(XK)2/Yl)RZ014(KXK).3.'til)lt3)14(KKKM/U.R'�.)MI$NK)2-.\+O APAJUNI NIN PAGE.48OF 56 The Detailed Planned Development Plan for the A+O Apartments planned development provides 318,849 square feet of the total site area,over 67 percent of the 472,688 square foot site area (after deduction of additional SW Oak Street right-of-way only) as shared open space areas, whereas a minimum of 20 percent of the site or only 94,538 square feet would be the minimum shared open space required to be provided for this size planned development site. See Sheet P2.4, Overall Open Space Analysis Plan. The total open space areas to be provided will consist of the following: • 273,270 square feet as minimal use facilities or 289 percent of the minimum required area as shared open space use facilities • 24,103 square feet of passive use facilities or 25 percent of the minimum required open space area; • 21,476 square feet of active use facilities or 22.3 percent of the minimum required open space area. This criterion is met. 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. Where considered desirable by the commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies,and where a development plan of the city does not indicate proposed public use areas, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: a. Public ownership. Open space proposed for dedication to the city must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations.A determination of city acceptance shall be made in writing by the parks & facilities division manager prior to final approval. Dedications of open space may be eligible for systems development charge credits, usable only for the proposed development. If deemed to be not acceptable, the open space shall be in private ownership as described below. b. Private ownership. By conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, and granting a conservation easement to the city in a form acceptable by the city. The terms of the conservation easement must include provisions for the following: i.The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; ii. Continuity of property maintenance; iii.When appropriate,the availability of funds required for such maintenance; iv. Adequate insurance protection; and v. Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan (2001) includes the Greenbelt, Parks and Open Space System Concept Plan (Figure 7) which shows greenbelt co-terminus with the wetlands on the subject site. The Tigard Park System Master Plan (2009) Map 3: Park Concept Map shows the Washington Square Regional 'Trail in a general alignment across the subject property. The Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan shows two alternate routes across the subject property, through wetlands (2A) and along SW Oak Street (2B),which is shown as a low priority on the Prioritized Project List,Table 13. The applicant does not propose open space conveyance, but a ped/bike easement instead. The City Parks Director has determined that a dedication will not be acceptable and that a blanket pedestrian/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A will be an acceptable reservation.As conditioned,this standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the Detailed Development Plan approval Criteria are met or can be met,as conditioned. (PAZ)14-(NMN)2_'P1')R3)l4-(NXN)3/SDR2l)14-INNN)4j SLR2014-(NNN)2-A+0 APAR:1W1J-N'15 PAGE 49 01;56 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown District, street right- of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.)These are presented in Table 18.810.1 The development is adjacent to SW Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630).The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street include a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path. No streets within the development are proposed.This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8, 2014, traffic impact study and a September 16, 2014, Left-tum Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation. The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`h Avenue approach to SV' Oak Street. The Left-turn analysis concluded that a left-turn lane along Oak Street was unneeded. "I'his standard may be met by condition. <:1'A--4j14-(XXX)2/T'DR21)14-(KKK)3/.SI)R-7)14-(XXX)4/tl.R20141XXX)2-A+O APARTMENTS PAG 5(1O 56 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers,drainage,water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right- of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided.This standard may be met by condition. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development,even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. B. Requirement of developers. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The Development Review engineer has determined there are no existing sidewalks on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction. This standard is met. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to exis mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approvaL The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings will be extended to a public line in SW Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1.The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2.Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street;and 3.Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wetland buffer at the south side of the site. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to (:P.1J)14110111)2/1'DR2!)14(NRN)3/ti7)R2014 XXK)4,/51.]U)141X"12-A+0 APAWIMENIN P:\U:5101;56 accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SVG' Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Swales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SW Oak Street. This standard may be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek.This standard may be met by condition. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.810.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek.An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets;and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the C13.,0)1411HX)2/131)R2114-(KXX)3.";1)Rxri49XXY1/ti1.R2)14-4XX*12-A+OAPAKINI N S 11:\CU520I156 only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore, a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety: The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (IVF&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District (I MD) provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from'I'VWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) of the design of water service to the site. T`'WD approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow all applicable requirements regarding erosion control, particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act, State of Oregon, Clean Water Services, and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuance of the building permit. Address Assigxnments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2',etc. (;P. UI4/KKN)Z'YD1L?l)141MKK13!ti1)R2114IKKKW/S]1ZJ)]41KKK12_;\+{)AP1RTMINM', PAGE'53 OF 56 SECTION VIII IMPACT STUDY SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system,the sewer system,and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section VI of the applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Reports on transportation, wetlands, geotechnical,waste and recycling, and storm drainage. Item F. Impact Assessment Report by Otak, Inc. su nmari7es the effect of the proposed development on general compatibility, noise, odors, lighting, signage, transit availability, transportation,and utilities. The applicant has specifically concurred with and has proposed dedication of right-of-way and to make half-street improvements along SW Oak Street. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Development Tax (IDT) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County implementation figures for 2014/2015,TDTs are expected to recapture approximately 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed and upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TDTs of approximately $1,098,111 ($5,257 x 215 = $1,130,255 new apartment units - $32,144 for four existing single family dwellings). Based on the estimate that total'IDT fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide,a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $3,431,596 ($1,098,111 + 0.32). The difference between the TILT paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. Estimated Mitigation Value Assessment: FullImpact ................................................................................................................ $1,098,111 0 ••••••••( + .32) $3,431,596 LessTDT Assessment..................................................................................................... - 1,098,111 Less mitigated values for off-sites improvements (Lincoln Street row + full improvements- 757.000 Estimate of unmitigated impacts $1,576,485 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Oak Street, a collector street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) and stated in the narrative. Any improvement to SW Lincoln Street, a collector may be TDT is creditable. Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications, assessments,and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION IX. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Police Department was notified and did not comment on the project. The City Public Works Department was notified and commented that the wetland portion of the subject property should have a blanket public pedestrian/bike access easement for implementation of the Washington Square Loop Trail at some point in the future. The City Development Review Engineer (Contact Greg Berry, 503-718-2468) Phas reviewed the proposal and provided comment in a Memorandum dated November 26,2014,which can be found in the land use filee an and as (. .�zn�xxMn-.']�vtta)i4-cxxx)3,st)tt2n1•uXXX)4/�.tt2(n¢(XXK12-.\+OAPAMMI-XII PAGE"SiC>la s attachment to this decision. The findings and conclusions in the Memorandum have been incorporated into this land use decision. SECTION X AGENCY COMMENTS TriMet reviewed the proposal and provided a comment letter dated December4, 2014, including recommendations for sidewalk connectivity,lighting and transit station improvements on S\R'Greenburg. Metro Planner Gerry Uba reviewed the proposal and commented that "Metro is confident that Clean Water Services will assist the City to implement the amendments appropriately." Clean Water Services Jackie Sue Humphreys (503-681-3600) has reviewed this proposal and issued a letter dated November 18, 2014 stating conditions to be met in association with stormwater connection permit authorization, including compliance with the Service Provider Letter dated August 7,2014 (File No. 14-001441). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue John Wolff(503-259-1504) has reviewed the proposal and offered comments in a letter dated December 3, 2014, that endorses the proposal subject to TVF & R access hydrant location requirements. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, State Historic Preservation Office commented in a letter dated November 18, 2014 that in the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area,extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. A condition of approval will require notification procedures if cultural objects and/or human remains are found during site grading. Oregon Division of State Lands provided a letter to the applicant dated June 13,2014 concurring with the Pacific Habitat Services wetland and waterway boundaries for the subject site. Frontier John Cousineau (503-643-0371) commented that the project site is within the CenturyLink territory. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), ODOT (Region 1), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. SECTION XI. STAFF ALYSIS$ CONCLUSION,AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: Limiting conflicting uses in Goal 5 protected wetlands (CPA) The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. Staff recommends limiting conflicting uses. Planned Development (PDR) Parking Exemption The applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1% may adversely affect on-street parking in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership. Funding future transportation Developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. Staff recommends the applicant consider a range of improvements associated with SW Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path, or a constructed bike/ped path _within a bike/ped easement,and to construct improvements,subject to rough proportionality. (3'A20144X101)2/1'1)R20141MM3.,SDR2014-iXXXA/SI.R21)14 XKX)2- \+(1 APARIAIFNTS, P.\G .55()1`56 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and anal-sis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands Reviews, and Planned Development are consistent or are conditioned to be consistent witha plicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code Chapters:18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, sensitive lands reviews, and planned development to City Council subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the result of any deliberations by the Planning Commission. Exhibits: Exhibit A The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer Memo dated December 4,2014 Exhibit B TVF&R Letter dated December 3, 2014 Exhibit C TriMet letter dated December 4,2014 Exhibit D Planned Development Concept Plan (Sheet P2.2) Exhibit E General Detailed Planned Development Plan (Sheet P2.3) PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director (,PA2014.MW/PAR2l)WXM3/SDR20144XX104/Sl")141X1UO3-A+O APARTMENIS PAGE 56 OF 57 EXHIBIT A 1� °nfi T*�Um To: Gars Pagenstecher,Associate Planner From: Greg Berry,Project Engineer Re: SDR 2014-04;A+O Apartments Date: November 26, 2014 Access Management(Section 18.7051 Section 18.705.030.B requires site plans be presented for approval showing how access requirements are to be fulfilled in accordance with this chapter. The application includes a site and utility plan for a proposed 215 unit apartment complex. Section 18.705.030.D states that all vehicular access and egress ... 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. A driveway directly connected to SAX'Oak St. will provide access to the site. This standard is met. Section 18.705.F Required walkways PI. NNIN G Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County,the City and/or AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a preliminary sight distance analysis concluding that,with certain improvements at the SVS 90`h Street intersection,adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met,but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements,the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has Less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area any collector or arterial street. This standard is met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a minimum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet. The standard is met. Section 18.705.030.I includes minimum access requirements for residential use. For multifamily use developments with 50 to 100 units,two accesses are required with a minimum paved width of 24 feet with curbs and a 5-foot sidewalk within a 30-foot width. Standards for the proposed 215 units are not provided. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width and mould provide a level of access similar to that required for the development sizes listed.. The standard is met. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810 Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E requires minimum rights-of- way and street widths for streets adjacent to or within a development. The development is adjacent to SAX' Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630). The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street includes a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path No streets within the development are proposed. This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 121/6 on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8,2014,traffic impact study and a September 16,2014,Left-turn Analysis prepared by Kittelson&Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation. The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`" Avenue approach to SW Oak Street. The Left-turn Analysis concluded that a left-tum lane along Oak Street was unneeded. This standard may be met by condition. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access,circulation,control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other bodies of water or,pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Additional connections in this area are precluded by surrounding wetlands and existing development. Easements: Section 18.810.050 states that easements for sewers, drainage,water mains,electric lines,or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of the watercourse. Section 18.810.050.B states that a property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city,the applicable district,and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for mainline easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided. This standard may be met by condition. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards along at least one side of private and industrial streets. No streets are proposed. This standard is met. Section 18.810.070.B states that if there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet in either direction,the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality. No additional sidewalks are required. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.819.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek. An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Sewer Plan approval• Section 18.810.090.B requires that the applicant obtain City Engineer approval of all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development veithin the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings vx ill be extended to a public line in SW Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wetland buffer at the south side of the site. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility,based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SVI Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2007 and including any future revisions or amendments). Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek. This standard may be met by condition. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 07-20)which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management and shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition,a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Sw ales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SW Oak Street. This standard may be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces of more than 1,000 square feet provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention, but a fee-in-lieu would be required. The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary detention calculations for an underground system. This standard may be met by condition. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines,but not limited to those required for electric, communication,lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground,except for surface mounted transformers,surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground,temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above,and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only,such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore,a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits Fire and Life Safety The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue UVF&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District(M'WD) provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from TVWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) of the design of water service to the site. TVWD approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction,grading,excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations,the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow:all applicable requirements regarding erosion control,particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act,State of Oregon,Clean Water Services,and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. . Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water,sever,storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuance of the building permit. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of$50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings,one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1",second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "22,etc. Sensitive Lands (Section 18.775.070) Section 18.775.070.B.2 requires that land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill,new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.3 requires that land form alterations or developments within the 100- year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map. Proposed land form alterations are confined to portions of the site designated as WE-1. Section 18.775.070.B.4 requires that where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.5 requires that land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Dedication of a public pedestrian easement is proposed. Since there are no current plans for a pathway, an easement will be required over the entirety of the floodplain. .kn approved easement agreement is required before beginning work and must be recorded before final inspection. Section 18.775.070.B.7 requires that the necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,Division of State Lands,and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; The applicant has submitted applications for these permits. Approved permits will be required before beginning any work Section 18.775.070.B.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Section 18.775.070.D.2 requires that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development in a drainageway will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use. The disturbance will be limited to that required to replace the portion of the drainageway along the western side of the site with a public with a public storm drain. This requirement is expected to be met. Section 18.775.070.D.3 requires that he proposed land form alteration or development within the drainageway will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation,ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Relocating the drainageway to a storm drain and providing an adequate outfall is expected to prevent these adverse effects. Section 18.775.070.D.4 requires that the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The storm drain receiving the flow from the drainageway will have adequate capacity. This requirement will be met. Section 18.775.070.D.5 where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Restoration will be required at the southern end of the drainageway. This work is expected to be required by the permits of other agencies. Section 18.775.070.D.6 requires that the drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The public storm drain replacing the drainageway will be sized to have the required capacity. Section 18.775.070.D.7 requires that the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands and CWS approvals shall be obtained for work within a drainageway. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and CWS permit applications have been submitted. Approved permits will be required before any work begins. Section 18.775.070.D.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements, public utility issues, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to die Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County,Clean Water Services,and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the street design which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40-foot right-of-way half width. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer of an design access report. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them,including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction, operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District MWD) of the design of water service to the site. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue (IVF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site,the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual,February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide an approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Services) for all work to be done on site. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer,storm drainage,water,etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenance plans. The developer's engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,and are of high grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter with trees,lights,underground utilities and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40- foot right-of-way half width. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete construction of the stortnwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city approval of the complete construction of the proposed driveways. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue (rVF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessary construction prior to final inspection. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. l:\[:NCS\Decclopment L'nxinccring\O%Lk\SDR 14 XXX 4Coauncnts.%+O.opts rl2-8-14.docx EXHIBIT B www.t4r.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue December 3, 2014 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Re: A+ O Apartments Planned Development Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface,"No Parking"signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read"NO PARKING - FIRE LANE"and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load(wheel load) and 60,000 pounds live load(gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (OFC D102.1) 3) PAINTED CURBS: Where required,fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. (OFC 503.3) 4) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS-REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute(GPM)or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (OFC 8105.3) Please provide a current fire flow test of the nearest fire hydrant demonstrating available flow at 20 psi residual pressure as well as fire flow calculation worksheets. Please forward copies to both TW&R as well as your water purveyor. Fire flow calculation worksheets as well as Instructions are available on our web site at www.tvfr.com. 5) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution offire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1. Determine number of hydrants required from fre flow calculations and distribute to meet minimum distance and spacing requirements.An additional hydrant may need to be installed on SW 9e to meet this requirement. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: North Operating Center Command&Business Operations Center South Operating Center Training Center - 20665 SW Blanton Street and Central Operating Center 7401 SW Washo Court 12400 SW Tonquin Road Aloha,Oregon 97007-1042 11945 SW 70 Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062-8350 Sherwood,Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-1400 Tigard,Oregon 97223-9196 503-259-1500 503-259-1600 503-649-8577 TVF ' ----- -- -- _ www.[vfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject budding that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. 6) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS: To distinguish private fire hydrants from public fire hydrants, private fire hydrants shall be painted red. (OFC 507.2.1, NFPA 24&291) 7) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 510.1) S) PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6) 9) CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) 10) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 11) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506 1) 12) PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet numbers. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a '/z inch stroke- (OFC 505.1) 13) FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for HVAC, fire sprinklers risers and valves or other fire detection, suppression or control features shall be identified with approved signs. (OFC 509.1) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The above listed criteria are preliminary potential applicable conditions that MAY apply to this proiect. If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal Copy: TVF&R File Page 1 2 EXHIBIT C December 4,2014 Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner 13125 5W Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Case File Number,CPA 2014-2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development on SW Oak St. TriMet Bus Lines 76 & 78 serve the area with a bus stops located on SW Greenburg Rd at Washington Square Rd. These stops see an average of 80 people boarding and alighting on weekdays. In addition 4 1iils of riders in mobility dev*;es occur on an average month at this location. Activity inay increase with development. TdMet is interested in maintaining this stop and hopes to safely encourage ridership through supportive development. The purpose of our rec ommendationtz is to minimize traffic impacts of new development and maximize ridership by encouraging patterns that art; transit, bicycle, and pedestrian supportive. TRIMET STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Ensure sidewalk connectivity: Presently the south side of Oak Street has gaps in the sidewalk infrastructure. Developer should ensure that there is a safe and comfortable pathway to walk to Greenburg Rd from the new development. Consider sidewalk lighting: The nature of the streetscape is conducive to shadows. Proper lighting will ensure new residents feel comfortable walking to and from the bus. Consider negotiating an easement with the owner of the property at 10250 SW Greenberg Rd 'for the purpose of a shelter: Shelter from the elements can make taking transit much more palatable. There is not sufficient public right-of-way for a shelter. This is the property adjacent to the bus stop where residents of this development would most likely board. If an easement were to be obtained and a 5' deep by 20' wide concrete pad were placed behind the right-of-way, TriMet could place and maintain a shelter for residents wishing to take the bus. Again,thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions,please contact me at 503-962-6478. --�_ Sinwely. 7 Grant O'Connell, Planner 11 Transit Development Capital Projects i ro-Counq)Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon ISd0 SW 1St AV,,..ue .,r' :-+k.-ortiand.0iegun 97201 • 504-238-RIPE I.a i t) + 7; • Ititoet niy Exhibit D �oS v 1 Oak Streo frontage i Improvement To SW Greenburg Rd. To a HWY217and ._.. Hall s l� Washington Square Blvd y t ... .......... .. ..... - .Auks ..�._ '' �... ,.� _ dedicated R pubIk / , a- -VA .conrry easement touwtyar r Ft a * parurg S wetland buffer boundary k parking i I wetiand/buffet fill L" parking / extent of grading UrxhCApe twt!et .......................... y........w../ �� wctknd .....r................ " overlook Crlginal site arca 11.17 acres Rght of way dei canon 0.32 saes Net site 10.95 saes �!] R 1 "pen meadow �z+ �-«, native c.tek vygetat+un resswation ,'� {' Existing wetlands 1i.62 acres ,�J_; a j,.i.a j + Proposed wetlands fill 0.42 acres ice] > - I! Preserved wetlands 6.20 acres tF�+ Planned Development Concept Plan ' r J �, e 8 • 11.17 acre property .# • Approximately 4.44 acre development site • Approximately 050 acre wetland fill Ash Creek Ipprox• MuftVimately ybuil80acrestory ds/openspece •_t��(,vJ • Multl-familybuikiingsastory • 210-225 dwelling units total l Density target 50-55 dwelling units/acre �..�. ` Pool and other recreation opportunities f Enhanced wetland meadow FuCom-+ M i Future trail easement to Ash Creek trail or boardwalk Oak Street frontage improvement R m.lr t P2.2 Exhibit E �N.R 1wM6f / s ~V_ I Mvolm»•— 9 0P 1 I •"t w ME Ems ELM M1111,11m, II rxn����•.��. � ��11 1 �a I 1 I :=3::f: o:r �:: �;Y� .t ..•.•.•_. . I f. CL - 4 0 J �yv.. J _ _ _ O .•Atl�IfNswe- '�.ekl11Z•� - - ..rti. IRt/a�.A'TiSe -0A �.: z = a's►.:{:._ _.: •.'C` •: {...... :-:;-::•:-:-:•:•:-:•}: .nm�cnuwr-/-m'!''-''''•'•'•:a:-:i7L W '` � :+:? ;y;�yr.: •:!^r -�:•:G• ..-Y'•':-'.'::" :.- ••r.;.;:;:.-:.;:::."::.lti. z } .,�._�.�`. .::YJ::�-ice•?- _•.r_+v• :.:° r r• }::.•. ..::.-:.r - - :'.�.....:.....:......?'•::•.:•::. 3 -� -�b`��.�_r t _T.'..'y.,. Y.-..�A.:• .•...% K.11E M 7Qf � � O CO Tp�q NET DEVEIAPMENT SIT& y DEVEWPMENT AREA: "Mmff cu-w►am pawm ! SITE INFORMATION t 'WTLLAL 017 ` 3TL r 11 M T07µ517E MFA 11.17 M TOME SIC MFA 11 17 AC y rp�yyly.� SOIRR OF W-WK 0 WALL 6.41 AC RO-OMCCAK*,01 ,CD ALE](ISi Pr$MFfI.'NDS eJ]AC PSP Cy. P* 'E SrKEl-,(WW DPM AMES):060 AC AIOPo4D A'E7lIM 6IK1 MFA 0A2 AC � � RET OEYELOP1E11f MFA�1.05 AL I •, AEW&"WMAND 4% 8211 AC L4 uw Iw 4� P2.3 � 1 EXHIBIT B Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for the A+O Apartments in Tigard, Oregon (Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Section 35AC, Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, and 4400 and Township 1 South, Range 13 West, Section 35AD, Tax Lot 1303) Prepared for Attn: DBG Oak Street, LLC Walter O. Grodahl, Manager 2164 SW Park Place Portland, OR 97204 Prepared by John van Staveren Tricia Sears Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503) 570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 5341 December 8, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 2.0 ESEE ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................1 2.1 Identification of Impact Area.................................................................................2 2.1.1 Overview of Existing Local Land Uses .....................................................2 2.1.2 Overview of Local Natural Features..........................................................3 2.1.3 Natural Resources within the Development Property................................3 2.1.4 Identification of Impact Area.....................................................................4 2.2 Potential Conflicting Uses within the Impact Area................................................4 2.3 Site Specific ESEE Analysis..................................................................................7 2.3.1 Environmental Consequences....................................................................7 2.3.2 Economic Consequences..........................................................................10 2.3.3 Social Consequences................................................................................11 2.3.4 Energy Consequences...............................................................................1 l 3.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMPARABLE SITES WITHIN THE TIGARD PLANNINGAREA.......................................................................................................12 4.0 ESEE DECISION..........................................................................................................13 APPENDIX A: Figures 1.0 INTRODUCTION DBG Oak Street, LLC proposes to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four, 4-story multi-family residential buildings on 11.17 acres south of SW Oak Street in Tigard. The property encompasses tax lots 1303,4000,4100,4200,4300, and 4400. A wetland delineation conducted in February 2014 by Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS) identified 6.62 acres of wetland within the proposed development site,plus Ash Creek,which flows to the west at the site's southern boundary. The wetland is designated as"significant" (i.e. a Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource)on the City of Tigard's"Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map"and is protected. The City does not allow any land form alterations or developments within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. As described in Section 18.775.130 Plan Amendment, the City allows applicants to impact significant wetlands if one of two options can be demonstrated. The first option is to conduct an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE)Analysis that shall consider the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use. The second option is to demonstrate the wetland's"insignificance." PHS reviewed the significance thresholds included as an addendum to the City of Tigard's Local Wetlands Inventory and determined that even though the quality of the wetland, its connection to Ash Creek still ensures it would be regarded as significant. As such, the applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. This document focuses on the significant wetland and does not include a significant habitat evaluation. It is understood the significant habitat evaluation is an incentive based,non- regulatory element within the City's regulatory frame work. 2.0 ESEE ANALYSIS The applicant has prepared an ESEE consequences analysis in accordance with OAR 660-23- 040. The ESEE analysis is used to determine whether a jurisdiction will allow, limit or prohibit a use that may conflict with preservation of the significant natural resource. For the proposed development on SW Oak Street,the subject properties include a Goal 5 resource considered significant(i.e. the wetland that borders Ash Creek). The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the tradeoffs associated with different levels of natural resource protection. As required by the Goal 5 rule, the evaluation process involves identifying the consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing significant natural resources. Specifically,the rule requires the following steps: • Identify conflicting uses—A conflicting use is"any current or potentially allowed land use or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource." [OAR 660-23-010(1)] • Determine impact area—The impact area represents the extent to which land uses or activities in areas adjacent to natural resources could negatively impact those resources. The impact area identifies the geographic limits within which to conduct the ESEE analysis. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 1 • Analyze the ESEE consequences—The ESEE analysis considers the consequences of a decision to either fully protect natural resources; fully allow conflicting uses; or limit the conflicting uses. The analysis looks at the consequences of these options for both development and natural resources. • Develop a program—The results of the ESEE analysis are used to generate recommendations or an"ESEE decision."The ESEE decision sets the direction for how and under what circumstances the local program will protect significant natural resources. The site of the proposed development has been evaluated in a prior ESEE Analysis. The ESEE Analysis(Tualatin Basin Goal 51 Natural Resources ESEE Analysis)was prepared in March 2005 by the Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places and by Angelo Eaton&Associates. It addressed Riparian Corridors(OAR 660-023-0090); Wildlife Habitat(OAR 660-023-0110); and Inner and Outer Impact Areas. The report divided their study area into sixty nine "streamsheds". The proposed project is located within the Ash Creek Streamshed(Local site#2) (Figure 1). The ESEE analysis also included information from Metro. For its Goal 5 inventory, Metro divided the entire region into twenty-seven"Regional Sites". The Metro"Regional Sites"were developed using 5th and 6th field watershed mapping. The proposed project is located in Regional Site#12 (Figure 2). 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT AREA Under the Goal 5 rule, "local governments shall determine an impact area for each significant resource site. The impact area shall be drawn to include only the area in which allowed uses could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact area defines the geographic limits within which to conduct an ESEE analysis for the identified natural resource"(OAR 660-23-040(3)). 2.1.1 Overview of Existing Local Land Uses As stated above,the proposed project is located within the Ash Creek Streamshed(Local site#2). Land uses within the streamshed primarily include low density single family residential and high density commercial and mixed use located along major roads. The streamshed is largely developed,with only 40 acres (4%)of the streamshed identified in the City buildable lands inventory(BLI)as vacant or redevelopable. Within the resource areas, 17 acres are designated as buildable. Tigard's BLI includes vacant sites, consisting of individual or combinations of parcels, % acre or larger. It excludes all Title 3 protected areas(floodplain, wetlands, and buffers). The 17 acres in question are designated for either light or moderate protection. The resource type involved is upland wildlife habitat. Located within the streamshed are the Washington Square Mall, Lincoln Center, and other commercial developments. While the amount of vacant land within this streamshed is small, the potential for redevelopment is relatively large because a major portion of the area falls within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan area.The Washington Square Plan calls for higher density urban development. This higher density includes mixed use developments within the plan area. Other uses in the streamshed include single family attached and detached structures,multi- family developments, Metzger Park, a public golf course,Metzger Elementary School, offices, retail establishments, and eating and drinking establishments. Also present is the subject property and the adjacent pasture located south of Ash Creek and north of Highway 217. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 2 According to Clean Water Services(CWS), the amount of overall effective impervious area (EIA) within the regional site is 21%. The EIA is a very high 42-70% in the area of the Washington Square Mall and a high 23-41% in the other commercially developed areas. In contrast, the EIA within the residentially developed areas is a low 1-13%. 2.1.2 Overview of Local Natural Features According to Metro's Regionally Significant Riparian and Wildlife Inventory, Regional Site#12 (2,693.5 acres) contains streams that generally have a medium gradient. Anadromous fish are present in 7 of the 46 stream miles located within the regional site. The Natural Resource Assessment Technical Report for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan indicates that Ash Creek offers poor habitat for fish. This is because important habitat elements such as large woody debris, cold water temperatures,pool and riffle complexity, and quality spawning gravel areas are largely absent from the area's stream system. The Tualatin Basin Existing Environmental Health Report(EEHR) rates the overall health of the Regional Site as fair. In terms of the individual components used to assess health, wildlife habitat is rated as fair, water quality as poor and riparian vegetation as fair. Conifer and hardwood forests are identified as the predominant habitat types within the resource site, with wetlands accounting for 13%of the site's wildlife habitat. The regional site accounts for nearly 4% of the regional wetlands and ranks 6th among the 27 resource sites in terms of wetland acreage. The site is characterized as having relatively small habitat patches with little forest interior,but reasonably good connectivity and very good water resources. The City's local Goal 5 inventory, conducted in 1994, indicates that water quality is excellent in the stream's upstream reach(including the south fork of Ash Creek). Water quality deteriorates as the stream flows downstream through residential areas and receives stormwater run-off from these areas. This conclusion is consistent with the finding of the EEHR and the Natural Resource Technical Assessment Report,prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. 2.1.3 Natural Resources within the Development Property Land use adjacent to the proposed development includes residential, commercial, and open space. The proposed development consists of six tax lots with four houses. The houses are located in the northern portion of the study area along SW Oak Street and include paved driveways, accessory buildings, and existing landscape vegetation. One of the houses is vacant; the other three are currently occupied. Within the study area, PHS identified one large wetland (designated as Wetland A), a stormwater ditch, and Ash Creek. PHS conducted the wetland delineation in February, 2014 (Figure 3). Wetland A: Wetland A is located in the southern half of the study area, and is approximately 288,490 square feet (6.62 acres). The Cowardin class is palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded (PEMC) and the HGM class is Slope. The wetland slopes gently from north to south, and Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 3 continues to the edge of Ash Creek. Vegetation within the wetland consists of pasture grasses; meadow foxtail(Alopecurus pratensis),tall fescue(Festuca arundinacea), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and velvet grass(Holcus lanatus,FAC). Reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea) is present in the western portion of the wetland. Other facultative pasture grasses are likely present,but due to the time of year, identification was not possible. Vegetation in the adjacent upland consists of the same pasture grasses as in the wetland,however Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus) are also present. Soils within the wetland meet the definition for redox dark surface(F6),and are considered hydric. The soils within Wetland A were generally not saturated; hydrology was satisfied using the oxidized rhizospheres indicator,or secondary indicators, including raised ant mounds and geomorphic position. Wetland A continues east,west, and south outside of the study area. A 48,228 sq. ft. (1.1 l acre)vegetated corridor regulated by Clean Water Services exists adjacent to the wetland to the north. Due to past disturbance,the quality of the vegetated corridors is considered to be degraded. Stormwater Ditch: A stormwater ditch is located in the northwestern portion of the study area. It covers approximately 471 square feet(0.01 acre)within the study area. The ditch carries stormwater from SW Oak Street, as well as from the existing condominium complex located north of SW Oak Street, and empties into Wetland A. Ash Creek: Ash Creek provides rearing and migration habitat for Lower Columbia River winter steelhead trout to river mile 1.53 (including the reach adjacent to the project site). Ash Creek is a straightened channel within the project area, with a degraded riparian area. 2.1.4 Identification of Impact Area The Impact Area for the ESEE is defined as the 11.17 acres south of SW Oak Street in Tigard, which includes tax lots 1303,4000,4100,4200,4300, and 4400, all of Wetland A,the stormwater ditch, the vegetated corridor, and Ash Creek. 2.2 Potential Conflicting Uses within the Impact Area The proposed development is located within District C(Lincoln Center-Ash Creek), one of five districts within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Regional Center Plan describes strategies that make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic population growth. Regional centers aim to reach densities of 60 people an acre through housing and employment-the metro area's second-highest density after downtown Portland. Residents of high density neighborhoods(Lincoln Center is designated as one of the highest within the plan area)will have easy access to nearby jobs,essential services and retail resources. One important component of developing within the property is adherence to the plan's vision of maintaining the functions of Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas.As described in the plan: "plantings, setbacks and other mitigation and enhancement techniques will buffer Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas from disturbance."As will be described in detail below, the proposed Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 4 development achieves a high residential density, while preserving and enhancing Ash Creek and adjacent sensitive areas. Within the property, 0.33 acres of right-of-way will be dedicated for the widening of SW Oak Street across the site's frontage leaving a potential development area of 10.84 acres; however, the property includes 6.62 acres of jurisdictional wetland and Ash Creek, which flows to the west along the southern property boundary. The project proposes to unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of this lower quality wetland closer to Oak Street, but will preserve 6.2-acres of remaining wetland, which will be protected in perpetuity(Figure 4). There are also 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor impacts and the preservation and enhancement of 0.09 acres. Of the 6.2 acres, 3.2 acres will be enhanced with native tree and shrubs plantings, leaving 3 acres unplanted to create habitat diversity within the floodplain of Ash Creek. The 3.2 acres of enhancement is a voluntary action by the applicant and is not proposed as required mitigation(credits from a local wetland mitigation bank will be purchased to satisfy the Department of State Lands and US Army Corps of Engineers' mitigation requirements). The density of the project will be 51.8 units per net acre on the development portion of the site, and 19 dwelling units per acre for the entire site. The project site includes six existing parcels, which will be consolidated into a single parcel prior to site development. If a separate tract is required to be created for the open space area, a property line adjustment application will be submitted and the parcels will be reconfigured to create a development parcel and a tract prior to or concurrent with consolidation of the parcels. All existing buildings and site improvements will be removed from the site with initial site grading. Four, 4-story buildings are proposed and will be between 47-feet and 53-feet tall when viewed from SW Oak Street. All together, the proposed buildings will contain 64 studio units of less than 500 square feet in size, 98 one-bedroom units, and 53 two-bedroom units. The apartment buildings will have similar appearances. Variations amongst the buildings will be provided by their varied sizes and by different paint schemes and minor variations in trim packages. The development will include a landscaped plaza with benches, community gardens for the use of residents, landscape beds, and a bicycle parking pavilion. A 20-foot wide public pedestrian easement will be provided along the western edge of the site and into the wetlands area to the south for future development of a public pedestrian trail to connect with a future east-to-west public trail near Ash Creek. The east-to-west trail is described in the City of Tigard's Parks Master plan as a portion of a planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. The applicant will work with the City on the provision of and the final locations for these public pedestrian easements. A total of 278 on-site parking spaces will be provided. Partially below-ground level parking garages will provide covered parking spaces for 37 vehicles. A surface parking lot will be located to the south of the buildings. A total of 241 surface parking spaces will be provided. The applicant will work with a car share provider to encourage project residents to utilize shared vehicles in order to reduce the demand for on-site parking. Information on a car share program(s) will be provided to residents. A small number of conveniently located parking spaces may be reserved for car share vehicles. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 5 The application to the City of Tigard requests a 9.15 percent reduction in the number of required onsite parking spaces due to anticipated less than normal demand for parking spaces by project residents, and in order to not increase the amount of proposed wetland impact to create additional parking spaces. Less than normal demand is anticipated for parking due to the relatively small size of the units providing housing for fewer residents(prevalence of studios and 1-bedroom units compared to typical suburban apartment complexes);the availability of car share vehicles, the availability of nearby transit; and the proximity to nearby shopping and employment opportunities. Construction of the proposed project will result in the placement of fill within 0.42 acres of the wetland and 1.02 acres of the vegetated corridor. Mitigation for the wetland impacts are described below,but will include the purchase of credits from the Tualatin Valley Environmental Bank. The planting of 3.2 acres within the wetland and riparian area of Ash Creek is not regarded as wetland mitigation,but is being voluntarily proposed by the applicant. Numerous development plans have been proposed for the property since at least 1996. All of the previous proposals would have resulted in greater than the proposed 0.42 acres of wetland impact proposed in this application. Figures 5A-5C show previous development proposals. Alternative 1: This alternative shows development of the entire site, from SW Oak Street all the way to the banks of Ash Creek(Figure 5A).This scenario would have proposed impacts to almost the entire 6.62 acres of wetlands and would have impacted the riparian area of Ash Creek. Alternative 2: This alternative shows development of the central and northern portions of the site (Figure 5B). Although impacts to the wetland are less than Alternatives 1 or 3, impacts to Wetland A are still significant. Alternative 3: This alternative shows development of the entire site, from SW Oak Street all the way to the banks of Ash Creek(Figure 5C). Again,this scenario would have proposed impacts to almost the entire 6.62 acres of wetlands and would have impacted the riparian area of Ash Creek. In addition, this scenario shows a portion of Wetland A excavated to create a pond. The Applicant also considered an alternative site plan that completely avoided Wetland A. This alternative results in no impact to any jurisdictional wetlands;however,because of the City of Tigard's requirements for density and parking,this alternative reduces the amount of developable area and does not meet project specific criteria as well as the preferred alternative. For this proposal, the impact to the wetland is lessened significantly from prior proposals. The project proposes to unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of this lower quality wetland closer to SW Oak Street, but will preserve the 6.2 acres of remaining wetland, which will be protected in perpetuity as described earlier. Of the 6.2 acres,3.2 acres will be enhanced with native tree and shrubs plantings, leaving 3.0 acres unplanted to create habitat diversity within the floodplain of Ash Creek(Figures 6-6A). The proposed design minimizes impacts by proposing underground parking, increasing the building heights, and reducing the proposed number of units. The proposed development is Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 6 clustered together. The proposed residential density is well below that desired by Metro for the property. Ash Creek provides rearing and migration habitat for steelhead trout, which is listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. There will be no direct effects to steelhead from the proposed development plan. The project includes a buffer of between approximately 260 to 300 feet from the creek to the southern edge of the proposed development. The list of trees and shrubs to be planted in the wetland and the riparian area is included below. Wetland Enhancement—3.2 acres(139,480 SF) Botanical Name Common Name Height Planting density Quantity (in feet) (on center Trees Alnus rubra Red alder 5-6' 10' 139 Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn 5-6' 10' 349 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 5-6' 10' 446 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow 5-6' 10' 349 Thuja plicata Western red cedar 5-6' 10' 112 Total 1,395 Shrubs/Small Trees Cornus alba Red osier dogwood 2-3' 5' 2,092 Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea 2-3' 5' 1,744 Lonicera involucrata Twinberry 2-3' 5' 1,394 Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2-3' 5' 1,744 Total 6,974 In addition to the buffer and the proposed plantings, all stormwater will be treated to that required by the National Marine Fisheries Service's Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species(SLOPES) V. As such, there will be minimal impact to Ash Creek and the majority of the wetland. Storm drainage runoff will be collected by building laterals and catch basins for onsite runoff. Runoff will be treated using mechanical treatment devices such as StormFilter catch basins and storm drain splitter manholes and StormFilter manholes. The private storm drainage system will discharge to riprap pads above the wetlands in four locations south of the parking area and retaining wall. Stormwater from these discharge points ultimately will flow to Ash Creek through the intervening wetlands. It is anticipated that no on-site storm water detention will be necessary. A Storm Drainage Report for the project is included as an attachment to this application. Stormwater management will comply with SLOPES V, as described in the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Otak. A discussion of alternatives for impacts to the vegetated corridor is included in Appendix B. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 7 2.3 Site Specific ESEE Analysis This section considers the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the following: a. Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site. b. Limit conflicting uses offering limited protection of the resource site(balance development and conservation objectives). c. Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site. 2.3.1 Environmental Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: If all conflicting uses are prohibited,then the wetland in its current condition would be conserved. The wetland is privately owned and the property owner has no plans to enhance the property should all conflicting uses be prohibited. Any proposed development would likely be restricted to the redevelopment of the existing houses on SW Oak Street and the wetland in its current condition would remain intact. The wetland provides functions and values,but these are degraded due to past disturbance to the site. Ash Creek likely flowed freely through the property prior to human settlement of the area, but it was straightened decades ago and now forms the southern property boundary. The wetland was grazed for many years and as a result many of the trees and shrubs that dominated the wetland, such as Oregon ash and western red cedar,have been replaced by non-native pasture grasses. Even with the impacts from past human use,however,the wetland still provides important functions and values. Water quality treatment is provided due to the fact that the stormwater ditch discharges into the wetland before reaching Ash Creek. As such,the non-native grasses within the wetland filters the stormwater flowing untreated from impervious surfaces upstream. Wildlife habitat is provided by the open space adjacent to the creek and by the proximity of the creek itself. The property likely serves as a travel corridor for a variety of common urban wildlife species,but also for more uncommon species such as coyotes and deer. The property is partially within the 100-year floodplain. Although the property does not detain flood flows for any appreciable time, it likely provides temporary habitat for steelhead when water levels rise above the top of the bank. The wetland also provides a visual buffer from the adjacent developed areas. Limit Conflicting Uses: If conflicting uses are limited,there will be a balance of development and conservation objectives.The proposed development will unavoidably impact 0.42 acres of the wetland,but will conserve 6.2 acres. As such,only approximately 6%of the wetland is proposed for impact and approximately 94%of the wetland will be preserved in perpetuity(the property owner will record a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the property). There are short term construction-related impacts, which would occur when preparing land for and constructing the proposed development. Construction activity will result in the excavation Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 8 and removal of vegetation,or"ground disturbing activities." However,these disturbances can be restored through native plantings and a strictly enforced erosion control plan will ensure that impacts are limited to the footprint of the proposed development. Construction noise can have a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially during nesting periods. The proposed development will impact a small portion of the total wetland on the site,but it will have little effect on the overall functions and values that the wetland currently provides. It can be argued that allowing the conflicting use will actually enhance the wetland by ensuring the remaining portion of the wetland is enhanced. Limiting conflicting uses would ensure that the remainder of the wetland is enhanced through the planting of native trees and shrubs. A total of 1,395 trees and 6,974 shrubs will be planted within 3.2 acres of the wetland. The remaining 3 acres will remain open to ensure there is a diversity of habitats within the remaining wetland. Open wet meadows surrounded by dense woody vegetation provide an important niche for many species of wildlife and can be uncommon in urban settings. The plantings will be focused on the riparian area on the north side of Ash Creek, which will moderate water temperatures and enhance the quality of instream habitat for salmonids by providing a source of food. The enhancement will also be focused within the northern portion of the wetland adjacent to the proposed development.The dense woody plant community adjacent to the development will provide both a visual and a sound buffer between the wetland and the proposed development. The proposed development will impact a small portion of the 100-year floodplain,but there will be no net rise in floodplain elevation.The addition of 8,369 trees and shrubs to the wetland and the floodplain will,over time, attenuate flood flows, ensuring water is released downstream slower than under current conditions. The proposed development will result in increased impervious surfaces. The proposed 11.28 acre residential development project will consist of 4.39 acres of impervious surface,of which 3.93 acres will be new impervious surface. Allowing conflicting uses,however, will not degrade the quality of the remaining wetland or Ash Creek.The applicant proposes to manage stormwater through the use of proprietary water quality treatment filters, Low Impact Development Approach (LIDA)planters, and underground detention chambers. The A+O Apartments site will be divided into public and private stormwater management systems. Most of the private runoff will be collected and conveyed to a proprietary water quality treatment filter facility and then to an underground detention facility at the south side of the site. Runoff from two small private areas at the eastern and western sides of the site will be treated with proprietary water quality treatment filters and discharged directly to the Ash Creek floodplain without detention.The new impervious area within the SW Oak Street public right-of way frontage will be treated by LIDA treatment facilities(infiltration planters and/or swales).These structures will also provide detention for smaller storm events. All onsite stormwater treatment facilities will be designed to treat the water quality design storm event,which SLOPES V has identified as 50% of the 2-year, 24-hour storm event. Runoff water quality treatment standards will be met using proprietary filter cartridges for the private basins and LIDA facilities for the public impervious areas. The water quality storm event generates 4,010 cubic feet of runoff from the onsite basin under proposed conditions. As the proprietary treatment filters are a flow-based system,a design flow of 1.04 cubic feet per second will be used for sizing the private water quality facilities.New impervious surfaces within the public right-of-way will be treated using LIDA facilities sized to meet CWS design standards. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 9 LIDA swales and infiltration planters function by collecting runoff generated by the water quality event and filtering it through 18-inches of water quality mix material, which is comprised of topsoil, sand, and compost. Beneath the water quality mix layer is a section of open-graded rock surrounding a perforated pipe. What stormwater does not infiltrate into the native soil is collected and conveyed to the storm sewer system. Allow Conflicting Uses: If conflicting uses are allowed, then theoretically a much larger proportion of the wetland could be impacted by development. Obviously any impacts to the wetland will need to be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Allowing conflicting uses will result in the removal of vegetative cover and habitat for a variety of wildlife. Lost habitat would include feeding places for birds, and loss of feeding and refuge areas for mammals,reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Existing habitat may be replaced with lawns and ornamental,non-native vegetation. Impervious surfaces may permanently replace native habitats. The wildlife migration corridor that the property currently provides will likely be lost or severely impacted depending on the level of wetland filled. The property currently provides habitat connectivity along Ash Creek. Fences and other development can form barriers to wildlife migration. As the range of habitat for indigenous wildlife becomes restricted and isolated, opportunities for recruitment from other areas are limited and wildlife populations become vulnerable to disease,predation and local extinction. Increased impervious surface and vegetation loss can lead to increased storm runoff and peak flows in streams,resulting in erosion, bank failure, flooding, and significant loss of fish and aquatic habitat function. It is assumed,however, that the development resulting from allowing conflicting uses will still need to adhere to the water quality and detention standards set by the National Marine Fisheries Service and CWS. The increase in impervious surface and storm runoff also leads to reduced groundwater recharge and altered volumes of water in wetlands and streams contributed by groundwater. This can alter an area's hydrology by lowering surface water levels or groundwater tables and removing a local source of water essential to the survival of fish, amphibians and aquatic organisms as well as terrestrial animals. Clearing and grading activities can reduce the capacity ofsoil to support vegetation and absorb groundwater by reducing soil fertility,microorganisms, and damaging soil structure. As with allowing limited conflicting uses, there are short term construction-related impacts, which occur when preparing land for and constructing the proposed development. Construction activity results in the excavation and removal of vegetation,or"ground disturbing activities." However, these disturbances can be restored through native plantings and a strictly enforced erosion control plan will ensure that impacts are limited to the footprint of the proposed development. Construction noise can have a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially during nesting periods. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,Sw Oak Street,Tigard Page 10 2.3.2 Economic Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would keep the wetland intact and likely limit the footprint of the proposed development activity to the existing houses on SW Oak Street. The houses would be remodeled or tom down and replaced by new houses. As there will be no change in density,prohibiting conflicting uses would impact the potential densities planned for(and required) in the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. The economic benefits for local businesses from developing a high density apartment complex would not be realized. The applicant would also realize far less economic benefit from remodeling or replacing the four houses. There will be a loss in short term construction jobs required when the apartment complex is developed. There are many studies that state living next to an open space increases property values. As such, prohibiting conflicting uses could benefit property values on SW Oak Street in the long term. Limit Conflicting Uses: Balancing development and conservation goals for the property will result in an economic gain for local businesses, while ensuring that adjacent properties benefit from an enhanced and largely intact open space. The applicant's proposed development of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units will economically benefit businesses in the area, such as Washington Square and Lincoln Center. The applicant will also receive income generated by the proposed development. There will be a gain in construction jobs generated by the construction of the apartment complex. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would increase the population of people residing in the apartment complex and would thus be expected to increase the economic gains of local businesses. There would be more short term construction jobs required to construct the larger complex. Adjacent properties could be negatively impacted by the loss of open space and the increased footprint of the apartment complex, which(at least temporarily) would not be in keeping with adjacent developments. 2.3.3 Social Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would result in the redevelopment of the area of the houses along SW Oak Street, with the wetland remaining in its current degraded condition. The wetland and the creek would remain in private property and would not be accessible for educational purposes. As such, there would not be any benefit from passive recreation(e.g. bird watching); however, the social benefits afforded from living adjacent to an open space would remain intact. Limit Conflicting Uses: Limiting conflicting uses would allow the development of the 215 unit apartment complex and the enhancement of the wetland. The enhanced wetland and its proximity to a relatively large population would establish new connections for people to the outdoors. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 11 Although access to the enhanced wetland will be restricted by the home owners association,the proximity of the enhanced resource will benefit passive recreation, such as bird watching. By increasing the amount of buildable land inside the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), expansion of the UGB onto farm and grazing land could be slightly delayed. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would result in the loss of open space and views,which could negatively affect adjacent properties and the local area as a whole. The property is partly visible from Highway 217, so the visual impact of a large development,with no associated enhancement,could have a negative social effect. Wetlands provide educational opportunities for those living near them,which would be lost if conflicting uses are allowed. Wetlands also provide opportunities for urban quiet and solitude, the lack of which has adverse social consequences. 2.3.4 Energy Consequences Prohibit Conflicting Uses: Prohibiting conflicting uses would result in the redevelopment of the houses on SW Oak Street. This would increase the pressure to expand the UGB in the long term, which could result in people needing to travel farther to work, school, and to shop,which would increase energy consumption. This could also result in the need for new roads and infrastructure further from population centers. Limit Conflicting Uses: Limiting conflicting uses would result in the proposed enhancement of the wetland and the addition of over 8,000 trees and shrubs to the wetland. Trees provide shade that cools buildings in the summer and serve as a windbreak in the winter. Plants absorb sunlight and transpire during the growing season, which can slightly reduce ambient air temperatures. Trees help capture carbon dioxide, a contributing factor to global warming. Trees also reflect and absorb solar radiation before it heats the ground,buildings,or pavement. Trees planted to the south of a building,as will be the case with the proposed development, can reduce air conditioning costs by blocking the sun during the summer. Although access to the enhanced wetland will be limited, it can still provide local recreational opportunities, thus reducing the need to drive for outdoor experiences(i.e.passive recreation such as bird watching). The applicant has asked the City of Tigard for permission to install less than the normally required amounts of on-site parking so as to avoid additional impacts to the wetland. The understanding is that fewer people will rely on owning their own vehicles. The development property has excellent access to transportation corridors for public transportation,pedestrian and bike routes, and local shopping areas, which will reduce energy consumption. Allow Conflicting Uses: Allowing conflicting uses would increase the footprint and the density of the proposed development. This would diminish the need to expand the UGB and ensure that people were more centrally located to businesses,jobs and schools. The need for new infrastructure to support the increase in population would be less. However, the loss of over Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 12 8,000 trees and shrubs, which are proposed to be planted could negatively impact local climate conditions. The larger property may not be buffered from the south by shade,which could increase energy costs during the summer and winter. 3.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMPARABLE SITES WITHIN THE TIGARD PLANNING AREA AND ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS DBG Oak Street, LLC conducted a thorough analysis of other comparable sites within the Tigard planning area and concluded that none are available. Two potentially available properties were identified as comparable to the proposed development site. Both properties are zoned N1UR-1 (no maximum density; 50 units per acre minimum density). Despite the lack of a maximum density requirement,the small size of these parcels and the surrounding pattern of development (detached single-family homes and 2-story multi-family development)make the likelihood of developing this site with over 75 units very unlikely. The first site,known as the Davis property, is located on several parcels to the east, west, and south of the proposed development site. The LWI maps large wetland areas within these parcels, including Ash Creek and a large pond. The applicant expects that these parcels contain at least as much wetland, if not more,than the proposed development site. Although these parcels together total an acreage large enough for the proposed development,the landowner was unwilling to sell the property when the proposed development was being designed. The second site potentially available to the applicant is the Hunziker Road site. This site is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the proposed development,west of Highway 217. Although only encumbered by 1.25 acres of wetland(WD2011-0270),this parcel is steeply sloped. As such, creating a relatively flat area for the development of high density housing would require a large amount of earthwork. Because of the location of the wetland in the west-central portion of the site, it is likely that the entire wetland would need to be filled to create a flat, developable area. The Hunziker Road property is zoned I-P industrial park,which does not allow for multi-family development. This parcel is the largest remaining industrial site within the City of Tigard, and the applicant inquired about the potential for a zoning change. Initial conversations with City staff indicated that they are not supportive of a zoning change. The site abuts a low density residential development,which could make it difficult and controversial for adjacent high- density residential development. Lastly,the presence of Highway 217 and Highway 99W between the Hunziker Road site and the Washington Square Regional Center and the associated traffic congestion in that area functionally disconnects these properties from the Regional Center. It is unlikely that the City of Tigard would allow enough roadway improvements(i.e. sidewalks and bike lanes)to make this area attractive for non-vehicular traffic.The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,SW Oak Street,Tigard Page 13 4.0 ESEE DECISION Prohibiting conflicting uses within the impact area would preserve the existing wetland, but will remove the opportunities to enhance the resource. The property could not be developed with a higher density, so the pressure to expand the UGB could be slightly increased. Local businesses would not benefit from the larger population base.Construction jobs will be fewer. The open space would be preserved in its current condition,which will preserve property values for adjacent property owners. Limiting conflicting uses would allow for the development of 215 dwelling units and the planting of greater than 8,000 trees and shrubs in the adjacent wetland. The goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan, which calls for higher densities closer to urban centers, would be realized. The enhancement to the resource would ensure that wildlife habitat is improved and the travel corridor along Ash Creek is preserved. When mature,the trees and shrubs will attenuate flood flows. The trees will also moderate air temperatures during the summer, which will decrease energy costs. The increased population density and the focus on mass transit and car share programs will decrease energy reliance. Allowing conflicting uses within the impact area will increase the population density and ensure that local businesses receive the maximum economic gains. Short term construction jobs will be increased. The loss of the open space would negatively impact wildlife habitat(e.g. travel corridor) and wetland functions, such as groundwater recharge,water quality treatment, and hydrologic enhancement. Impacts from increased development in the floodplain could negatively impact adjacent properties. The loss of a visual buffer and open space could negatively impact adjacent property values and investment values. The loss of the open space could diminish recreational opportunities, such as bird watching. The lack of trees to the south of the proposed development could decrease shading and increase energy costs during the summer. Decision: The analysis concludes that limiting conflicting uses would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A limit decision will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting all conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland can be minimized(only 6%will be impacted) and the remaining resource can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic, social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland(through its enhancement) and to the community, and strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals. The recommendation is to limit conflicting uses within the significant wetland. Pacific Habitat Services,Inc./PHS#5341 Economic,Social,Environmental,and Energy(ESEE)Analysis for the A+O Apartments,Sw Oak Street,Tigard Page 14 Appendix A Figures PHS Tualatin Basin ESEE Figure 4b: 4'= 50 Laical Site/Streamshed Boundaries C55 66 54 g 6 59 — 45 V 22 J 31 17 15 ® �y L '661 is `6H 13 63 41 61 .® 36, '33 58 sa. Streamshed Boundary 3s 29 26 Urban Area t0' 25 s City Limits eo to 42 ss --- County Line Urban Growth Boundary 39 2 56 57 1 1 48 ----- - 43 28 5 62 60. e 14 38 46 10 000 5,000 0 10.000 Cu. Feel r t '12 4b Chapter 5341 5121/14 ��M Tualatin Basin Goal 5/Natural Resources ESEE Analysis- Streamshed Boundaries FIGURE A+0 Apartments, Tigard, Oregon 1 Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places and by Angelo Eaton&Associates,2005 Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle,Suite 180 Wilsonville,OR 97070 KIM Jill, r L/ ` r 1 _ NO A on 5341 5/21/14 N Metro's •. • Regional Sites FIGURE Metro,V61 A+O Apartments, Tigard, Oregon 2 Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. Commerce9450 SW O• 97070 I ' / i / I ' � I t , ------=- SW O S:11 E -----1 1 m t j Stormwater ! v'�'•.•.: Ditch ...... .............. .... ::.:�.:•.:...: ....... .::::::: .:: a:::::r::::•.::�:: �.�.�::•:....�.�..�.�.�:::•::::.�:.::�::::•.�:.................. ....... •............................................... ;,:::•::::::........ __ LEGEND .................... _... _ ....._....__..................... ::....... ....... ) ....................• :.::. ............ ................................ ::::::•::::::::::::::::::::r::•:::::..................... ...............�Y"' :t........ ::::•:::::::::::•::,•"..,....... .r:.. :.;,.::•::•:::.::::::::::::.:::::.::::::::•:k:::.::: N Study Area Boundary ..... ............................................ ry -.:..:::.:::.:':.:::::.:::':::::::::...::.....:................'......................r.............. „„ ✓ i: ax Lot Line ---- c p T . :: ..................... K .. A;:':: W and m Wed and 2t3$ sf>t..fit act (288,490 sf/6.62 ac) ...:....•._..:.. ... #.................................. .... ....... :•::.:::::.::::•.:::::.:::: .::..:: ..................:.:.::..:...:.:.........::. .. Wenand `.... ,� _ _- ""'' -- - �— Direction of Flow and Ashw �,. Beyond the Stud Creek Continue - �—w _ —'"� x Y Area ID ::':' ........ ........ Approximate Centerline m of Ash Creek 0 75 150 S00 SCALE IN FEET PHS Site plan provided by Otak,Inc. ' Existing Conditions FIGURE Pacific Habitat Services,lnc. A+O APARTMENTS -Tigard, Oregon 9/505W'==rrm.style 190 W1—*DW.910/0 ' 150315/00900 1.(503)510.ON5 5-14-2014 %:\Project Directories\5300\5341 Oak Street\Aut0CAD\P1ot Dwgs\ESEE\Fig3-EKC0nd.dwg,5/110014 1,04:39 PM I / t 1 � _*; — — SW 6&§TREE Proposed Building C - �, 11 Proposed Bu lding B -r --� r,- -- l Proposed �•�� �� I� Building D Proposed I I Building A�� I I ��� -- ❑ ' I :.;•,: :.,; J Proposed Parking ... iJl,s, --- �---- (typical) --- — }. ............................... ................................ yI ........... ::::.::.: u LEGEND ' ' .. ::`;;: .l �> Study Area Boundary :::::::. :: ;:::.::::......::::... ....::.:.. 486,558 sf/11.17 ac .::..••:::.T :......:'...VIES s::::::: ....... . ( ) ............. .... ..........,::..:::..::........... .. ................... :::::......::::::::::::::......::::: ::::::::::::. % e:::::::::::::::::::;::; ;::;:;::;:;;:;:;•. ....... ... Proposed:'......'.*::: :::::::•:*r:::::::::::: :.............................................................................�.....:..... ::....,H...................................................................................................... Tax t Lin ..:.:�::.:....... :::::•::•::•:::::;;'::•::':;•::•::•:;•:•::•::•:•::•:;•:::• Pro osed:.::::�;:;;::�: :...... a Lo e ..................................•::tt..• .::::::::::::::.:.::......;:::. :•:;•::•:•::•::•::•::•::•:;:•:;:•:::::::::::;;:•:;::•Stormwater:. P : a •..:..:.:::::.::::.:.:::.::. :.::......:::::::•: Retaining Wall .................................... 9 ::::::::::::•::::•:•::•:::.:::• :. ...........:::..::......:::::.::.:::::...... Outfall:::.:::..:::.::::.:::::.::::::::::::. o ....................... ......... .................................................................. .............................................................................. '�'........::::::•::'::•. T --�— Pro Proposed Right of Way .................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................ P 9 Y I.R::•• :•r.::wa.. m I ::: ................................... :.?� ..................................... .................................. ..................................: . i:....................................................................................................................... Existing Contour ::. WETLAND A - f� is?.isisi.i::;;•.....is..........................................i ;i:•i:•:;•i:•:t•i:•i:•::•i:•;:•i:•:-•i:•i:•:;•::•::•;:�:•::•i:;•:;•::;•::•:::i•::•::::•::•:::::�:.. `. •max " ...................................................................... ...................................................................... .. ... ......................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................� --t7.— Proposed Contour .............................................................. W .. Y. :::•:::x- ............:.. d and q 'fir.•_ : ...........::... ::�r-:::;::::•::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::•:::::::.::::::•:::::•.-:::::::•::.::::::::::•::::.-.-:::-:.-.-:.:: sh Cree .............................................................................................................................................................. � :•.:::-. Wetland ntln ;... ....,. ::::::::::::::•::::::re::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::•:::•:::.:::..:.::::::.::.::::::::•:.:::.:::.::::.: :� `:.:::::::. Y nd the Stud �� t:•.:::::::;,� (268,744 sf/6.17 ac) YAre r��"I'`�ii,•� .... ............... ..... ............................................................................................ • -::•iiii::::•i:•::^isitir::i•:i::•::i:•::•:•:::;•:::•ii:i•:i:aii:?•i:•:;.':':,:i•i::i:• rr,l,� ,:••• m: �.� ) � E-- Direction of Flow Approximate Centerline ' �"i"�'�•' , 3 Wetland Impact of Ash Creek (18,472 sf/0.42 ac) N 0 75 150 900 Site plan provided by Otak,Inc. SCALE IN FEET PHS FIGURE I4�Wrz Proposed Site Plan, Wetland Impacts and Cross-Section Locations A+O APARTMENTS -Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,lnc. 917U sw c�crdr.sun.(8)Wsaode,0VW vino 5-14-2014 Ph—(503)570-0800 Fea(50315160855 X:\Project Directories\5300\5341 Oak Street\Au1oCAD\Plot Dwgs\ESEE\Fig4-SitePlan.dwg,5/21/2014 1:11.38 PM jTTrTTTTTT N �t.�r�•rr , is Aul ,.C1' �. � �' .4 ` vl p.pnp.ryj.4ltiy.grvr r�•'n lt•y.•UV� ■■.��! 4L Qi 5 3 iW Y, i tC 1 �f LLk3., A V OVERALL SITE PLAN PHS Alternative Plan Provided by OTAK, Inc. Alternative Site Plan (Alternative 8) A+O APARTMENTS - Tigard, Oregon 5A Pacific Habitat 1996 - Orland Property Only VW s - - up 5.W. Ook %tr"t h „ v nn Ignc. o. I 1.• 1 ustw ,..O�MY FranmoJ. i P w i ( ALTERNATIVE � nnni I rli f' 1 Ani Alternative Plan Provided by OTAK,Inc. Alternative Site Plan (Alternative 12) PHS FIGURE A+O APARTMENTS - Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Servlces,lnc. u�w swrl—C—sw�iro w�.,r.a,yon mmu 05-14-2014 ��,,.I!it�15/f1-0eat fy(SNIS)Gn6S5 APwmKt CIA St-1\Aw.CADXP1cjt PA lNr H-Allrxnalwr rl S/1412014 -i- AM � M R I r I .y fAf i s1 � t �I: �•JiGPI�►4t ,fir►, � � , '� �x-r4 � + �`�►t^P+�44, ���� Y F�9aZ. a �) :� x � � �, �T'vstlt" f 19 Alternative Plan Provided by OTAK,Inc. Alternative PHS Site Plan (Diagram) FIGURE A+O APARTMENTS-Tigard, Oregon 5C Pacific Habitat Services,lnc. 05-14-2014 YMr+a:(SOJ1570-0!00 F.(50.115760855 swwxsm U I I I I I, _,-►_ �� r - 1 1 1 „-r=fix::yw., . :LEGEND wwM=tea — — _ Wetland Enhancement ___= _:a=___ (139,480 sf/ 3.20 ac) ----- i - - _- - v--------------= .M-Mw. _.a_a - ~! a�SL-11"L.s'1{'1'Ca 1 , yrr r�r:wr•r�r.rw w.rw .,Wlw Note See Figure 9A for Wetland i Enhancement Plant Table Wetland_--- w-=---- 1 -- -- -- ----+�rr.':_,'S'_�5C s!X�_��!SX:dS�!Sys-'k'�-Sl"a!X`_�A'r_l'LSCS'asXoA�C--a'tXCaY,ri7Gf�al"aKM, a'-L-�� � =------ - "C'rT�a�C1I'�aat'11"Yl'Lw1SNaw.1"�at'L _------ -------------- ---- ;x' :rarzrra�xcar«xnxtizeaxx— -rte:ray--- Appendix B Vegetated Corridor Alternatives Analysis Memorandum 1' H S y � i S PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES, INC 9450 SW Commence Circle,Suite 180 (800)871-9333•(503)570-0800•Fax(503)570-085 Wilsonville,OR 97070 June 27, 2014 Damon Reische and Amber Wierck Clean Water Services-Environmental Review 2550 Southwest Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 Re: A+O Apartments; CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS Number: 5341 Damon and Amber: Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. (PHS)has prepared this memorandum to address the mitigation requirements pursuant to the development of the proposed A+O Apartments in Tigard, OR(Figures 1 and 2). As discussed in the Natural Resources Assessment(NRA),the project proposes to construct 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four,4-story buildings. Plant Community A(48,228 square feet)encompasses the corridor adjacent to the northern and western boundary of Wetland A. Approximately 44,295 square feet of permanent vegetated corridor encroachment will result from the construction of the parking areas and stormwater treatment outfalls (Figure 3). Mitigation for this encroachment will be accomplished through the enhancement of Wetland A. Mitigation for the encroachment will be accomplished through the enhancement of Wetland A. Wetland enhancement(Figure 4)will consist of two areas planted to CWS' densities for native trees and shrubs. The southern planting area is located along Ash Creek,within the southern portion of Wetland A. Under current conditions, the riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek is narrow, and dominated by Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia),one-seed hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and Himalayan blackberry(Rubus armeniacus). The northern planting area is located along the northern portion of Wetland A, in an area dominated by non-native grasses,including reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea),meadow foxtail(Alopecurus pratensis), tall fescue(Festuca arundinacea), and creeping bentgrass(Agrostis stolonifera). A central planting area, located in the central portion of Wetland A, will consist of three smaller areas that will be planted with native herbaceous species. This area of Wetland A is dominated by non-native grasses,very similar to the northern planting area. Small areas will be cleared, and plugs of native herbaceous species will be planted within the mixed grasses. Oregon General Contractor: CCB#94379 Damon Reische and Amber Wierck,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments;CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS#5341 June 27,2014 Page 2 The following table shows the proposed planting densities. Wetland Enhancement for Northern and Southern Areas—3.20 acres(139,480 SF) Height Planting Botanical Name Common Name (in feet) density Quantity (on center) Trees Alnus rubra Red alder 5-6' 10' 139 Crataegus douglash Douglas hawthorn 5-6' 10' 349 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 5-6' 10' 446 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow 5-6' 10' 349 Thuja plicata Western redcedar 5-6' 10' 112 Total 1,395 Shrubs/Small Trees Cornus alba Red osier dogwood 2-3' 5' 2,092 Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea 2-3' 5' 1,744 Lonicera involucrata Twinberry 2-3' 5' 1,394 Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark 2-3' 5' 1,744 Total 6,974 Wetland Enhancement for Central Area—0.38 acre(16,670 SF) Minimum Planting Botanical Name Common Name rooting density Quantity size (on center) Herbs Juncus effusus Soft rush 4"plugs Cluster 3,000 Scirpus macrocarpus Small-fruited bulrush 4"plugs Cluster 2,500 Juncus patens Spreading rush 4"plugs Cluster 1,919 Total 7,419 The encroachment into the vegetated corridor meets the following criteria, as required under a Tier II analysis: 1. The proposed encroachment area is mitigated in accordance with Section 3.08. As discussed above,mitigation for permanent impacts to the vegetated corridor will be achieved through the enhancement of Wetland A with native trees and shrubs. Section 3.08.4 allows for enhancement of the existing vegetated corridor as mitigation, at a ratio of no less than 2:1. This project is proposing wetland enhancement at a ratio of 3.5:1 (3.6 acres).Two acres of the enhancement area is proposed for required mitigation;the additional 1.6 acres of enhancement is proposed for public benefit to water quality. The enhancement of Wetland A meets CWS' requirements for mitigation and public benefit as described below. Wider, forested riparian buffers, with densely planted native trees and shrubs,prevent and reduce pollutants, garbage, and human/domestic animal disturbance within wetlands and creeks. Forested riparian areas also provide habitat functions for a variety of wildlife. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments;CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS#5341 June 27,2014 Page 3 The existing vegetated corridor, north of Wetland A, is in degraded corridor condition. Vegetation consists of non-native grasses, and Himalayan blackberry; no trees are present. The existing corridor provides little in the way of creek or wetland protection or habitat function. The riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek is narrow, and is dominated by Himalayan blackberry; water quality and wildlife habitat functions and values within the creek and within Wetland A are low. Enhancement of approximately 139,480 acres of Wetland A will more than compensate for the encroachment of the degraded vegetated corridors north of Wetland A. The southern area of enhancement will elevate many functions and values within Ash Creek. Trees and shrubs will provide shade to protect and improve water quality; native trees and shrubs will improve wildlife habitat; a wider forested riparian buffer will reduce human and domestic animal disturbance within the creek. The northern area of enhancement, adjacent to the new development, will also provide several important functions. This area is wetland, and native trees and shrubs will increase the wetland's functions for wildlife habitat. This area will act as a buffer, reducing the likelihood that area residents will use the wetland in inappropriate ways. Planting in the northern and southern mitigation enhancement areas will occur at 100 percent of CWS densities for trees and shrubs. As such, 1,395 trees(139,480 x 0.01) and 6,974 shrubs (139,480 x 0.05) will be planted within Wetland A. Planting in the central enhancement areas will occur at a density that achieves 100% areal coverage; as such, 7,419 plugs will be planted within Wetland A. 2. The replacement mitigation protects the functions and values of the Vegetated Corridor and Sensitive Area. As discussed above, the vegetated corridor to be impacted is in degraded corridor condition, and is not forested. The vegetated corridor provides very little in the way of protecting the functions and values of the wetland or of Ash Creek. The enhancement of Wetland A as mitigation will occur at a ratio of 3.5 to 1. This large ratio ensures that the functions and values lost through vegetated corridor encroachment will be more than adequately recovered through the enhancement mitigation process. Increasing the width of the riparian corridors adjacent to Ash Creek will greatly improve the functions and values of this area. Native trees and shrubs will provide shade,protecting water quality. A wider, forested riparian area along Ash Creek will reduce human/domestic animal disturbance in the area. Native plantings in the northern enhancement area will increase the wetland's overall functions and values, as well as provide elevated wildlife habitat. 3. Enhancement of the replacement area, if not already in Good Corridor Condition, and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a Good Corridor Condition. The wetland enhancement area will be planted to CWS densities for trees and shrubs. The southern enhancement area will occur within the 50 feet closest to Ash Creek, with widths ranging from 50- to 110-feet from Ash Creek. The northern enhancement area will occur south of the development area. The remaining VC will be planted to good corridor condition, at CWS' densities for trees and shrubs. 4. A District Stormwater Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. The applicant reasonably expects to obtain a District Stormwater Connection Permit based on proposed plans for the project. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments;CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS#5341 June 27,2014 Page 4 5. Location of development and site planning minimizes incursion into the Vegetated Corridor. The proposed development plan is located in the northern portion of the site. Retaining walls were used to minimize impacts to wetlands and the vegetated corridor. Permanent impacts are necessary to meet the housing goals and density of the Washington Square Regional Plan Center,minimum parking requirements(assuming the 10%parking reduction variance is approved),neighborhood compatibility with building heights, as well as stormwater treatment outfalls. Encroachment into the adjacent vegetated corridor has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Vegetated corridor encroachments are limited to those necessary for construction of the plan as proposed,to accommodate buildings,parking areas, stormwater treatment outfall, and garbage/recycling dumpster areas. The overall development has sought to maximize the developable area on the northern portion of the site because the southern portion is encumbered by the remaining portion of Wetland A and its vegetated corridor. The encroachment is required to adequately site the proposed buildings, drive aisles(access and emergency vehicles), and parking areas within the developable northern portion of the site. The multi-family residential"product"proposed on-site is dimensioned to meet the market demands of this specific housing type and address the neighborhood compatibility concerns of the nearby property owners. Any decrease to the unit count may impact the marketability of this development. As such, the proposed encroachment is limited to the greatest practical extent to make this project economically feasible. A site alternatives analysis is provided(see Attachment 1)that shows a matrix of development alternatives(A-D)that were considered, and a qualitative comparison of impacts, as well as comments regarding building type,parking, stormwater treatment, and site design options. 6. No practicable alternative to the location of the development exists that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. Alternative site designs were considered, and the current design was chosen due to site constraints. There are multiple benefits of locating the development at the proposed site, which would be negated if the development were moved off of this site. The site will be a residential development,which is in keeping with adjoining land uses.The project site is located within District C(Lincoln Center-Ash Creek)one of five districts within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.The Regional Center Plan describes strategies that make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic population growth. Regional centers aim to reach densities of 60 people an acre through housing and employment-the metro area's second-highest density after downtown Portland. Residents of high density neighborhoods (Lincoln Center is designated as one of the highest within the plan area)will have easy access to nearby jobs, essential services and retail resources. The sites location is within walking distance from public transportation, and is centrally located among commercial and retail development,public schools,public parks, as well as many commercial businesses that provide employment opportunities for future tenants. 7. The proposed encroachment provides public benefits. The public benefit of vegetated corridor encroachment includes supporting City and Regional Goals for"smart growth"via affordable housing. The site is located near the Washington Square Mall, which will provide close-in access to retail, restaurant, office, and service businesses,much of it within walking distance of the site. Damon Reische and Amber Wierck,Clean Water Services A+O Apartments;CWS File No. 14-001441 PHS#5341 June 27,2014 Page 5 The general objectives in proposing the Planned Development Combined Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan for the A+O Apartments and the open space protection for a large portion of the site are to: • Help meet the need for multi-family housing in Tigard; • Provide market rate multi-family housing within a reasonable distance from the Washington Square Shopping Center, Lincoln Center, and other nearby commercial uses in a location that is (or is planned to be)well connected to those areas by pedestrian and bicycle pathways,public transit, and roads; • Provide an attractive living environment for project residents; • Border the apartment project with preserved open space to the south in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and Highway 217, as well as between the apartments and a developed neighborhood of detached single-family homes to the southeast; • Preserve and enhance valuable open space areas while utilizing portions of the overall site which are not significantly constrained by floodplain, wetlands, riparian areas, or significant vegetation for residential purposes; • Provide adequate parking for the needs of residents and visitors; avoid parking overflow into nearby neighborhoods. Allowing encroachment into the vegetated corridor allows for maximum build out of the site and for the greatest developmental density. Maintaining the high density as proposed reduces the need for development of larger tracts of land and reduces the need for automobile travel. These are not only financial, social, and commercial benefits realized by the public, but are also an overall air and water quality benefit because it requires less disturbance of land, the development of less impervious surface, and the generation of fewer pollutants associated with auto travel. As discussed above, the enhancement of Wetland A at a ratio of 3.5:1 will elevate the functions and values within Wetland A and Ash Creek,providing water quality improvements for public benefit. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, 61,V1 "O�� Amy Hawkins, PWS Project Manager Attachments: Figures 1-4 Alternatives Analysis Matrix and Exhibits ago Study Area fR IiIjAsn'M164r MM: a SON FM MA I I 5341 01/2112014 'It, General Location and Topography FIGURE 4Lez SW Oak Street Development Site-Tigard, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services,Inc. (USGS Beaverton, Oregon Quadrangle, 2011) 9450 SW Commerce Circle,Suite 180 Wilsonville,OR 97070 I A _ —""""` _.=SW OAK STREET �� -•—` -fir �----- .I TL 4300 A —_n_ �_—i-' r ` \� �. - —v'- �,( -TL 1303 TL4i00 ^+ ��•--_i^=- _ --� LEGEND Study Area Boundary ' 8 i 7 —'{mss - a (486,558 sf!11.17 ac) Th 4200 . .._ 7C a TL 4400 E ---- Tax Lot Line \ C x Wetland ........ "-x 4• (288,490 sf!6.62 ac) ::•:::::•:::::.:::.::::•....v::::::......::::::;::::::::•. .....................................................................•�i:isS?ilii:c:.✓::::::c:::•.............I................ .. ... c ......................n:::::::::::::•. .::::::::::::::::::::::•:e::...... :::::e':;::....: ' • h- Direction of Flow ... ,: •::. .`.y;•:::::.::::::::.:::.:.......................................................................................... .............. :•:::::•:::::•:::::::::•:::::::: :..::.::::: : rii' i::':•i•:•.i.i.:i..i.k..:c.?• lic ':i-0::ti4::• :44 :::::::::�............................:;: : ......:.:.:..r............ _D Wetland Data Point ................... :: .•......:......e ................. .......................... . ::.{;.....: ......., . .. ................................. .:i'?:':•)!•i"i::•i:•ii::i^i:^:•::•iici•:ii:•i:^i:::i:•: .^......................................: : : : : :::::::•:::•:•::•:::•::•::................-v..l...,...::':::'r•..•::•::::•:•::::•.•:::•:.h:......::::::::::::r.,.,.,.,.. : WETLAND A Vegetated Corridor Data Point y y ......... (288.490 sf 16.62 ac) I � Photo Point Vegetated Corridor Boundary L•" Wetland andAsh C reek Continue _'• ::(_1 . :... eu Slope MeasurementieYond the Study Area _ "r Plant Community A "'.""••.. .. Degraded Condition Approximate """" (48,228 sf!1.11 ac) Centerline of 3 Ash Creek r e w to tw scez IN rear PHS Site plan provided by OTAK Inc. Existing Conditions FIGURE A+O APARTMENTS-Tigard,Oregon 2 Pacific Habitat Services,lnc. .sem Ywn 5162014 i i czi , Y j - - ------ -SW Q STR€E� - �}% - T1 Pl.—d Bulging C `r / �� ,P�aeO BugOYg O j SWUM A I ' tiw LEGEND ( ` Study Area Boundary I l; (486,558 sf/11.17 ac) — µ- I .. I i - Tax Lot Line / 1 l { - Existing Contour T l I g Proposed 1? Proposed Contour ___ tormwater `., Proposed w�-4 0 i Outfall Retaining Wall = F777771Wetland I i r� c LLLA (268,744 sT/6.17 ac) I ( Future N f 4+- Direction of Fknv f / . l I Path ... WE A m : 1 1268,744 sf 16 17 ac).` ^^• ,r --« I i t: --- Vegetated Corridor Buffer .,..r�r > .. ... .. . . 'S } Wetland and Ash ""`' r . Vegetated Corridor Encroachment Creak Continue 8 "' K 5 sf/1.02 ) eYond rhe Study Are i = ` "^-`_ h^ U (44 29 ac Area �y. -u b,ati*.,. •_-, .:. s .. c Wetland Impact ��' m (18,472sf/0.42 ac Approximate „�y r ) Centerline of - Ash Creek I � ....: o w tm Sao aCKZ IN MT PHS Site plan provided by OTAK Inc. Site Plan and Wetland/Vegetated Corridor Impacts FIGURE Pacific Habitat Se vices,inc. A+O APARTMENTS-Tigard,Oregon ssg zona r..�.r..,.r•r.w..r w.r..r.r-as...twro r 1 turw.trr! �wr..wr rw iww I /•� /••, � � i � i i �..,�.,�. ,� ,, ,/ P / •/ / / I I I I I , cl- -" --- --- _ — — .L - $W EET y= , i r , LEGEND '"� trr► _ �- �.,. —T_ Study Area Boundary :... -- - (486,558 sf/11.17 ac) , ---- Tax Lot Line ' i r Existing Contour :•:.r:::•.•: 0 :::•r:::•:::•::::::•:::::::::::•:.. ^., :•:::..::: :::: y Proposed Contour ...rm .m..., :t:•:::::: ....RtiC......... d ................ .. ............... .............................................. ....................... ..... ............ .............:F.::•::•::::•::•::•::::::•::: :•: .. ................................................. ............................. :wr:.L. ......... x.......................... ....................................................... ............................................ t .......... .. .......`••yw.+ .........._._. .....................•..................................... .......................................... ..::.. :. .. .:::::•.::.... .. :•:::::•::::::::::.:::::::•::::::::::::::::::...................................::::•::x........ Dtrectlon of Flow + •r • •. m Wetland ...... .................... _._../.ccc::c •.�::.�r:.�.�:::�:iii• :•::•. ::•:�� d .... .......::.::::'::':::::�: ... ................L:'...... ... ............::::::::....... .t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: :::::.':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::. ' V Corridor Enhancement Area ............... Vegetated ...... ........ .................................................................................................................................................. .... ...... c ....c.....................:...................................................................:.f.................................. . ... ............ ....... . ::: ................x::::::::::.:.:.:::.::.:::::.::::.:::.:::::..-.:.::::::::::.:::::::::.:.::::::::.:::::::.:.C::;......:•:::•........y::...... :;:. c (3,833#/0.09 ac) I :•::: ::::::::........................................................................... :.............. }?i.: 0 V Wetland .r !m Wetland Enhancement for ......... ......................... 8e on and Ash Cree ::::•:..:::: Vegetated Corridor Mitigation and Y d the Stud Continue U ••::• �ea Public Benefit };i m (139,480 sf/3.20 ac) C Approximate m Centerline of f' o w rro o0 Ash Creek W.=IN IEEE PHS Site plan provided by OTAK Inc. On-Site Wetland and Riparian Planting Plan FIGURE A+O APARTMENTS-Tigard,Oregon 4 Pacfflc Fiabitet Servkbs,lnc. ....a.r... s-i%zoic ew.,s.w...w�smwi w snrwouow o.yniw�ry,wta.`yti.e.s cmnm.uwswi A+O Apartments(Orland Property)-Site Alternatives Analysis Otak#17044 6/25/14 Vegetated Corridor Encroachment Vegetated Vegetated Approx.Net Minimum Total (sf) "Remaining" Undisturbed Corridor Corridor DevelopableDensity i'­`Minimum %below Vegetated iid""NVegetated Vegetated Encroachment Encroachment Description Site Area ISO Parking Parking Minimum Corridor , mmVe.wneed Corridor Corridor "Remaining"VC Total Alternative Comments (ac) units/acre) Buildings Units Parking Types Required Provided Parking (sf) —IWA real (5f) (sf) (sf) (sf) Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 48,228 0%otremain VC o%ef I—,VC Alternative A Residential(apartments).Buildings adjacent to Oak Street.9-story and 4-story buildings 2.8 140 2 200 surface,structured 300 300 0.0% 48,228 - 48,228 48,228 over 2-parking levels.Surface and structured parking. Very dense layout.'High-rise"buildings.Not compatible with existing neighboring properties.(assumes 200 unit as reasonable number to meet Wash Square plan goals/obective for housing).Buildinstructured parldn is financially Infeasible. 16%of VC s5%.f t z1 VC Alternative B Residential(apartments).Building adjacent to Oak Street.3 story buildings.Surface 3.1 155 4 170 surface,tuck-under, 299 207 30.8% 48,228 11,304 36,924 31,058 5,866 17,170 parking,tuck under parking and tandem parking. tandem Lower unit count does not meet goals of Wash Sq plan,parking well below minimum required.Tandem parking reduces foot rint,.but not practical parking for unit mix. 97%ol remain SOX of—IVC Alternative C Residential(apartments).Building adjacent to Oak Street.Surface parking.3 and 4 story 4.2 212 4 230 surface 324 289 10.8% 48,228 11,304 36,924 4,670 32,254 43,558 buildings.Increased studio/one bdrm units to condense building layout. Lower unit count does not meet goals of Wash Sq plan,minimum parking not met but close to 10%veariance threshold.Tandem parking removed since not practical with Increased studio/one bedroom units.Plan incorporates surface landscape areas for stormwater treatment(swales,rain ardem) e9x of remain 9zx nr mrd vc Alternative D Residential(apartments).Buildings adjacent to Oak Street.4 story buildings.Surface 3.9 196 4 215 surface,structured 306 278 9.2% 48,228 11,304 36,924 3,933 32,991 44,295 parking and added structured parking. under bldg,mzAnxtes compact spaces Reduce site/surface area allocated for storm water treatment,go to underground filter vaults.Provides enough area to meet City's active/passive open space requirements. Maximize use of compact spaces to reduce parking lint Its.Parking under smaller buildings. Minimum parking not met,but within target 10%variance threshold. 79%of remain VC 84%of,o,.l VC Alternative D-1 Same as Alternative D,but reduces VC encroachment at south boundary of parking area, 3.8 192 4 215 surface,structured 306 258 15.7% 48,228 11,304 36,924 7,633 29,291 40,595 reduces parking count, under bldg,maximizes compact spaces i Not efficient preservation of vegetated coorldor,creates"pockets'of VC at base of wall, requires irregular shaped wall construction.Reduces parking below 10%variance threshold. L\Project\17000\17044\Dwg\Exhibits\Mternatives Analysis Impact Area Caiculatlons.xis 1 of 1 6/27/2014 I AFAhT.. fww_Uc sT a0[c Y' 1 � me u • I a �� Arn•r0 �n �" roll � � � "� ��+a� -— — —_J PNS wGTLA-N DJ / VFJS.ATm is I M IgOR(6V DlDlnq �I� Ii u 0.p 1 i 3 LI A-13 vc � 1 yy`,^ 1 Yc cx �T PNS MERINO DFLINCATIRI 1 IHq I J IMFAIIW � V.YAgIE 1 L I � u N j `Ian ZZa / C I � U _ tivA°'mart \ +C J - - - -T- Pu416-x90, I kkk i { Iknlni6looalfBrYler Portland,OR 8)201 EXISTING CONDITIONS a . +509) ...W.Ecao a 44 P W Nu Aw°Nq Nn EX-1 6/25/14 S—t No. SW OAK St Ar ny.arr cense„s n a U d J < x[tr W � w.�rrucim rain eot w sti xe.u s ALTERNATIVE A R 170/4 F rroM Ho. or,y na } 6/25/14 u.t A - - - _ — — — � ac � it_ � y. - I -- �_ ►--��.--J �-� 177 if-III a 0 I I � OELINLAIION \ ��ql,/YttlIN10 � / ,✓ IALAl10N .�� (��� i I E- a �` Stl V er IOD ^�l1 p N J q ,4r�mK:tor�s i�n- i 1m f ALTERNATIVE B Iraq P hoj,l MA YwY"Na EX-16 6/25/14 _ r y '14o KL IIEnaO la MLixE.11M d - 1'C.1 `r NP ars an.wo I UEEl11EAE1W le � _ _ 1a'"Mr axape 1 ti Q gr DO � - T { YAt1 N.W all ALTERNATIVE C x rar�sosl us-xAl r.a,® 70{4 Rejvl Ne. quay IM 6/25/14 EX-1C V& 1 . �` � :..ice•, . .,.,.' .-r: I — "" — 11 _ � I _ I i •a IR NT7 _ _ ❑�' 1 -. ';i I main ev II 1 mnuna vn wtn �` I I ,✓' I F I I alternative D-1: Reduction of 20 parking spaces(parking from 9.8%to 15.7%below minimum), l Decreases VC encroachment from 92%to 84%, H Creates odd shaped VC area(pockets) �LWy N� lot 1 � w.�amrrw w Rar r.ow ALTERNATIVE D (and D-1 ) d hek!w o.rq R.. s EX-1D 6/25/14 «.... CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE A + O APARTMENTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2014-00002 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2014-00003, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS. WHEREAS,the proposed construction of a 215 unit planned development south of SW Oak Street will impact the Ash Creek floodplain, drainage ways,and Tigard significant wetlands;and WHEREAS, the proposed impacts to locally significant wetlands are being separately addressed by Ordinance 15-which may result in changes to the Wetlands and Stream Corridors Comp Plan Map;and WHEREAS, Section 18.775.070 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires sensitive lands permits for development within 100-year floodplain,within drainageways,and within wetlands;and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.350 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires applicable planned development approval criteria to be met;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space; Statewide Planning Goal 5;applicable Federal (USACE), Oregon Department of State Lands, and Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues and regulations. WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 15, 2014 and recommended approval of PDR2014-00003 and SLR2014-00002,by motion with a 4-3 vote in favor. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Applications for Sensitive Lands Review, SLR2014-00002, and Planned Development Review, PDR2014-00003, are hereby approved with conditions as set forth in the December 8,2014 staff report and as amended by the City Council. SECTION 2: The attached findings and conclusions (Exhibit A) are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 3: This resolution shall be effective immediately. RESOLUTION NO. 15 - Page 1 PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2015. Carol A.Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 52015. John L.Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date RESOLUTION NO. 15 - Page 2 Exhibit A Agenda Item: 6 Hearing Date:December 13.21714 Time:7:OOPM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ME FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS =ii8/20 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: A+ O Apartments Planned Development CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)2014-00002 Planned Development Review (PDR)2014-00003 Site Development Review (SDR)2014-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR)2014-00002 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection (allow conflicting uses) from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands,designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan's "Wetlands and Stream Corridor Nfap." The remaining 6.20-acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping the existing ground surface to decrease the areal extent of the floodplain on the site without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the floodplain on the site. Planned Development Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan approval is requested for the plans to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve over 6-acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of pedestrian trail easements to the City for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. APPLICANT: DBG Oak Street,LLC C/o Skip Grodahl 2164 SW Park Place Portland,OR 97204 OWNER: Oland,Ltd. c/o The Othman Group 215 SW Washington Street,Suite 202 Portland, OR 97204 LOCATION: 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street; south of SW Oak Street opposite SW 90th Avenue;WCTM 1S135AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300,and 4400 and WCTM IS135AD Tax Lot 1303. (:P.X2()14.0(KXYZn-DR2f119-1!(w3/S1-)R2f)14KXA4./glU)1.1(XXX)2-A+OARA INDWIN P.V;F"i OF 56 , 7 ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: MUE-1 and 11fUE-2: mixed use employment districts. The MUE-1 and 2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE-1, the high density mixed use employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE-2 requiring more moderate densities. MUR: mixed use residential districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. A high densis;., (MUR-1) and moderate density (MUR-2) designation is available within the MUR zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District-, 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space; Statewide Planning Goal 5; applicable Federal (USACE), Oregon Department of State Lands, and Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues and regulations. SECTION II. STAFF RECOM04ENDATION Staff tccora mends that: Planning (.omnnssion fuid that the proposed Comprehensive Plan --lLmendmeut, Sensitive Lands Rerie�z, and Planned Development R.evteu %,ill not adveise1v affect the health, safety and x-clfaie of the Cii� and meets the Appioval Standards as outlined to Section VI of this tepott Z'heiefoie, Staff recotzimcAids that the Planutng Commission teconuncnd to Cttt• Council APPROVAL, subject to the followlikq, iecotnmended Conditions of A. pioval and an-, modifications that tt.sult from the Commission's delibetattons (:PA3)144XXX]2i'I�R?II K+ix�31SllILMt]MXax►(`�I.R2t�74tx1�Kt2—,A+O APART MENS 1, PAGE 2 O 56 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORD: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Atm: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. 4. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11,Part 2. 5. In the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area, extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. Under state law (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.74) archaeological sites, objects and human remains are protected on both state public and private lands in Oregon. If archaeological objects or sites are discovered during construction, all activities should cease immediately until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. If you have not already done so, be sure to consult with all appropriate Indian tribes regarding your proposed project. If the project has a federal nexus (i.e., federal funding,permitting,or oversight) please coordinate with the appropriate lead federal agency representative regarding compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 6. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 7. The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality,as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg a`tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 9. Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements, public utility issues,and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for (7':12014-(XXX)-,'PDRZ)14-(XXX)-3;SllR2t)14 KXKW,�.R2)14(XXX)2-A+O APARIMPN11 PAGE 3 OF 56 the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Clean Mater Services, and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. 11. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the Oak Street design which is anticipated to include a 20 foot paved half width, plus 8 foot planter with street trees and underground utilities,and 12 foot sidewalk in a 40 foot right of way half width. 12. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain city approval of a design access report. 13. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 14. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 15. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them, including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. 16. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction, operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. 17. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (rVWD) of the design of water service to the site. 18. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valle; Fire & Rescue (I'VF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. 19. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site, the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 20. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning 1lfanual, February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." THE FOLLOWgNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Services) for all work to be done on site. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. CYA2014(XXXY2/Pl)R2()141XXX)3/SDR.'N)1411[X104.'ti7.R2)144KXX12-A+0.APARIT IFNIN VALE 4 OF 56 THE FOLLOVX'ING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Atm: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 24. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall contact the Planning Division (Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718- 2434) for a final site review to ensure consistency with this land use decision. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval• 25. Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer, storm drainage,water, etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenance plans.The developer's engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmanst and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of i. h grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance 26. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include 20 foot paved with, 8 foot planter with trees lights and utilities in a 40 foot row width. 27. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. 28. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete construction of the stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. 29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city approval of the complete construction of the proposed driveways. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. 30. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue (I'VF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessary construction prior to final inspection. 31. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THIS APPROVAL.SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. (:PA2014t)(XX"2 I)R2014-(XXX)3/J1)R2014-(XXX)4/tiI.R20144XXK12-A+o AP:XR'1T11--M.' PACli 5 OF 56 SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History and Description The subject property is bordered on the west by the abandoned Oregon Electric Railroad alignment and has been used in recent times as pasture. The property is comprised of six parcels, four of which are currently developed with vacant single family residences along their Oak Street frontages. According to Washington Country- records, the dwellings were built in the late 50s and early 60s. The property annexed into the City in 1987. _Vicinity Information• The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center District and is zoned MUE-1,a high density mixed use employment district and MUR-1,a high density mixed use residential district. Lincoln Center north of Oak Street is an example of high-density mixed use employment development within this district,which generally extends east of Greenburg between Hall and Hwy 217. The MUR-1 district lies between the MUE-1 district to the west and Hall Blvd to the east, extending south of Locust to Hwy 217. The subject site is centrally located within these zones with like-zones adjacent. The immediate vicinity south of Oak Street is characterized by the Ash Creek drainageway and associated wetlands. The subject property contains an approximately 1100 foot reach of Ash Creek at its southern boundary located mid-way between its confluences with Fanno Creek to the west and the South Fork of Ash Creek to the northeast. Proposal Description The applicant's narrative states that "The general objectives in proposing the Planned Development Combined Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan for the A+O Apartments and the open space protection for a large portion of the site are to: • Help meet the need for multi-family housing in Tigard; • Provide market rate multi-family housing within a reasonable distance from the Washington Square Shopping Center, Lincoln Center, and other nearby commercial uses in a location that is (or is planned to be) well connected to those areas by pedestrian and bicycle pathways, public transit,and roads; • Provide an attractive living environment for project residents; • Border the apartment project with preserved open space to the south in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and Highway 217, as well as between the apartments and a developed neighborhood of detached single- family homes to the southeast; • Preserve and enhance valuable open space areas while utilizing portions of the overall site which are not significantly constrained by floodplain,wetlands,riparian areas, or significant vegetation for residential purposes; • Provide adequate parking for the needs of residents and visitors; avoid parking overflow into nearby neighborhoods." The proposed development plans provide for development of 215 muni-family residential dwelling units within four 4-story multi-family residential buildings located on an 11.17-acre gross area development site. The plans for the project provide for dedication of 0.32 acres of additional right-of-way for the widening of SW Oak Street across the site's frontage leaving a site area of 10.85 acres. 6.62 acres of the site is delineated wetlands (See Wetland Delineation Report and map by Pacific Habitat Services, Impact Assessment Report B). 4.23-acres of the net site is upland without either mapped 100-year floodplain or wetlands. The proposed development plans provide for the filling of 0.42 acres of previously degraded wetlands adjacent to the southern edge of the upland portion of the site. The development plans also use 0.21-acres of non-wetland area which juts southward into the wetlands as permanent open space. All of this area and the remaining wetlands area will be located to the south of a retaining wall (6.41-acres total south of wall) which will separate this area from the development site area of 4.44-acres. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND INTERESTED PARTIES The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the conceptual development plans for the project and to gather comments on those plans at Metzger Elementary School on February 20, 2014. Approximately 60 people attended that meeting including many nearby residents, representatives of CPO 4M, representatives of the Friends of Fanno Creek and the Tualatin Riverkeepers, and a reporter for the Tigard Times. Meeting notes from that (7%211144KNK)2'Pl)R2()144KNK)3!SL)R2()14-(NNK14,'ti1,R2014-(XKN)2-;1+O APARIMEMIN P.1(:I?0 OF 5(i meeting are included in Appendix B of the applicant's submittal, along with a copy of the notice which was mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the site. Affidavits regarding mailing of the notice and posting the site with a sign regarding the meeting are also included in Appendix B. Representatives of the project development team also met with CPO 4 on September 24,2014 to discuss the plans with the CPO members. In addition, representatives of the project development team met onsite with representatives of the Tualatin Riverkeepers organization on August 28,2014 to discuss the plans for the project and the status of the wetland-related permitting process. The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site boundaries and interested parries on November 3, 2014. The City received seven written comments identified below: Jim Long, 10730 SW 72"`' Avenue, Chair CPO-4M, writes in opposition to the proposed impacts to wetlands and floodplain and to the parking exception, and further highlights issues associated with economic liabilities of buildings in the floodplain and impacts on views. Nancy Lou Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, writes in opposition to the proposed wetland impacts, in favor of their benefits for storm water filtration and habitat values. Kristin Prince, 10455 SW 90`h Avenue,writes in favor of improving SW Lincoln Street through to SVS'Oak Street as part of the project approval to address potential adverse impacts to local streets. She notes that ownership of the property required for extension is the same as the owner of the property- subject to the proposed development. Jill Warren, 9280 SW 80`h Av enue, as a participant in the Washington Square Regional Center Planning process, raises plan implementation issues associated with wetland and floodplain impacts. Dave Fahlman, 9055 SW Oak Street,writes in favor of imhproving SW Lincoln Street as a condition of approval to address increased traffic and the limited capacity of SW 90` Avenue. Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89`h Avenue,writes in favor of extending SAY' Lincoln Street and to full improvements to SSV'Oak Street. Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeeper Advocacy& Communications Manager, questioned whether wetland impacts have been sufficiently avoided by reducing building footprints through increased building height He further questions the applicant's proposed use of a remote Tualatin River wetland mitigation bank over available local Ash Creek sites. RESPONSE: Commenters are generally concerned with the proposed development's adverse impacts on significant wetlands and on neighborhood livability due to increased traffic, particularly on SW 90'h Avenue, and off-site parking demand due to the requested minimum parking space exemption. The review criteria and findings in this staff report substantively address these issues. SECTION V. ISSUES SUMMARY NOTE: Procedure for review: according to TDC18.390.080.13.2.bdi, the decision on the Wetland and Stream Corridors map amendment (CPA) shall precede other actions. A decision on impacts to the floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands (SLR) follows as it can affect the net buildable area subject to the planned development proposal. According to TDC18.350.020.D, in the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR) . . . 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. Wetland Impacts (CPA) TDC18.775.130 states "The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource." (:l'Aa)14-(XXX)2/P])Il_20144XXXI.i,`SI)R2014-(NMM)4t',I R2()144XXXY>-A+O,AP.1R'nfl- l'.S' IIAGIi 7 o 1'56 Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District.See page 11. Planned Development(PDR) Parking Exemption TDC18.350.050.4. requires that"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." The plans for the project include public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SW Oak Street, Oak Street sidewalks along the property's frontage, and primary pedestrian routes through the site. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1%, should the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkabilit•1 and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014?See page 21. TDC18.350.070.C.5.d is one of five criteria that must be addressed to warrant the requested parking space exemption: "Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses;" Although the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F,staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, shall the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014?See Page 24. Funding future transportation TDC 18.630.010.C. states: "developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center." To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) should the applicant be asked to consider,for example,a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement?See page 28. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA The following summarizes the criteria applicable to this decision in the order in which they are addressed: A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.130 Sensitive Lands,Plan Amendment Option B. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.070.B Floodplain 18.775.070.D Drainageways 18.775.070.E Wetlands C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18.350 Planned Developments 18.520 Commercial Zoning districts 18.630 Washington Square Regional Plan Standards 18.705 Access,Egress and Circulation (;P,\?014-((KN)2/I'DIU)14-INN N13,'tiDR?!)144KNN)4,/'g R2(114(NNN)2-A+0 APART MEN11 PAG l i 8()l:56 18.715 Density Computations 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.765 Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan 18.795 Vision Clearance Areas 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors"map. Applicable Provisions Of The City's Implementing Ordinances: 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek A subject property contains locally significant wetlands identified on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Stream Corridors" map. A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. The applicant has applied for the Plan Amendment Option to remove Goal 5 protections from .42 acres of significant wetlands to allow the proposed development. 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis. A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant has submitted an ESEE analysis (Appendix C of Application and a revised ESEE analysis dated 12-8- 14) prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands on the subject property. This provision is met. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites (:1'A2)144KKK)2/Pl)R2014-(XXX)3igl)R2()14(xxX)4/S1,11211440W-A+0NPAR'i,%1E7'1S PAGE9( F56 within the Tigard Planning Area; The applicant's ESEE analysis dated December 8, 2014 addresses the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, identifying the impacts to the resource site and a comparison of comparable sites within the Tigard Planning area. Although the wetlands identified for removal are degraded, their association with Ash Creek makes them continue to be significant. Sites that could accommodate the proposed program were few and included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units and a larger site at Hunziker Road and Wall Street with some wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the multi-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss,or partial loss, of the resource; The applicant's ESEE analysis states that"Prohibiting conflicting uses would keep the wetland intact and likely limit the footprint of the proposed development activity to the existing houses on SW Oak Street. The houses would be remodeled or torn down and replaced by new houses. As there will be no change in density, prohibiting conflicting uses would impact the potential densities planned for (and required) in the Washington Sgman Regional Center Impkementation Plan. The economic benefits for local businesses from developing a high density apartment complex would not be realized. The applicant would also realize far less economic benefit from remodeling or replacing the four houses. There will be a loss in short term construction jobs required when the apartment complex is developed." This provision is met. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The applicant states: "Developing the property, while achieving the Washington Square Regional Center Plan's minimum density requirements, would be very difficult without the proposed wetland filling to provide a more regular shaped development site. If the site configuration is not "squared up," a very inefficient site development pattern would be necessary with a resultant increase in residential building heights in order to meet the minimum prescribed density for the site. While we have not done a final site and building design for development on a non- reconfigured development site, the project team estimates that it would be necessary to have residential buildings with four- to six-stories of residential units atop two levels of parking garages within the buildings on such a site. Six- to eight-story buildings would provide a much more significant variation from the existing single-story through three-story residential buildings to the north, east and south of the site than the proposed three-story above single level parking garage buildings than are currently proposed with the proposed reconfigured site. The taller buildings that would be necessary would require significantly different and much more expensive building construction techniques than is proposed. The current proposal is for wood frame construction over concrete single-level parking garages or concrete slabs. Additional parking levels would require ramps between levels at a significant construction cost. Additional levels of residential units would, at a minimum, require more expensive wood frame construction, or alternatively push the construction type to steel frame or concrete construction. DBG, LLC is trying to develop an economically viable residential development at close to the minimum density prescribed for the site by the zones applied to it, while making a reasonable attempt to respect the lower building heights of the existing residential neighborhood to the north, east and southeast of the site. In order to bear the additional costs of construction that would be necessary to develop on the non-reconfigured site, we would likely need to increase the density further to bear the costs, and that would result in even taller buildings adjacent to the relatively low profile neighborhood." Several sites were identified in the Tigard Planning Area which included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units, a site adjacent that was unavailable, and a larger site at Hunziker Road with some ("PA-211144M KK)2/PDR2014-1XXW/til IUM4-(MXX4,'SI.RJ)144X)002_.\+0 gl'r,MNJiNTS PAGE,10 01`56 wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the multi-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The ESEE analysis has been prepared by wetlands biologist John van Staveren, PWS of Pacific Habitat Services based upon their on-site delineation of the wetlands on the site and an assessment of the quality and condition of the area which is proposed to be filled. The ESEE analysis was reviewed by other team members including land use attorney Steven Pfeiffer,land use planner Jerry Offer,and civil engineer Mike Peebles. This provision is met. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. On approval of this request the site would be removed from the inventory. This provision can be met. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the ESEE analysis addresses the requirements of this section. The subject property contains Goal 5 safeharbor protection of significant wetlands. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development proposal for 215 apartments, the A+O Apartments. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendment is justified by and ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant concludes that "limiting conflicting uses would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A limit decision will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting all conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland can be minimized (only 6% of wetlands on site will be impacted) and the remaining resource can be enhanced.There will be a relatively high level of economic,social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland (through its enhancement) and to the community,and strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals. The recommendation is to limit conflicting uses within the significant wetland." Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan District. It is clear that the development proposal substantially implements the planning goals, including density, for the WSRC and nn. .. es its footprint given the project's 215-unit goal and the requested parking exception. A majority 94%of the wetlands are protected and enhanced on site,with a 3.2:1 off-site mitigation for the 6% of wetlands being adversely affected. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal (CWS SPL, reverse of Figure 2) provides a CWS Tier II Site Alternatives Analysis for impacts to the Vegetated Corridor,which is also useful for comparing incremental adverse economic consequence of not allowing conflicting uses. If Council approves the application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Alap"will be amended to remove the site from the inventory. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Cit;• Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CI)A-7114(MXX)2,`PI)R20141MMNli,'SI)R2014utx1(14,:.SI R31144XXX)2-A+0 APAR1UFN'1N PAGE 11 01"56 B. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) for impacts to the Ash Creek floodplain, drainage ways,and wetlands/associated vegetated corridor. 18.775.020 G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the hearings officer. 1. The hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. The proposed sensitive lands permit request for these landform alterations would normally be reviewed by means of a Type IIIA procedure by the City of Tigard's hearings officer. However, since the sensitive lands permit request is being reviewed as a combined application request including a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the concurrent applications will be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council, with the Cir- Council being the actual decision-making body. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e.Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. According to the applicant's submittal, the A+O Apartments include approximately 423 cubic yards of material removal and 3,423 cubic yards of fill material within significant wetlands and 395 cubic yards of fill within the floodplain outside of the wetlands portion of the site. The plans do not include any ground disturbances or alterations within the Ash Creek floodway. The proposed development within the floodplain does not include any activities related to existing structures, accessory structures or utilities, or any structures proposed for human habitation. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. Appendix F of the applicant's submittal includes a Joint Corp/DSL permit application (APP056389) for development within wetlands associates with Ash Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River. The necessary permits have been applied for.This provision is met. As governed by CWS "Design and Construction Standards," the necessary permits for all "development," as defined in Section 18.775.020.A, shall include a CWS service provider letter, which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any, for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the agency to issue a stormwater connection permit. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal includes a CWS Service Provider Letter (SPL) and Natural Resources Assessment Report by Pacific Habitat Services. The SPL specifies conditions and requirements necessary for the applicant to comply with CWS water quality and protection standards. Implementation of these requirements will be ensured by a condition of approval of the Council's final order. This provision is met. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. (:1'AZ)744XXX)2/P1)R2t)14-(XHX).31'tiiDR2()14(XKK)4itii.R2()14(HKX(2-A+OAPAWMIEN15 P.kGF 12OF56 According to the applicant's narrative,proposed buildings B,C,and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill within the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2' above the existing floodplain elevation. The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation.The proposed building site minimizes the potential for flood damage.This provision is met. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection B of this section, the director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer subsections M and N of this section. Base flood elevation (BFE) has been determined for this project area. The BFE is shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map number 410276059C for the City of Tigard, Oregon, Washington County revised February- 18, 2005. The floodplain boundary is shown (elevation 163) on the Existing Conditions plan (Sheet P1.1). This provision is met. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1, Vegetated Corridor Widths," and "Appendix C, Natural Resource Assessments," of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard, Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services,1994. According to the Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. May 9, 2014 Natural Resource Assessment for the subject site, the proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor measured 50 feet wide.Therefore,the following wetland regulations would apply to 1.44 acres of the site. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. According to the applicant's narrative, a wetland delineation of the wetland areas on the site was done by the professional wetland scientists of Pacific Habitat Services. The delineated wetland boundary stakes provided by that on-site delineation were surveyed and mapped by the surveyors of Otak, Inc. The actual locations of wetlands on the site vary slightly from what is shown on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map. A copy of the Wetland Delineation report for the site by Pacific Habitat Services is included in the applicant's submittal as Impact Assessment Report B. The wetland boundary and associated vegetated corridor are illustrated clearly on Figure 3, PIIS Natural Resource Assessment Report,Appendix D.This provision is met. 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas,e.g., floodplain, are presented in subsections B through E of this section. This application includes proposed development in the Ash Creek floodplain, drainageways, and within wetlands (and associated vegetated corridor).The City Council is the decision-making body under concurrent review,%ith the requested comprehensive plan amendment Type IV procedure. Impacts to these sensitive areas are addressed in findings for their respective approval criteria below:. 18.775.070.B Within the 100-year floodplain.The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: CP:12(114-(KKK)2,/PDR3)14(KKK)3 t.q)R2Ut4-IKKKYi,s un4-"xKM—:t+0 ARVZ I MI N I'S PAGE 13 OF 56 applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Report F,Preliminary Storm Drainage Report by Otak,Inc.According to the report, the fill area is approximately 0.35 acres. Figure 3 shows the proposed development in relation to the 100- year floodplain boundary (elevation 163). Proposed buildings B, C, and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill vaithin the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2'above the existing floodplain elevation. The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; A zero rise analysis has been completed and is included in the applicant's submittal as Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. This criterion is met. 3. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community development code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; The site of the proposed development includes both commercial plan designations and residential plan designations. The proposed development plans show floodplain modifications within portions of the site which have a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of MUE-1. Portions of the site which include the residential MUR-1 Comprehensive Plan Map designation include proposed modifications to wetlands. However, no modifications to the 100-year floodplain are proposed within the MUR-1 area.This criterion is met. 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; A zero rise analysis has been completed and a memorandum is included as Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage Report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not be an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation.This criterion is met. 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Staff has determined that the Center Loop Trail alignment on SW Oak Street is preferred to the Ash Creek alignment along this reach of Ash Creek. The City Engineer has determined that a 12-foot vide multi-modal path within the Oak Street right of way along the property's frontage will be a required public facility improvement for this project. This criterion is met. 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; (.I)A2(ll4-(KXX12/PDR 1)14(XKN)3/Sn122(114-(MXN)4/SI.R2()141NNN)2-A+0:V AR1MrXM PAG 1:1401 56 The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. A wildlife habitat assessment, further floodplain analysis and other related studies will need to be completed prior to construction of this trail. The actual alignment of the trail will need to be determined by the City in concert with resource permitting agencies prior to the final design and construction of the trail. 7. The necessary U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant's submittal includes a CWS SPL ('appendix D) and a U. S.Army Corps of Engineers (CON)/Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL)permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of the City's planned Washington Square Rewional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known, the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above,the floodplain criteria are met. 18.775.070.13 Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: A storm water ditch, or drainageway, 475 square feet in area (0.01 acre)is located in the northwestern portion of the site that carries stormwater from SW Oak Street and the adjacent condominium complex to the north of Oak Street. The Natural Resource Assessment by PHS characterizes this ditch as non-jurisdictional and therefore without an associated vegetated corridor. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O Apartments minimizes impacts to wetland/floodplain/drainageways by pushing the proposed area of development towards SW Oak Street. This results in impact to an existing ditch in existing public drainage easement on the western portion of the site. It is proposed that the existing ditch/drainageway be relocated into a public storm sewer pipe with an outfall to the wetlands to the south. The proposed alteration of this section of the drainageway on the southern portion of the site is limited to only the area that is necessary to construct the proposed storm sewer to replace the existing open drainage ditch, and therefore will limit drainageway disturbances to only what is necessary for the proposed use. This criterion is met. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O Apartments will replace an existing open drainage ditch into a public storm drainage pipe located in a public drainage easement that will extend the existing public storm drainage system and convey existing runoff from the upstream basin.The proposed public CPA2014-(XXX)2/1'DR_'X014(xuM)./SI)RZU14( )(X)4/SI.R2)14(XXX)2-A+0 APART I;NTS PAGE 15 OF 5G storm drainage pipe will outfall to a rip-rap pad and drain into wetlands and .ash Creek. The plans provide for appropriate erosion control plans designed to City and CWS standards so that the proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off- site effects or hazards to life or property.This criterion is met. 4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; According to the applicant's narrative, the open drainage ditch to be removed will be replaced with a public storm pipe in a new alignment that will have adequate capacity to convey to the upstream runoff.This criterion is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, a small portion of the existing drainage ditch at its southern end will not be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. This portion will be replanted with seed mix to prevent erosion. The area to be replaced and put into a storm drainage pipe will be covered by pavement and landscaping associated with the proposed apartments designed consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.475 and related standards as addressed elsewhere in this report.This criterion is met. 6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; According to the applicant's narrative, the existing drainage ditch will be replaced with a public storm sewer pipe in a new alignment (to be covered by a public drainage easement).The proposed storm drainage pipe has been sized to provide adequate capacity to convey the maximum anticipated flow from upstream basin in accordance with the 1981 Master Drainage Plan.The public easement will be located within the drive-aisle/parking area of the proposed multi-family development. The City will have access to public storm manholes for maintenance of the proposed public storm sewer. This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; A CWS Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (Appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSL/ US Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known, the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the drainageways criteria are met. 18.775.070.E Within wetlands. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050, General Provisions for Wetlands,wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a the 50-foot vegetated corridor for (:P.121)144XKX12/PDR2u14(Mxx)3,'S1)R2014iKKKK/S1,R2U14-Axxxi2-A+0APAXIINI NTS 11�(T M OF 56 Wedand A,as shown in Figure 3 of Pacific l labitat Services' Natural Resource.'assessment for the subject site. The proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor. Therefore, the following wetland regulations apply to a total of 1.44 acres of the site. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan floodplain and wetland map not is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; The applicant has requested wetlands to be removed from the designation of locally significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors" Map by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment portion of this application. If that request is approved, these wetlands will no longer be designated as significant wetland on the Plan's floodplain and wetland map. As such, a sensitive lands permit can be approved in accordance with this section for both the wetland and its associated vegetative corridor.This criterion is met. 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; .'according to the applicant's narrative, the proposed filling of 0.42 acres of wetlands is limited to only what is necessary to "square up" the developable portion of the site to accommodate the proposed 215-unit apartment complex and related parking and recreation facilities without creating any more wetland site disturbance than is absolutely necessary. The proposal includes ground level parking under two of the proposed residential buildings, a request for an exception to the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces in order to limit the area of development, and a retaining wall along the full width of the project's southern development boundary to limit impacts to sensitive areas. Given the findings in the applicant's ESEE analysis, this criterion is met. 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; According to the applicant's narrative, the 0.42 acres of proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site has been designed to be on the edges of or outside of the floodplain on the site. A storm sewer system has been proposed to replace the surface drainage through the wetlands on the western portion of the site. These measures have been designed in order that on-site and off-site drainage will not be adversely affected by the proposed wetlands modifications.This criterion is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, an erosion control plan addressing the City and Clean Water Services' erosion control requirements will be submitted as part of final grading plans, as well as part of any state or federal permit applications. Disturbed areas will be replanted if not covered by impervious surfaces. This criterion is met. 6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All other applicable sensitive lands approval standards related to the proposed development application are reviewed in findings within this staff report This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; CPA2014-0(X4 X12/1'D1U0141KKK13,/SI)It0144XKKW/YYJU144KK10--.1+0:11'.1R"1'11ISNS PAGE17OF56 A CDR'S Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (Appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSI./ US Army Corps of Engineers joint Permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. The provisions of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal,shall be met; The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, are addressed further in this staff report, below. This criterion is met. 9. Physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplains and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been satisfied. The following Comprehensive Plan policies address physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplains and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, and recreation and open space. Findings address satisfaction of these policies with regard to the proposed plans for wetland modifications. Natural Resources 1. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible,restore natural resources in a variety of methods to: A. contribute to the City's scenic quality and its unique sense of place; B. provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and buffering between differential land uses; C. maximize natural resource functions and services including fish and wildlife habitat and water quality; and D. result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high level of biodiversity. 7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible on public and private lands. 8. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore the diverse ecological and non-ecological functions and services of streams,wetlands, and associated riparian corridors. 11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse methods including, but not limited to: education, incentives, planned development standards and regulations, and conservation easements. The City addresses the above policies dealing with wetlands, water resources, riparian areas and wildlife habitat through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the standards of that permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the wetlands, habitat, and floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. In addition, application of the planned development parking exemption has been requested to help minimize the development footprint. Hazards 1. The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. A. areas having a severe soil erosion potential; B, areas subject to slumping,earth slides, or movement; C. areas having slopes in excess of 25%;or D. areas having severe weak foundation soils. The City of Tigard's development review application process implements this policy through the requitement of a geotechnical report as part of the required impact assessment of a proposed development. The current application includes a site specific geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnical Resources, Inc. that report demonstrates that CPA2014-X10o2;'PDR2014-(XXX)3/S1)R2014(X04/S1.R2014(NXX)2—.\+ct APAR'1'M1�.Nlti FwIi 18 Ole 57, the proposed development site will be suitable for development without undue soil erosion and that the site does not contain slopes in excess of 25%;areas subject to slumping, sliding,or earth movement;or weak soils. 7. The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels,flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100- year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless: A.The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area. 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and,where possible,find ways to restore and enhance these areas. 11. The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. The City has addressed these above policies dealing with floodplain development and landform alterations through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the approval standards of the sensitive lands permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. Parks Recreation and Open Space 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents,including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation;and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. 22. City-owned property may be used for private wetlands mitigation considered on a case-by-case basis. This policy allows,but does not require developers to provide local wetlands mitigation.The applicant has proposed off-site mitigation with this project.The City Parks Director has commented that private wetland mitigation on city- owned property has proved difficult administratively in the past and that city property will need to be used in the future for city projects that require mitigation. In this case, city owned property is not available for private wetland mitigation. Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. Policy 1. The City shall create and interconnected regional and local system of on- and off-road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods,parks, open spaces, major urban centers and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include the provision of a public pedestrian trail easement within the privately owned wetland area adjacent to Ash Creek. This trail easement segment is provided to serve the Washington Square Regional Center Trail that is called for in the Parks Master Plan and is called for as multi-use path M-9 on maps and tables of the Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan. The development plans also provide for a public pedestrian path easement for the future development of a connecting trail between SW Oak Street and the future Washington Square Regional Center Trail. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above,the wetlands criteria are met. (.I'A?1)14 XXX)2,'YllR )l4-1)fXX),3,51)8211144XXX14/ti1.1C014U1KM12- 1+()APARIMENIS P%il"19 OF 56 CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find, and recommend to Council, that the applicable sensitive lands review criteria for floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands are met or can be met as conditioned, subject to a determination that Goal 5 protections can be removed, as requested by the applicant. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Planned Development Concept and Detailed Plan Reviews (PDR) for the 215 unit planned development. 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.020 Process A. Anulicable 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. 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. The applicant has elected to develop this project through the planned development process. In this case, the applicant is also applying for a concurrent review of the planned development concept plan and the detailed development plan. Separate concept plans and detailed plans have been submitted,requiring separate actions by the commission and council. 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria 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. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates areas on the site that are intended to be preserved as open space in the form of wetlands and enhanced wetland; active open space and recreation areas near the proposed building locations; and passive landscape areas. The applicant's narrative, along with the applicable supplemental reports in the Appendix, describe how the natural open space, active open space, and passive open space areas are to be used and how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site.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. The planned development concept plan illustrates how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site. This criterion is met. 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. (1'.%3114-Ixxxn,art)R2[114txxxL3/SUK3)14txxxW/s1.RJJ14-lxxxn-:X+o.%1'AR'1*Xf1 !'AGti 20 01 50 The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, along with the aerial photo of the site and its environs, Sheet P2.1, illustrates how the proposed development will fit into the street and land use pattern of the neighborhood. This criterion is met. 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. The plans for the project include the provision of an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the site's frontage. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates the general areas on the site where the applicant is offering to provide public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, and a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SV' Oak Street. Primary pedestrian routes through the site are also illustrated. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1°1o, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in ThMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 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. The planned development concept plan illustrates the proposed development pattern for four multi-story multi- family residential buildings on the northern portion of the site, along with associated recreation and parking facilities. The concept plan provides for approximately 4.16 acres of the site to be developed with multi-family dwellings at a net density of between 50 and 60 units per net acre, and for approximately 6.2-acres of the site to be retained as wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek. Limited public access to the wetlands area is provided for through the provision of public pedestrian access easements to be dedicated to the City of Tigard for future trail development.This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development plan for the A+O Planned Development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek, along with significant enhancements to the wildlife habitat values of the wetlands through the removal of invasive vegetation and the planting of significant number of native trees. This work to restore the wetlands on the site would not occur unless there was a development project occurring primarily on the upland portion of the site, along with a relatively minor amount of wetland filling to create additional developable area. The practicality of intensive development of the upland portion of the site is dependent upon the proposed wetland filling to create a more usable development footprint, and is also dependent upon having flexibility with regard to certain development standards such as by reducing the amount of on-site parking to be provided; by not providing individual decks or porches for all units as would be required through the Site Development Review approval standards; and by accounting for shared open spaces through looking at the larger development plan. In addition, it is noted that proposed A+O Apartments Planned Development will further the objectives of the Washington Square Regional Center plan by providing desired relatively intense residential development in close proximity to shopping opportunities at Washington Square and other nearby centers; close proximity to employment opportunities at Washington Square, Lincoln Center, and other nearby office and commercial centers; and within close proximity to transit opportunities on SW Greenburg Road, SW Locust Street, and SW Hall Boulevard. While the proposed development will be fairly intensive compared to the existing neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-family residences to the south and east of the site, the proposed A+O <:P;\2014 UO(M12,'PllR�Ui4(>fK1(11/tiUR�114(MxKk4�ti1d2J114(NKlR2—A+0 APAR" IENlS PAG P"2101 56 Planned Development will provide a step down in intensity from Washington Square and Lincoln Center to those existing neighborhoods. The A+O Planned Development will be developed at a density (52 units/acre) which is low in the range of residential densities allowed by the MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site of the proposed development(50 units/acre minimum,no maximum).This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are substantially met. However, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014, as conditioned below. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the proposed Concept Plan substantially meets the approval criteria and recommend approval of the Concept Plan to the City Council, subject to consideration of an enhanced mobility plan. 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements C. Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions,with the following mod'if'ications: 1. Lot dimensional standards. The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80%of the minimum size required in the base zone. There is no applicable minimum lot size in the underlying MUE-1 and MUR-1 districts. The site size will be 10.95 acres after dedication of additional road right-of-way for SW Oak Street.This standard is met. 2. Site coverage. The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such as streets and sidewalks. The concept plan provides for less than 40% of the gross planned development site area to be developed and over 60%of the site to be retained as natural and enhanced wetlands. Therefore,the proposed concept plan clearly meets this standard. Additionally, 25% percent of the portion of the site which is planned to be developed with the apartments will be landscaped and not covered by buildings or pavement.This standard is met. 3. Building height. In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the structure be set back from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2 times the height of the building. No increase in building height is request beyond that allowed by the underlying zones. This standard is met. 4. Structure setback provisions: No exceptions to the applicable base zone setback standards are requested. All buildings within the proposed A+O _apartments Planned Development will be required to meet all applicable setback and building separation standards of the underlying zones and of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. No garage entrances will enter onto SW Oak Street.Both parking garages will have entrances internal to the site.This standard is met. 5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. No exceptions are requested to an}' other standards of the base MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts. This standard is met. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: (:PA2L)iMKriX)2A7DR_2014tRKU3/.1)R2014411KKi4/SI.R'J)144XXX)2- \f(1,1PAR'IMEN"I S PAGE 22 OF 56 A.The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed detailed development plan has been designed to be completely consistent with the concept plan, except for providing additional details on how the site is to be developed. No changes to the residential densities, amounts of open space and landscaping, land usage; effects upon environmentally sensitive areas or hazardous areas; or the proposed pattern of development are proposed. 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; No land division is proposed. Therefore, the provisions of Chapters 18.420 and 18.430 are not applicable to the proposed final development plan.This criterion is met. 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. 2. Chapter 18.705,Access, Egress and Circulation. The commission may grant an exception to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer that the resulting access will not be detrimental to the public safety considering emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of transportation using the site (vehicles,bicycles,pedestrians,and transit). No exception to the applicable access,egress and circulation standards is requested. 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. Where a project site encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be aggregated for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project site,as deemed appropriate by the commission. No density bonus is requested. 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. No exception to the applicable minimum landscaping requirements is requested. 5. Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone ih a. The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than 10% of the required parking;and An exception to the minimum required on-site parking space standard is requested to allow the proposed A+O Apartments to be served by 278 on-site parking spaces rather than the 306 on-site spaces which normally would be required for this type and size of development. The requested 28 fewer parking spaces would represent a 9.1 percent reduction from the normally required amount of on-site parking. Criterion (a) is met. CPA2(114-(XXX)2�PUR2014(XXX)3/SllR2014(XXX)4/'I,RZ)14(NXK12--A+0 APAR1111,.QY1\ PAG 1?23 01+56 b.The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature,e.g.,a nursing home,and which has a low demand for off-street parking; or The proposed mix of apartment units in the project with a relatively high number of smaller unit types (64 studios and 98 1-bedroom units) and the absence of larger dwelling units should result in fewer residents per dwelling unit than would be typically expected in a suburban multi-family project.Therefore,it is reasonable to anticipate that the lesser number of residents per unit would translate to a lesser demand for on-site parking spaces as compared to a typical suburban multi- family development. The applicant argues that the City of Tigard's minimum parking space standard is oriented more to the demand for parking spaces for a typical multi-family project with larger dwelling units than is currently proposed. Criterion(b) is met. c. There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that the property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement; or The applicant has not identified any opportunities for shared parking. d. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses; or According to the applicant's narrative, the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F. A portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of several transit stops. This is illustrated by the Transit Availability Map in that report which shows one-quarter mile radii from the closest transit stops to the site at: 1) the west side of SVG' Greenburg Road at the entrance to the Washington Square shopping center; and 2) at the intersection of S\X'Hall Boulevard and SW Locust Street. The TriMet Trip Planner service provided on Triblet's website says that there currently are three transit stops within one-half mile walking distance of the SW 8900 SW Oak Street within the site for TriMet Bus Route 43 on Hall Boulevard or SVG'Locust Street.The TriMet Trip Planner indicates that there are three transit stops within six-tenths of a mile walking distance for TriMet Bus Routes 76 and 78 on SW Greenburg Road. Maps of these routes and basic schedules are included in the Impact Assessment report.The proximity of the site to these bus transit stops and the frequency of transit service means that good public transportation service will be available to serve the proposed multi-family development. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. e. There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features of the site which make it in the public interest to grant an exception to parking standards. The request for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces derives from efforts to minimize the amount of wetland area needed to be filled to provide on-site parking. Multiple attempts were made to lay out the site plan to provide all of the normally required parking on-site without providing on-street parking.All such alternative plans would have required additional wetland filling and/or increased building heights to provide additional parking. Additional wetland tilling would not have been in the public's interests in preserving this existing resource area.Criterion(e)is met. FINDING: The proposed 9.1% (28 spaces) exception to the minimum parking requirement is less than 10% allowed. The proposed mix of studio and one bedroom units and the availability of nearby transit can reasonably be expected to lower the demand for on-site parking. It is in the public interest to preserve wetlands to the south of the development site (Wetland A). Therefore, the commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and recommends the following condition of approval: CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, (;P.33L)t4-aMxnlri)x2111¢(KNK)3,!suiteoi4 9KX)4/st.xan4-(xxx)a-A+O:v>Ax'M41--NJ� t Act:_aor•50 including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. 6. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional requirements in the applicable zone. No exception to the dimensional standards for signs is requested. 7. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The commission may grant an exception to the visual clearance requirements,when adequate sight distance is or can be met; No exception to the vision clearance requirements is requested. 8. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks, and 18.810.060, Lots. Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis, and nothing in this section shall obligate the city engineer to grant an exception. The commission has the authority to reject an exception request. The commission can only grant an exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by the city engineer. The city engineer may determine that certain exceptions to the street and utility standards are permissible when it can be shown that: An exception to the public street improvement standards is requested to allow a narrower than the normal WSRC Plan minor collector street. TDC Section 18.630.100 states the recommended roadway functional classification map and street cross-sections in the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan shall govern the improvement and construction of major streets within the WSRC Plan District. The WSRC Plan calls for a minor collector section along SW Oak Street which includes 43.5-feet from centerline right-of way and a 29.5-feet from centerline paved width (5.5-foot half center lane, 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane,8-foot parking). The applicant proposes a modified minor collector section for this street to provide 40-feet from centerline collector street right-of-way, and 26-feet of pavement from centerline to curb (12-foot travel lane, 6-foot bike lane, 8-foot parallel parking). The 3.5-foot reduction in the street width is the result of removing the center lane in the street section (subtract the 5.5-foot half center lane) and widening the travel lane (add 2-feet to travel lane). A supplemental memo to the Transportation Impact Study addressing turn lane warrants is included in report C in the Impact Assessment portion of the applicant's submittal. The City Engineer agrees with the applicant's assertion that the center turn lane is not warranted but has determined an alternative design will better serve multimodal transportation options: the SW Oak Street half section will 40 feet from center line and include a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LIDA planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike/ped path. a. Public safety will not be compromised; and The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) description refers specifically to improving accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district. Not having a left-tum along the site frontage does not impact the ability to provide multimodal access into the office/commercial uses. The WSRC also highlights improving access to residential areas specifically for pedestrians and cyclists with autos as a secondary consideration ("as well.") and the need for traffic management techniques to protect neighborhood streets. The proposed design helps accomplish these objectives by: 1) Removal of center left-turn lane reduces north-south pedestrian crossing distance/exposure; 2) Narrower cross section reduces potential traffic speeding issues through more compact environment and reduces appearance of a wide street that might otherwise encourage cut-through traffic;and 3) still accommodates on-street parking and sidewalks. SW Oak Street is currently posted with 25 MPH speed signs. This speed will help keep travel on the street safe with on-street parking.This criterion is met. C;PAa)14(xxx]2/P13R3)14-(xxx):i./tillR3)1"XX)4/S].R-)o14-(xXX)2-A+0 APAW17v11WIN PAGE 25 01:56 b. In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a conforming design; and Maintenance costs would not be anticipated to be increased due to the reduced right-of-way and street width that are requested. The reduced 3.5-feet of pavement width would require less street sweeping and pavement overlay/maintenance in the future. This criterion is met. c. The design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of pollutant treatment. The reduced pavement width will also decrease the impervious surface which will reduce stormwater runoff from Oak Street.The proposed planter strip width will provide area for LIDA-facilities (stormwater planters, swales) that can provide stormwater quality treatment for the impervious area within the public right-of-way. In addition, the narrower right-of-way allows the proposed development to be constructed further north, reducing impacts to wetlands located to the south of the site. This criterion is met. FINDING: The city engineer has determined that the applicant's proposed exception to the street standards is not permissible. Instead, the City Engineer adopts a revised section for SW Oak Street 40 feet from center line including a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LIDA planter and a 12-foot ride separated bike/ped path. For those chapters not specifically exempted under the planned development chapter, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested. The following standards apply to the proposed planned development. 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in commercial zones is presented in Table 18.520.1. The western portion of the site is zoned MUE-1 and the eastern portion of the site is zoned MUR-1, as illustrated on the Existing Conditions/Site Assessment Plan,Sheet P1.1. Table 18.520.1 of the Community Development Code lists use types that are permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited in the various commercial zoning districts in the City of Tigard. Household living is listed as a permitted use in both the MUE-1 and hIUR-1 districts in this table,«nth a footnote which says that all permitted and conditional uses may be subject to special development standards of Section 18.630. The proposed multi-family residential use is considered a Household Living use type,and thus is permitted in both zoning districts applied to the site. 18.520.040 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Any development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.This standard is met. B. Development standards. Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: MUE-1 Standard Proposed Minimum lot size: None 10.85 acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width (:P:LZ114-(KUP-,1)13R3114-OO1K13/tllR2H4-(KKK14/S1.1t21114-(x1(1112-A+()APAR1Ti-NTS PAGE,26O 56 Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Minimum side yard: 0 28-feet(Building A west side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south property line Minimum building height: 2 stories 4-stories Maximum building height: 200 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 85% 75%of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement: 15% 25%of total apartment site Minimum density: 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./net acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u. /net acre total MUR-1 Minimum lot size: None 10.85-acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 6.9-feet Building D stair tower) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 11.2-feet(remainder of Building D face) Minimum side yard: 0 15-feet (Building D east side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south Minimum building height: 2 stories 4 stories Maximum building height: 75 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 80°0 75% of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement*: 15% 20% of total apartment site Minimum densit;: 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u./acre total FINDING: Table 18.520.2 above, shows that the proposed development plans are consistent with the applicable development standards in the MUR-1 and MUE-1 zoning districts. The applicant has not applied for any variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title are addressed further in this staff report.The applicable commercial development standards are met. 18.630 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN DISTRICT 18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Purpose. 1. This chapter will implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the recommendations contained in the Phase II Implementation Plan Summary Report,prepared by a task force appointed by the City of Tigard. 2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan target growth capacity for the Washington Square regional center will be met by permitting mixed use development within the regional center at densities appropriate for an urban center. 3. A mixed use regional center will contain a variety of districts that vary in scale, predominant use, and character. Distinct districts, connected to each other and to the rest of the region by a multi-modal transportation system,will provide a range of working, living and shopping opportunities. 4. Improved multi-modal transportation links, higher densities, variety of land uses, and enhanced environmental qualities will all contribute to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth. 5. New mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in established areas, are appropriate for the regional center. B. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Washington Square CP.%a)14(MA)02,PDR2014 XX)3ig3R21)WxxXh11U.R3)141ANR)2-A+0 APARTNTI:NT'i PAGE 27O 56 Regional Center Plan District, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system,and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. C. Development conformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in new non-single-family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the development and building codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. As reviewed in this staff report, the project meets or has been conditioned to meet the design standards in this Chapter and other development standards required by the development and building codes and would contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition, developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center_ The applicant's submittal did not address this provision. Both public comment and the WSRC plan identify the continuation of SW Lincoln Street through to Ste'Oak Street as a critical future transportation infrastructure improvement. Public commenters worry that the limited capacity of SW 90`h Avenue will not be able to handle increased traffic generated by the development. The Regional Center Plan identifies a collector system at Oak-Lincoln-Locust to distribute east/west traffic between Locust and Oak Streets and improve accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district and to improve access to residential areas for bicyclists and pedestrians,as well as autos. According to the WSRC plan, District C, Lincoln Center-Ash Creek, is an area "slated for high density office and residential development. Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, it will be important for this area to provide easy pedestrian and bicycle access between homes and jobs. A particular goal is to protect the Metzger neighborhood from impacts of increased traffic, while assuring free-flowing vehicular movement throughout the district." In addition, "Metro has established goals for the region to reduce the number of trips by auto relative to those made by transit, pedestrian and bike travel. Pedestrian and bike facilities developed in concert with new housing and offices will be a step toward achieving theses regional goals." The applicant's traffic analysis concludes that intersections remain functional with the development's added traffic, but does recommend improvements to the SVSG'Oak and 90th Avenue intersection. However,it does not satisfactorily address the additional traffic on SW 90th, a 50-foot local street, as the primary route north to SW Locust for southbound Greenburg/Hwy 217 trips originating from the proposed development. To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) the applicant could consider, for example,a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionality. 18.630.020 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1.All applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370 and subsections C through E of this section; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.This standard is met. CYA2114-MW PI)R2014(XXX)3,'Sll1?2114-(XXX)4/SI.")144KXXL-.1+OAPAKMII-N7� P.1(;EMO 56 18.630.040 Street Connectivity A. Purpose. The standards provide a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the Washington Square regional center (WSRC). They provide incremental street and accessway development that is consistent with WSRC needs and regional and state planning principles for connectivity. The primary objective is to create a balanced,connected transportation system that distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets. B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Section 18.370.010 where topography,barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1.Design option. a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance option. a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than 1-1/2 the straight-line distance. The site of the proposed development is located on the south side of SVC Oak Street. Ash Creek and its associated floodplain and wetlands are located on and to the south of the subject site, with Oregon State Highway 217 — a controlled access highway- located further to the south. These existing conditions make the development of fiu-ther streets to the south impracticable. Local streets to the north include SVG' 90th Avenue directly to the north, SW 87th Avenue to the east,and the planned intersection with the SW Lincoln Street to the west. SVG`Oak Street in front of the subject site is designated a collector street All of the proposed buildings will have major entrances within 100 feet of SW Oak Street.This standard is met 18.630.050 Site Design Standards Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan may be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C.2,governing criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. A. Building placement on major and minor arterials. 1. Purpose. Architecture helps define the character and quality of a street and can make a strong statement about the overall community and city at large. The placement and design of buildings provides the framework for the streetscape and defines the edges of the public right-of-way. Architecture and ground floor uses can activate the street, either by its design presence or by those who come and go from it. At intersections, investing in building frontages can create gateways and special places that add to the character of the area. 2. Standard. Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along major and minor arterial streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on major and minor arterial streets. The site fronts only on S\X) Oak Street. SW Oak Street is a collector (minor arterial). Buildings B, C, and D occupy approximately 660'o of the frontage.This standard is met. B. Building setback. 1. Purpose. Buildings and investment in architecture is most conspicuous when it is visible from the street. The presence of buildings closely sited at the edge of the right-of-way creates an envelope for the street and a sense of permanence. 2. Standard. The minimum and maximum building setback from public street rights-of-way shall be in accordance with Table 18.520.2. CP 13)14-11th Nr2/Pt)R2)144XXX)3,'tillR2U14-(XX)4,',gl")14-(XXX)2-A+0 APARTMIN-IS I':\(;I±29 01-56 As addressed above under the Section 18.520, the front yard setbacks from SW Oak Street are met. C. Front yard setback design 1. Purpose. The front yard is the most conspicuous face of a building and requires special attention. Places for people and pedestrian movement helps create an active and safer street. Higher level of landscape anticipates a more immediate visual result. 2. Standard. For setbacks greater than 0 feet, landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to the applicable standard in subsection E of this section. Hard- surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.B and Table 18.520.2. The front yard area between the sidewalk along SW Oak Street and the fronts of proposed buildings B, C and D and parking areas to the sides of buildings will be landscaped with a combination of lawn, planter beds, and trees which will enhance the pedestrian environment along SDG'Oak Street.This standard is met. D.Walkway connection to building entrances 1. Purpose. As density increases and employee and resident populations increase, it is expected that more people will move between businesses within the WSRC. Provisions should be made to encourage people to walk from business to business, and housing to business rather than use automobiles. 2. Standard. A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner adjacent to a public street intersection are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.13 and Table 18.520.2. According to the applicant's narrative and plans, all building entrances will be connected to the public sidewalk along SW Oak Street by a network of internal site sidewalks. All private sidewalks between the building entrances and SW Oak Street sidewalk will be at least six feet wide and constructed of concrete.This standard is met. E. Parking location and landscape des* 1. Purpose. The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas. 2. Standard. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary street(s) shall be identified by the city where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage. When abutting public streets, parking must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 parking lot screen standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is eight feet or is equal to the adjacent building setbacks, whichever is greater. All other site landscaping shall be landscaped to an L-2 general landscaping standard. The L-1 and L-2 standards are more fully described in Section 18.630.090. (Ord. 12-09 S 1) According to the applicant's narrative and plan set, all parking areas on the project will be located to the sides or rear of proposed buildings, or within first level parking garages of buildings A and D. Parking areas to the sides of buildings are no further forward than even with the adjacent front building elevation. Parking areas adjacent to buildings along SW Oak Street are will be screened by landscaped areas which include low level screening plant materials consistent with the L-1 parking area screening and planting size standards. All planting areas between parking areas and SDG' Oak Street are at least 10-feet deep, except where reduced to accommodate required patios (:P-kMI44NNNY2,'1'1)R2n14(NNNl3,.�U)R2U144")()4/.3"114(NNtt12-A+o APAXINIF-WIN PAGE 3()OF% for ground level dwelling units. All other site landscaping will be provided at sizes consistent with the L-2 planting standard. However, the applicant states that"landscape materials in these areas will need to be kept trimmed to allow for clear vision areas at the intersections of these driveways with SW Oak Street." According to the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.2) Blue Oat Grass and Kinnikinnick are specified. Pursuant to 18.630.090, Landscaping and Screening,within these landscaped areas "L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. M L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years." Visual Clearance Areas require 3-8 foot clear and allow trees.This standard is not met. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the Irl areas between Buildings B and C, and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.630.060 Building Design Standards All new buildings constructed in the MUC,MUE and MUR zones within the WSRC shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in 18.370.010.C.2,criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. A. Ground floor windows. 1. Purpose. Blank walls along the street frontage tend to be neglected, and are not pedestrian friendly. Windows help keep "eyes on the street" which promotes safety and security, and can help create a lively street frontage by displaying activities and products within the building. Lighting at night from ground floor windows also adds to the presence of activity and the sense that someone is home. 2. Standard. All street-facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner. According to the applicant's narrative, only building D will have a portion of its front building face along SW Oak Street located within 10-feet of the street property line — and that is the stair tower which will be set back 6.5 feet. The front building elevations of buildings B, C,and D will all be located between 10 feet and 11.2 feet back of the street property line. Nevertheless, measured between three feet and nine feet above grade, buildings B and C will provide a minimum of 50%of their ground floor wall areas with windows and doorway openings at these distances which are just beyond 10-feet— so technical17 they are not subject to this standard. Buildings A and D are set back more than 10 feet; therefore, these building are not required to satisfy this standard. This standard is met. B. Building fafades. 1. Purpose. Straight, continuous, unarticulated walls lack interest, character and personality. The standard provides minimum criteria for creating a diverse and interesting streetscape. 2. Standard. Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least one foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. According to the applicant's narrative,all facades that face a public street provide at least one of the variations listed in the standard at intervals of no less than every 50 feet along the facade. None of the proposed buildings will exceed a length of 205 feet; therefore,the pedestrian connection through a building standard is not applicable to any of the proposed buildings.This standard is met. (:PA2U14-(XXH)?/P1)R21)14YXX)3/tiDR2014-(XXX4/Sidt2()14XXX)2-.1+0APAR'1NI NTS YAGF,31OF56 C.Weather protection_ 1. Purpose. Weather protection is encouraged to create a better year-round pedestrian environment and to provide incentive for people to walk rather than drive. 2. Standard. Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Weather protection is provided at all entrances to the buildings through the use of overhangs or canopies as shown on the building elevations plans.This standard is met. D. Building materials. 1. Purpose. High quality construction and building materials suggest a level of permanence and stature appropriate to a regional center. 2. Standard. Plain concrete block,plain concrete,corrugated metal,plywood,sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than two feet. The project does not use materials listed above in the standard as prohibited exterior finish materials. Plain concrete is used as a foundation material, but the plain concrete will not be revealed for more than two feet. Proposed building materials will include Hardie board,Hardie panels,and vertical metal panels. Deck and patio railings will be constructed of acrylic or metal,as identified on Sheet A3.10. This standard is met. E. Roofs and roof lines. 1. Purpose. Roof line systems that blur the line between the roof and the walls of buildings should be avoided.This standard simply states that roofing materials should be used on the roof and that wall finish materials should be use on building walls. The premise is that future buildings in the WSRC should have a look of permanence and quality. 2. Standard. Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The materials of roofs and roof lines are different from the materials used on the building elevations so as to avoid blurring the distinction between the roof and walls as required by the standard. This standard is met. F. Roof-mounted equipment. 1. Purpose. Roof top equipment, if not screened properly, can detract from views of adjacent properties. Also roofs and roof mounted equipment can be the predominant view where buildings are down slope from public streets. 2. Standard. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. According to the applicant's narrative, all roof-mounted equipment is screened from the view of adjacent public streets.This standard is met. 18.630.070 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations. Residential only developments within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R40 zone, 18.780.130.B; nonresidential developments within the MUC zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.130.C; nonresidential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130.D and nonresidential development within the MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements of the C-N zone,18.780.130.E. (:PA3114{NKM>«'PI)R2014-txXN)3,",I)8201444XK4,'SI,83114XKX12-A+-0APARIVENTIN PAC,1:32O Sh 2. Sign area limits. The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted. 3. Height limits. The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the rootline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted. 4. Sign location. Freestanding signs within the Washington Square regional center shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. According to the applicant's narrative, an integral wall sign is provided on the west elevation of building C at the building's corner near SW Oak Street. The area of the western building face is 2,388 square foot. The area of the proposed sign is 143 square feet, or less than 6 percent of the total scall face.The sign area does not exceed 15% of the area of the building face on which it is mounted and will not extend above the building's roofline. To verify these specifications meet the applicable sign standards a sign application will be required prior to installation of any signage.This standard is met. 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other subsections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. A. L-1.parking lot screen. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets. The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. The setback shall be a minimum of eight feet between the parking lot and a public street. L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. B. L-2 ggneral landscaping.The L-2 standard applies to all other trees and shrubs required by this chapter and Chapter 18.745 (except those required for the I-1 parking lot screen). For trees and shrubs required by Chapter 18.745, the L-2 standard is an additional standard. All L-2 trees shall be 21/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. These landscape standards apply to the areas adjacent to SW Oak Street between Buildings B and C,and between C and D.As reviewed above,the applicant has not met the standard for L-1 and has been conditioned to meet it FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Plan District standards are not all met but can be met with the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionaliv,a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the I-1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.705 ACCESS,EGRESS,AND CIRCULATION 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. The proposal is for 215 multi-family units and associated access and parking, which is considered development, C'.PA201+iXKMY2/PI')R2014-(IL"13i SllR2[tl4tNxKW/.,IA 14-4XXX)2-_1+0.M'AW1MFX1, PAC,I1'33 OF 56 therefore these standards apply. 18.705.030 General Provisions 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. As shown in the applicant's site plan, the three proposed driveways are directly connected to SW Oak St. This standard is met. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses,to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) walkways will connect from all primary (and secondary) multi- family building entrances to the parking areas and common open spaces and facilities planned to serve the project. Primary crossings of driveway aisles will be marked by paint or contrasting pavement.These standards are met. H. 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). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a preliminary sight distance analysis concluding that, with certain improvements at the SW 90a' Street intersection, adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met, but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting (PAZ)14(KHXt2/PI)R2014(XXX),,3/ti1)RI)14-(XXX14/tiI.R2lll4-(X XP--:1+OAVARTMIMIS, PAGE,34 UI.50 adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway.The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from city engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area any collector or arterial street. 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. 4.The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a minimum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet.The standard is met. I. 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. TABLE 18.705.2 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE Dwelling Units Min. Number of Min. Access Min. Pavement Width Driveways Required Width 1-2 1 15' 10' 3-19 1 30' 24'if two-way, 15'if one-wa;^ curbs and 5'walkway required 20-49 1 30' 24'if two-way or 2 30' 15'if one-aBy. curbs and 5'walku-ay required 50-100 2 30' 24'curbs and 5'%valkwav required Standards for parking greater than 100 cars is not specified in Table 18.705.2. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width would provide a level of access similar to that required for the largest development size listed. The standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards are not all met but can be met through the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS: Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and.kASHTO. (:1.12114-(xXW&DR31144xxx13/qDR3j14-oLxx}/9iun4-(xxxP_-A+0 APAR*1W1liNlti PACE.1?AS 01"56 Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 18,715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18.715.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. 18.715.020 Density Calculation A. Definition of net -development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site acres: 1.All sensitive land areas: a.Land within the 100-year floodplain, b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%, c. Drainage ways,and d.Wetlands, e. Optional: Significant tree groves or habitat areas, as designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Tree Grove Map"or"Significant Habitat Areas Map"; 2.All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20%of gross acreage, b. Multifamily development: allocate 15% of gross acreage or deduct the actual private drive area; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. Calculating maximum number of residential units, To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. C. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in subsection B of this section by 80% (0.8). The project site is zoned with a combination of the NlUE-1 (7.88-acres) and MUR-1 (3.4 acres) zoning districts. Pursuant to Table 18.502.2,the minimum densiv/ for both zones is 50 units per net site acre,and no maximum. Based on the following density calculation,a minimum of 205 units are required. Gross site area 11.17 acres -Public right-of-way dedication 0.32 acres Net site area 10.85 acres Initial net site area 10.85 acres -Remaining jurisdictional 6.20 acres wetlands/floodplain -Private drive area (drive aisles required for fire access onlyl .60 0 acres Net/Net site area 4.05 acres Minimum units required 50 units/acre x 4.05 acres =205 units proposed density 215 units/4.05 acres = 53.1 units/acre (:PA2)14(XXX)2'PI)R_2t1141Nxx13,'SI)R_2014(xXK)4'SLRZ)14(MHKY2-.'1+U APAW1111NIS PAGI 30 01 56 FINDING: The proposal is for 215 units, or 53.1 dwelling units per net acre. This exceeds the minimum density required.This standard is met. 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE STANDARDS These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise,visible emissions,vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation,the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340- 28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare,whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: The proposal is for multi-family development, which is permitted within the MUR-1 and hfUE-1 zones. These Environmental Performance standards will apply to the apartments after construction and be subject to compliance with the applicable code enforcement provisions. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Maintenance responsibility. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his or her agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all landscaping and screening used to meet the requirements of this chapter according to applicable industry standards. B. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping and screening required by this chapter shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping and screening shall be installed according to applicable industry standards; 2. All plants shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z60, 1-2004, and any future revisions); and 3. All landscaping and screening shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. C. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the requirements of this chapter have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the city such as the posting of a bond. 18.745.040 Street Trees (.PA2o14-(XX X)2/PI)IU)141 XXXi3i SDR2014-(XXX14i SI.RJ 114-1 XX K)2—.1+0 APART Nfl-W1t PAGE 37 01'56 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. 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 6 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 18.790.030JL2), 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 (3) years (per the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manu4 for each tree below the minimum required. As shown in the Landscape Plan (Sheets Ll.1/2) the applicant proposes planting of fifteen katsura trees along the site's SIX' Oak Street frontage within planter strips between the curb and sidewalk is in order to provide the required number of street trees and planting locations consistent with Section 18. 45.040. This standard is met. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 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(]rabies 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. E. Screening: sl2ecial provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas (i.e., nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less (.1).\2G14(XKXY2/'PllR2014(XXX)3.'S1)1LV14(XXX)4,,I A3)14 4XXM)2-:l+p APAR11f1N1N PAGE,38 01:56 conforming. Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), planned development (Type III), and site development review(Type II) permits only. 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; 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. As indicated in Table 18.745.1, a Type D buffer is required for parking lots with 50+ spaces along the south perimeter of the property. According to Table 18.745.2, a 10-20 foot buffer with a 6 foot hedge, fence, or wall with trees and shrubs for screening is required. As shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L1.1/2),the applicant proposes an alternative to the buffer and screening standards to account for the retaining wall and limited space afforded the project's proximity to wetlands to the south.The applicant proposes that slats will be added to the proposed 42 inch high chain link fence atop the retaining wall after a pathway is placed through the wetland (unlikely to occur in the near future) and before proposed screening trees planted at the base of the retaining wall become an effective screen on their own. Given the information provided, it is unclear whether the proposed alternative screening plan would sufficiently reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual pollution created by the elevated parking lot as seen from the south from other vantage points besides the potential trail. To ensure the alternative screening plan is sufficient, the applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates they will be effectively screened from view. 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. 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. The applicant states that the refuse containers within the project will be screened from views by 6-foot tall CML? block enclosures.This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the anal*.-sis above, the Landscaping and Screening standards have not been fully met but can be met through the following condition of approval. CONDI'T'ION: The applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south. 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.010 Purpose and Applicability B. Aanlicability. 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. (;PA2)14 XXX)2/Pl)Ra)14(XXX)..I/Sl)IU)141XXX)4/til.R2014(XXX12- 1* 7 APAR'EMI1 NTS PAGE 39 01;56 The applicant proposes using the "franchised hauler review method" method provided for by Code Section 18.755.040.F. The 215-unit multi-family project will be served by two roughly 200 square foot trash and recycling enclosures conveniently located for use by all residents. The outdoor trash enclosures will be constructed of split- faced CMU block, with wood and metal accents. The apartment management company will contract for twice a week trash and recycling pick-up by Pride Disposal—the franchised hauler serving the area of the site. This method and frequency of pickup was suggested by representatives of Pride Disposal because of the site constraints posed by the site's slope making the location of additional collection facilities impractical and difficult to access by Pride Disposal's collection vehicles. A comment letter from Pride Disposal regarding the plans for solid waste collection and recycling facilities is enclosed as Impact Assessment Report D. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed mixed solid waste and recycling plan meets the standard. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions E. 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. The applicant has requested parking space exemption of 9.1% (28 spaces) as allowed under the Planned Development chapter. Provided the exemption is granted, the proposed development will meet the minimum parking standard,including the visitor parking requirement of 40 spaces (.15 x 266 minimum required spaces). G. 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. Disabled parking space are provided consistent with the state requirements. This standard is met. 18.765.040 General Design Standards B.Access drives.With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 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 for parking space orientation of 90 degrees. As permitted by that figure's allowance of up to 50% compact spaces, the proposed development plan provides for 115 of the total 278 on-site parking spaces to be compact spaces,or 48 percent of the spaces proposed.The general design standards are met. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 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 locate 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. B. Covered parking spaces. 1. When possible,bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. C:PA2014-)xXX2/PUR31144XXX)3j11)R20141XXXA/S1R3)144XXXl2-A+0 APAR'I'1.ENT, PACE 400F 5Ci 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case,the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. C. Design requirements.The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1.The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground,wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least two and one-half feet by six feet long, and,when covered,with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased.At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6.Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. E. 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. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in 18.370.020.C.5.e. Pursuant to Table 18.765.2, one bicycle parking space is required for ever; two multi-family dwelling units, or a minimum of 108 bicycle parking spaces are required. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 108 covered bike parking spaces are provided.This standard is met. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements H. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 requires a minimum of 1 parking space for each studio unit below 500 sq. ft. in size; 1.25 parking space for each 1-bedroom unit; 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom unit; and 1.75 parking spaces for each 3- bedroom unit for multi-family development projects. The proposed multi-family project will include 64 studios; 98 1-bedorrm units; and 53 2-bedroom units. There will be no 3-bedroom units. Therefore, a minimum of 266 parking spaces are required based solely upon the unit types and counts. In addition, an additional 15% on top of the required parking spaces based on unit sizes and numbers is required as visitor parking facilities. Therefore, a grand total of 306 parking spaces are required. The proposed development plan provides for a total of 278 on-site parking spaces to be provided including: a) 37 garage parking spaces and b)241 surface parking spaces. The proposed plan therefore will provide 28 fewer on-site parking spaces than would typically be required for the size and make-up of the proposed multi-family residential development. The applicant has requested an exception to the required number of on-site parking spaces as alloyed under Code Section 18.350.070.C.5 for Planned Developments,above. Provided the exception is granted, the proposed development can meet the standard. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in subsection H of this section: 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except;religious institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use. The applicant acknowledges that the on-street parking provided by the SW Oak Street improvement may not count toward the required minimum parking spaces. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements can be met. [:PA2114-txK102/1'1)R2014-(XXX)3/SI)R21r7MxKN14iSl.")1441XX12-A+OA11MUMENTS PAGE'41O 56 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements 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; The urban forestry plan for the A+O Apartments has been prepared by David Haynes, RL.A — a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon.Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Sheets TC.lthrough TC.3 of the application plan set provide the required tree canopy plan and calculations. Soil volume specifications for trees to be planted are included on Sheet TC.3.This standard is met. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual (UFM); The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report of Appendix E of the applicant's submittal 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. An assessment of existing trees located within the area to be preserved as wetlands was not conducted. Sheet TC.1 is a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. Protective measures for trees to be retained are included on this plan. The required right-of- way/street improvements for SW Oak Street, as well as the applicant requested additional road width for on-street parking,will necessitate the removal of several existing mature trees. This standard is met. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and The proposed landscaping plan provides for anticipated tree canopy coverage of the parking area to cover 57,282 square feet of the 98.317 square foot total parking lot area, or 58 percent of the parking lot. The minimum parking lot tree canopy cover area required is 33 percent in both the MUE-1 and NIUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site. In addition the proposed landscaping plan provides for total anticipated tree canopy coverage of 78,785 square feet of the total 180,774 square feet of development area, or 44°%of the development area. Finally, the minimum 1,000 cubic feet of soil per tree standard for the Tree Canopy Site Plan has also been met. Therefore, the proposed Tree Canopy Plan satisfies the standards of Section 18.790.030.A.3.This standard is met. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report prepared by David Haynes,RL.A,which includes the required information and analysis required for such a report. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the urban forestry plan requirements are met. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation B. Tree Establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030 A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of the previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in Section 11,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual FINDING: The applicant's proposal does not address tree establishment. Therefore, a condition of approval is added for the applicant to provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Alanual Section 11, Part 2. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per Section 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per Section 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. (Y:\2()14-(X1tMW13R2t)14tKKKt3/q)R2014tXXK)4/S1.R2()l4-(KK102-,1,U APAXIM IM s I'AGE 42()I:56 Section 11, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan.This can be met through a condition of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable urban forestry tree inventory and establishment standards have been met.To ensure compliance,the following conditions are applied: CONDITIONS: Prior to any ground disturbance work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At comers. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. FINDING: The Preliminary Landscaping Plan, Sheets L1.1 and 1-2.2, illustrates the applicable required clear vision triangles at these intersections.This standard 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. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development has been designed to preserve as much of the existing wetlands and habitat area on the site as practical, while still providing with an intensive residential development as envisioned with the intensive standards and density allowances of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the underlying ML1E-1 and NIUR-1 zoning districts. Residential development area has been limited to the northern portion of the site near SVS` Oak Street to minimize impacts on the wetlands and to reduce the area that needs to be committed to automobile circulation.The site slopes downward away from SW Oak Street, thereby necessitating filling the site in order to provide building and site access per ADA requirements and to provide cover/depth for the stormwater management system (water quality and detention) prior to outfall to the south into the wetland area, and to provide relatively level areas for the buildings to be located. This filling of the northern portion of the site along with the relatively dense development pattern necessitated removal of all of the existing (:P:N2)14-(X XX)2'1'I)RZ1144XX X).3/SI)R21)14-I X XX)4/S1.R3)14•(X NK)2-A+(1 APAR1711-NIS PAG F 43 OF 56 trees.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 According to the applicant's narrative, all of 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 Geotechnical Resources,Inc. That study is included as report C in the Impact Assessment portion of this report.The recommendations of the study will be utilized in developing the final grading plan for the project.The geotechnical report offers the following conclusion: "The site is mantled by 1.5 to 23.5 ft of silt, which is underlain by basalt which has decomposed to the consistency of sand. Beneath the decomposed basalt, the site is underlain by predominantly decomposed, extremely soft basalt to the maximum depth explored (26.5 ft). In our opinion, the structural loads of the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread footings established in structural fill or in the medium stiff silt or dense to very dense sand that mantles the site. The folloving sections of this report provide our conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation and earthwork, foundation support, lateral earth pressures, subdrainage and floor support,pavement design, and seismic design considerations. [Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geotechnical Resources, Inc., page 31."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. The four multi-family residential buildings have been situated to maximize sunlight and air into as many dwelling units as practical.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; The preserved open space area on the southern portion of the site will separate the proposed multi-family development project from detached single-family development to the south by over 400-feet. Trees to be planted to the south of and near the base of the retaining wall will help screen the proposed development from views from the south,as will screening materials at the top of the wall and parking area trees.Although the areas immediately to the west of the site are currently developed with detached single-family residences, that area is zoned 11ftJE-1 and is anticipated to be redeveloped with intensive residential, institutional, and/or office development which should be similar in intensity as the proposed A+O Apartments. Nevertheless,landscaping is proposed to be provided on the western portion of the subject site to help provide a buffer between these neighboring uses.This criterion is met. b. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: i. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust,or to provide a visual barrier, ii.The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; iii. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; iv. The required density of the buffering;and v. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Section 18.745.050.E.1 typically requires the screening of parking lots and loading areas from views from adjacent areas. Table 18.745.1 specifies that a Type D buffer of at least 10- feet to 20-feet of width and differing levels of plant materials and fences/calls or hedges between parking lots and areas of single-family development. These buffer standards would therefore apply along the southern and eastern edges of the proposed parking lot because the parking area might be visible from existing single-family development to the southeast and east, and Hwy 217 if not adequately buffered and screened. C;I'A2u14-0(nMi2/rtxt2u144XXX)3/SDR2cnaaxMW;';1.x2tna+Kxxe2—A+OAPARTMOW- IN PAGE 4oFs6 The applicant requests an exception to the parking area buffer and screening standards, as provided. The proposed landscape plans were prepared by David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect. The plans propose that an alternative buffer be allowed to the standards of Section 18.745.050.E.1 to screen the parking lots. The parking area will be well separated from the existing neighboring single-family uses to the south and southeast for which buffering and screening is required. The neighboring single-family uses will be located over 400 feet away from the proposed parking area. As such, views of the parking area would be distant and there would be little, if any, discernible noise or odor effects from use of the parking area upon those neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed wedand area plantings of ash trees and the proposed dense planting of western red cedar trees at the base of the proposed retaining wall will provide much more screening of views of the parking area than would a buffer on the actual edge of the parking lot,with such a buffer designed to the relatively narrow width and plant density standards of Table 18.745.1. The western red cedar trees especially will provide adequate evergreen screening of views of the parldng area. In addition, to address concerns on the screening from the future pedestrian path near Ash Creek, it is proposed that fence fillers (slats, fabric,etc.) be provided along the southern edge of the proposed parking lot if the trail is constructed prior to tree growth providing the required landscape buffer/screening to the parking area from the trail. Fence fillers will be added to the chain-link fence on top of the retaining wall and adjacent to the southern edges of the parking area in order to supplement the screening provided by the cedar trees for up to five years,in order for tree growth to provide adequate screening. FINDING: The applicant submitted an alternative landscape plan to the required parking lot screening,prepared by a registered landscape architect,that arguably attains the same level of buffering and screening or better with alternate materials and methods. Staff finds that the applicant has not considered views from Hwy 217 or the effects of headlight at night and therefore recommends the applicant provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south, as conditioned above. c. 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. The proposed apartments will include two trash and recycling enclosures within the project's parking area. These enclosures mill be constructed of CITU walls with steel gates. Landscaping will be provided adjacent to these trash enclosures to provide near-view screening.Their locations relatively deep into the parking area and site will provide them with adequate screening from adjoining properties,as will the intervening landscaping outside of the parking area. Mechanical equipment on the rooftops of the buildings will be screened from views from neighboring properties by parapets included on the buildings.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; This is a residential development;therefore,this criterion does not apply. 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. (:PA�114-U0002/171)It31114 XXX)3/U)R2(114-(()(Xgy'NA R21)14-iKIU02-A+0 APAR-1Nf1-: rJ\- PAG 1:45 01 56 The exterior elevation articulation standards of this section are superseded b; Section 18.630.060.B. The standards of that section are addressed below. 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. As illustrated on the floor plans, Sheets A2.10 through A2.40, all ground level dwelling units will be provided with patios or decks. Minimum sizes of these decks or patios will be 48 square feet. Nfinitmurn dimensions of any of the decks or patios will be 6 feet of depth. As practical, decks are oriented to maximize solar exposure, but are designed to provide a reasonable degree of privacy. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed 215 residential units will all be studios, 1-bedroom, or 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed development would be required to provide 43,000 square feet of 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: Open area north and west of Building A: 4,247 sq. ft. Community gardens,plaza,and other areas south of Building B: 4,307t sq. ft. Pool,pool deck,plaza,and barbecue pavilion south of Building C: 6,769 sq. ft. Wetlands overlook plaza south of parking area: 1,478 sq. ft. Other usable open space and plaza area: 2.478 sq. ft. Total Usable Active Open Space provided 19,280 sq. ft. In addition, 2,196 square feet of indoor recreation space is provided within Building C, including the following: an activity/media. room (492 square feet); and exercise room (487 square feet); an activity/media room and kitchen (548 square feet):and a rooftop patio (669 square feet). Total Indoor Recreation Space 2,196 sq. ft. Passive recreation areas are provided including the upland areas adjacent to the wetlands and landscape beds throughout the site. Total outdoor passive recreation space 24,103 sq. ft. Total required recreation space 45,579 sq. ft. As allowed by subsection 6.c.iv. above, the combined shared usable outdoor recreation areas, additional indoor recreation area, and passive use open space facilities totals 45,579 square feet of combined area, or 212 square feet per each dwelling unit. This exceeds the minimum standard of 200 square feet of shared outdoor recreation and open space facility per unit. This criterion is met. (:P:\2)14-0(MN),/PI)R2114(MMX)3/SUR21114-((XX)4/SI.R2()14-0(X102-A+O AP. KI'MHNIN P:iGI:46()F 50 All of the proposed usable outdoor recreation areas will be located in fairly open areas and should be readily observable from a number of dwelling units, the parking area, and the sidewalks and drive aisles within the development site. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development is consistent with the minimum number of access points required by Chapter 18.705 (minimum of two access points required; three access points provided).The site plan has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. The project development team met with a representative of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District during the development of the site plans. Modifications to the plans were made to accommodate the Fire District's concerns. The plans have also been provided to Pride Disposal, the trash and recycling service provider for the site area. The plans provide for the dedication of a 20-foot ride public pedestrian easement along Ash Creek for future development of a pathway or boardwalk, as called for by the City of Tigard Parks System Master Plan which discusses a Washington Square Regional Center Trail looping around Washington Square, and following Ash Creek as its primary route. An easement for a connecting trail to SW Oak Street is also proposed to be provided. This criterion is met. 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. This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for such landscape installation. The proposed development plans (Sheet P2.4, Overall Open Space Analysis Plan) call for 48,367 square feet of landscaped area on the site, or 25 percent of the 193,406 square foot development site area. This total landscaped area does not include the minimal use areas below the proposed retaining wall, which also includes the trees and shrubs which have been proposed to provide the required screening and buffering for the parking area. The landscape plan was prepared by and under the direction of David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon.This criterion is met. 9. Public transit: a. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a quarter mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: i.The location of other transit facilities in the area;and ii.The size and type of the proposed development. b.The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as: i.A waiting shelter; ii.A turn-out area for loading and unloading;and iii. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. c. If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the development and the requirement. The northeastern portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of TriMet transit service bus stops at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW I.ocust Street,and portions of the northwestern portion of the proposed development site are slightly more than one quarter mile of TriMet transit stops on NW Greenburg Road. There currently is no transit service on SW Oak Street adjacent to the project site. Tri-Met provided a letter dated (TA21)14-(KXX)2/111)R2[1144XXX)31'SlIR2t)14-(KXX4',q,R2r14-(XXX)2-A+0 APAR MIN7ti PAG I•:4701`56 December 4, 2014 at the City's request which outlines measures to improve access to transit from the subject site including improved sidewalk connectivity and lighting and obtaining an easement for placement of a transit shelter. The city shared TriMet's comments with the applicant who was amenable to considering the suggested improvements. As conditioned above, the applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in Tril✓lees comment letter dated December 4,2014.Therefore, this criterion is met. 10. Parking: a. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; b. Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. The proposed parking areas within the multi-family development project have been designed consistent with the applicable design standards of Chapter 18.765, as reviewed in the findings to that chapter, below. This criterion is met. 11. Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as green streets,porous concrete, or eco roofs. The proposed storm drainage system within the apartment project has been designed consistent with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.810,as reviewed in the findings to that chapter,below.This criterion is met. 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. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The project site includes a substantial area which is within the 100;ear floodplain of.ksh Creek. The applicant is proposing to preserve the floodplain area on the site within a private open space area for long-term preservation. The plans note that the applicant is willing to provide a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of a pedestrian path near Ash Creek,plus an easement for a pedestrian connection between that path and SDC Oak Street.This criterion is met. 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. The open space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following: a. Minimal use facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by reserving areas for minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes,wetlands, streams,or 100-year floodplain). b. Passive use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use. c. Active use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use. d. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat or covenants. (:PA2()144Xtt1U2/1'1)RZ)14tKXX13.'tillR2U14(KKX9/S`lJU)14tXKK)2-.\+OAPARTM1NIS PAGE.4FSO 56 The Detailed Planned Development Plan for the A+O Apartments planned development provides 318,849 square feet of the total site area,over 67 percent of the 472,688 square foot site area (after deduction of additional SW Oak Street right-of-way only) as shared open space areas, whereas a minimum of 20 percent of the site or only 94,538 square feet would be the minimum shared open space required to be provided for this size planned development site. See Sheet P2.4,Overall Open Space Analysis Plan. The total open space areas to be provided will consist of the following: • 273,270 square feet as minimal use facilities or 289 percent of the minimum required area as shared open space use facilities • 24,103 square feet of passive use facilities or 25 percent of the minimum required open space area; • 21,476 square feet of active use facilities or 22.3 percent of the minimum required open space area. This criterion is met. 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. Where considered desirable by the commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies,and where a development plan of the city does not indicate proposed public use areas, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: a. Public ownership. Open space proposed for dedication to the city must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations.A determination of city acceptance shall be made in writing by the parks & facilities division manager prior to final approval. Dedications of open space may be eligible for systems development charge credits, usable only for the proposed development. If deemed to be not acceptable,the open space shall be in private ownership as described below. b. Private ownership. By conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, and granting a conservation easement to the city in a form acceptable by the city. The terms of the conservation easement must include provisions for the following: i.The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; ii. Continuity of property maintenance; iii.When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance; iv. Adequate insurance protection; and v. Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan (2001) includes the Greenbelt, Parks and Open Space System Concept Plan (Figure 7) which shows greenbelt co-terminus with the wetlands on the subject site. The Tigard Park System Master Plan (2009) Map 3: Park Concept Map shows the Washington Square Regional Trail in a general alignment across the subject property. The Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan shows two alternate routes across the subject property, through wetlands (2A) and along SW Oak Street (2B),which is shown as a loin priority on the Prioritized Project List,Table 13. The applicant does not propose open space conveyance, but a ped/bike easement instead. The City Parks Director has determined that a dedication will not be acceptable and that a blanket pedestrian/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A will be an acceptable reservation.As conditioned,this standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the Detailed Development Plan approval Criteria are met or can be met,as conditioned. CPAZv14-(XXX)2'PI)R2()14(XXX)3/S!)R20141XXX)4jS1.R2O14(XXX)2-A+O A1'AW1'K11-, i 15 PA(;P.49 Of-50 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown District, street right- of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.)These are presented in Table 18.810.1 The development is adjacent to S\X' Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630).The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street include a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path. No streets within the development are proposed. This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8, 2014, traffic impact study and a September 16, 2014, Left-turn Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation. The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`' Avenue approach to SW Oak Street.The Left-turn analysis concluded that a left-turn lane along Oak Street was unneeded. This standard may be met by condition. CPA2)14-(KKX)21TDR2014-(KKK)3/SI)R2014-(XXX)4/SI.R2014(NKN)2-A+O 1PARTMENIS PAGt?5l1(1P 56 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage,water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right- of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided.This standard may be met by condition. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. B. Requirement of developers. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The Development Review engineer has determined there are no existing sidewalks on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction. This standard is met. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to cxistmg mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings will be extended to a public line in SW Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1.The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2.Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street;and 3.Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wetland buffer at the south side of the site. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to (.IIA3)140UtX12/1'1)R2014(NNN)3/S7)R2014(KMx)4/',I 1UA)14-(XXX12-.t+0 AIIARIMHNIS RING F,51 OF 56 accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SSR' Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Swales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SIX' Oak Street. This standard may be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event:. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek.This standard may be met by condition. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.810.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek.An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2.The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets;and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergmunding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis.The most common,but not the (:P.A3)14NNxr2f1'DR--0)t4-(NNN)3.ls1)RZ)14(NNN)4/ti).R1)144XXX)2—A+0 APAKIMI7v7S PAGF 52()1`56 only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore, a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety: The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from TVWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (fV`X'D) of the design of water service to the site. T\'WD approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. GradiM and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow all applicable requirements regarding erosion control, particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act, State of Oregon, Clean Water Services, and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuance of the building permit. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings,one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a"V,second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2",etc. Cl'A3314-(KXX)2,'PDR2U14lMNMi3!,q3R2014(xMM)1/S11t31]4(XXX12-AMAPARIMEN S, PAGE.5301:5G SECTION VIII. IMPACT STUDY SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system,the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development.For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest,or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section VI of the applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Reports on transportation, wetlands, geotechnical,waste and recycling, and storm drainage. Item F. Impact Assessment Report by Otak, Inc. summarizes the effect of the proposed development on general compatibility, noise, odors, lighting, signage, transit availability, transportation,and utilities. The applicant has specifically concurred with and has proposed dedication of right-of-way and to make half-street improvements along SW Oak Street. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Development Tax (IDT) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County implementation figures for 2014/2015,TDTs are expected to recapture approximately 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed and upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TI)Ts of approximately $1,098,111 ($5,257 x 215 = $1,130,255 new apartment units - $32,144 for four existing single family dwellings). Based on the estimate that total TMT fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide,a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $3,431,596 ($1,098,111 + 0.32). The difference between the MT paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact Estimated Mitigation 17alue Assessment. Full Impact ........................................................................................................................($1,098,111 +0.32) $3,431,596 Less TDT Assessment..................................................................................................... - 1,098,111 mp Less mitigated values for off-site improvements (Lincoln Street row+ full improvements) -757,000 Estimate of unmitigated impacts $1,576,485 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Oak Street, a collector street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) and stated in the narrative. ?any improvement to SW Lincoln Street,a collector may be TDT is creditable. Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications,assessments,and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION IX. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Police Department was notified and did not comment on the project. The City Public Works Department was notified and commented that the wetland portion of the subject property should have a blanket public pedestrian/bike access easement for implementation of the Washington Square Loop Trail at some point in the future. The City Development Review Engineer (Contact Greg Berry, 503-718-2468) has reviewed the proposal and provided comment in a Memorandum dated November 26,2014,which can be found in the land use file and as an f:Y.i3i74-(XKK)?-'PD2014.(XXX)3iSI)R3)144XXK)4/S1R(1144KX412-A+0 APAWINWPS PAGE.54OF56 attachment to this decision. The findings and conclusions in the Memorandum have been incorporated into this land use decision. SECTION X. AGENCY COMMENTS TriMet reviewed the proposal and provided a comment letter dated December4, 2014,including recommendations for sidewalk connectivity,lighting and transit station improvements on SXX'Greenburg. Metro Planner Gerry Uba reviewed the proposal and commented that "Metro is confident that Clean Water Services will assist the City to implement the amendments appropriately." Clean Water Services Jackie Sue Humphreys (503-681-3600) has reviewed this proposal and issued a letter dated November 18, 2014 stating conditions to be met in association with stormwater connection permit authorization, including compliance with the Service Provider Letter dated August 7,2014 (File No. 14-001441). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue John Wolff(503-259-1504) has reviewed the proposal and offered comments in a letter dated December 3, 2014, that endorses the proposal subject to TVF & R access hydrant location requirements. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, State Historic Preservation Office commented in a letter dated November 18, 2014 that in the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area,extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. A condition of approval will require notification procedures if cultural objects and/or human remains are found during site grading. Oregon Division of State Lands provided a letter to the applicant dated June 13, 2014 concurring with the Pacific Habitat Services wetland and waterway boundaries for the subject site. Frontier John Cousineau(503-643-0371) commented that the project site is within the CenturyLink territory-. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), ODOT (Region 1), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. SECTION XI STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION,AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: Limiting conflicting uses in Goal 5 protected wetlands (CPA) The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. Staff recommends Limiting conflicting uses. Planned Development(PDR) Parking Exemption The applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1% may adversely affect on-street parking in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership. Funding future transportation Developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. Staff recommends the applicant consider a range of improvements associated with SW Lincoln Street such as providing a frill street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path, or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement,and to construct improvements,subject to rough proportionality. (_'PA2u141xKXM2/1'1)R2)14-(MM3.';DR2l)141XKX)4/,,IX21)144XKX)2- \+(), PARTA11SN1� PAGE 55OF56 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands Reviews, and Planned Development are consistent or are conditioned to be consistent witha plicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code Chapters:18.35O Planned Development Review; 18.390.050060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling, 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, sensitive lands reviews, and planned development to City Council subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the result of any deliberations by the Planning Commission. Exhibits: Exhibit A The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer Memo dated December 4,2014 Exhibit B TVF&R Letter dated December 3, 2014 Exhibit C TriMet letter dated December 4,2014 Exhibit D Planned Development Concept Plan (Sheet P2.2) Exhibit E General Detailed Planned Development Plan(Sheet P2.3) PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner hy APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director CPA2M4-OOflp MRlRt44X=3/.q)"n4 O04/SIIU)144)(XW--A+O APARTNU--N'S PAGE 56 OF 57 EXHIBITA °moi- ndum To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner From: Greg Berry,Project Engineer Re: SDR 2014-04;A+O Apartments Date: November 26, 2014 Access Management(Section 18.705) Section 18.705.030.13 requires site plans be presented for approval showing how access requirements are to be fulfilled in accordance with this chapter. The application includes a site and utility plan for a proposed 215 unit apartment complex. Section 18.705.030.D states that all vehicular access and egress ... 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. A driveway directly connected to SVX'Oak St. will provide access to the site. This standard is met. Section 18.705.F Required walkways PIANNIN G Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County,the City and/or AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a preliminarl sight distance analysis concluding that,with certain improvements at the SW 90"' Street intersection,adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met,but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements,the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area,as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area an;•collector or arterial street. This standard is met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a n rumum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet. The standard is met. Section 18.705.030.I includes minimum access requirements for residential use. For multifamily use developments with 50 to 100 units,two accesses are required with a minimum paved width of 24 feet with curbs and a 5-foot sidewalk within a 30-foot width. Standards for the proposed 215 units are not provided. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width and would provide a level of access similar to that required for the development sizes listed.. The standard is met. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 1$,810) Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E requires minimum rights-of- way and street widths for streets adjacent to or within a development. The development is adjacent to SW Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630). The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street includes a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path No streets within the development are proposed. This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 121/6 on collector streets, or 121/a on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8,2014,traffic impact study and a September 16,2014,Left-turn Analysis prepared by Kittelson&Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation. The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`h Avenue approach to SW Oak Street. The Left-turn Analysis concluded that a left-tum lane along Oak Street was unneeded. This standard may be met by condition. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access,circulation,control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other bodies of water or,pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Additional connections in this area are precluded by surrounding wetlands and existing development. Easements: Section 18.810.050 states that easements for sewers, drainage,water mains,electric lines, or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of the watercourse. Section 18.810.050.B states that a property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city,the applicable district,and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for mainline easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company,applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided. This standard may be met by condition. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards along at least one side of private and industrial streets. No streets are proposed. This standard is met. Section 18.810.070.B states that if there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk,subject to rough proportionality. No additional sidewalks are required. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.819.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek. An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Sewer Plan approval- Section 18.810.090.B requires that the applicant obtain City Engineer approval of all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings will be extended to a public line in SIX'Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wetland buffer at the south side of the site. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility,based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SW Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility,the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2007 and including any future revisions or amendments). Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek. This standard may be met by condition. Storm Water uality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management(SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 07-20)which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management and shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition,a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Swales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SW Oak Street. This standard mai-be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS)completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces of more than 1,000 square feet provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention,but a fee-in-lieu would be required. The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary detention calculations for an underground system. This standard may be met by condition. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines,but not limited to those required for electric, communication,lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground,except for surface mounted transformers,surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground,temporary utility service facilities during construction,high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above,and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities,including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only,such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore,a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits Fire and Life Safety: The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire &Rescue M'F&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District MWD)provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from TVWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) of the design of water service to the site. TVWD approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction,grading,excavating, clearing,and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations,the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow:all applicable requirements regarding erosion control,particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act,State of Oregon,Clean Water Services,and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. . Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water,sewer,storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuance of the building permit. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of$50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings,one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall provide a suite layout reap so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "l",second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a"2",etc. Sensitive Lands (Section 18.775.070) Section 18.775.070.B.2 requires that land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill,new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.3 requires that land form alterations or developments within the 100- year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map. Proposed land form alterations are confined to portions of the site designated as MUE-1. Section 18.775.070.B.4 requires that where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.5 requires that land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Dedication of a public pedestrian easement is proposed. Since there are no current plans for a pathway, an easement will be required over the entirety of the floodplain. An approved easement agreement is required before beginning work and must be recorded before final inspection. Section 18.775.070.B.7 requires that the necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,Division of State Lands,and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained, The applicant has submitted applications for these permits. Approved permits will be required before beginning any work Section 18.775.070.B.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Section 18.775.070.D.2 requires that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development in a drainageway will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use. The disturbance will be limited to that required to replace the portion of the drainageway along the western side of the site with a public with a public storm drain. This requirement is expected to be met. Section 18.775.070.D.3 requires that he proposed land form alteration or development within the drainageway will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation,ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Relocating the drainageway to a storm drain and providing an adequate outfall is expected to prevent these adverse effects. Section 18.775.070.D.4 requires that the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The storm drain receiving the flow from the drainageway will have adequate capacity. This requirement will be met. Section 18.775.070.D.5 where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Restoration will be required at the southern end of the drainageway. This work is expected to be required by the permits of other agencies. Section 18.775.070.D.6 requires that the drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The public storm drain replacing the drainageway will be sized to have the required capacity. Section 18.775.070.D.7 requires that the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands and CWS approvals shall be obtained for work within a drainageway. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and CVS permit applications have been submitted. Approved permits will be required before any work begins. Section 18.775.070.D.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE: Submit to the Engineering Department(Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements, public utility issues, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Cleanwater Sen.ices,and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the street design which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40-foot right-of-way half width. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer of an design access report. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them,including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction, operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District M`WD) of the design of water service to the site. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue UVF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site,the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual,February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide an approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department(Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Services) for all work to be done on site. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer,storm drainage,water,etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenance plans. The developer's engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,and are of high grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter with trees,lights,underground utilities and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40- foot right-of-way half width. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete construction of the stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of the complete construction of the proposed driveways. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue (IVF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessary construction prior to final inspection. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. ]:\[-.N(;\Uerdopn=t LinginerrirW\Oak\SI)R 14(KMM4Comments A+O,Apts r12-&Adom EXHIBIT 8 e www.tqr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue December 3,2014 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Re: A+O Apartments Planned Development Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking` signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read"NO PARKING -FIRE LANE"and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load(wheel load)and 60,000 pounds live load(gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (OFC D102.1) 3) PAINTED CURBS: Where required,fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background.(OFC 503.3) 4) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS-REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute(GPM)or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office- (OFC 8105.3) Please provide a current fine flow test of the nearest fire hydrant demonstrating available flow at 20 psi residual pressure as well as fire flow calculation worksheets. Please forward copies to both TVF&R as well as your water purveyor. Fire flow calculation worksheets as well as instructions are available on our web site at www.tvfr.com. 5) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C,Table C 105.1. Determine number of hydrants required from fre flow calculations and distribute to meet minimum distance and spacing requirements.An additional hydrant may need to be installed on SW 950 to meet this requirement. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: North Operating Center Command&Business OperaWns Center South Operating Center Training Center 20665 SW Blanton Street and Central Operating Center 7401 SW Washo Court 12400 SW Torquin Road Aloha,Oregon 97007-1042 11945 SW 70"Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062.8350 Sherwood,Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-2400 1lgard,Oregon 97223-9196 503-259-1500 503-259-1600 503-649-8577 www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley FYre & Rescue • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject budding that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. 6) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS: To distinguish private fire hydrants from public fire hydrants, private fire hydrants shall be painted red (OFC 507.2.1, NFPA 24&291) 7) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 510.1) 8) PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6) 9) CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) 10) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 11) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506.1) 12) PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet numbers. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a t/z inch stroke. (OFC 505 1) 13) FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for HVAC, fire sprinklers risers and valves or other fire detection, suppression or control features shall be identified with approved signs. (OFC 509.1) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The above listed criteria are preliminary potential applicable conditions that MAY apply to this project. If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, v John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal Copy: TVF&R File Page 1 2 EXHIBIT C ► �) I1 December 4,2014 Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner 13125 5W Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Case File Number,CPA 2014-2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development on SW Oak St. TriMet Bus Lines 76 & 78 serve the area with a bus stops located on SW Greenburg Rd at Washington Square Rd. These stops see an average of 80 people boarding and alighting on weekdays. In addition 4 lifts of riders in mobility devi,;es occur on an average month at this location. Activity may increase with development. T'iiMet is interested in maintaining this stop and hopes to safely encourage ridership through supportive development. The purpose of our recommendations is to minimize traffic impacts of new development and maximize ridership by encouraging patterns that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian supportive. TRIMET STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Ensure sidewalk connectivity: Presently+he south side of Oak Street has gaps in the sidewalk infrastructure. Developer should ensure that there is a safe and comfortable pathway to walk to Greenburg Rd from the new development. Consider sidewalk lighting: The nature of the streetscape is conducive to shadows. Proper lighting will ensure new residents feel comfortable walking to and from the bus. Consider negotiating an easement with the owner of the property at 10250 SW Greenburg Rd for the purpose of a shelter: Shelter from the elements can make taking transit much more palatable. There is not sufficient public right-of-way for a shelter. This is the properly adjacent to the bus stop where residents of this development would most likely board. If an easement were to be obtained and a 5' deep by 20' wide concrete pad were placed behind the right-of-way, TriMet could place and maintain a shcher for residents wishing to take the bus. Again,thank you for your time and consideration, If you have any questions,please contact me at 503-962-6478. — _$incereiy. _ y Grant O'Connell, Planner II Transit Development Capital Projects I n-Cuun y Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 1800 SW t st Av:,+ue '; +.+c,rortland,Oregon 97201 9 50?-238-RIDE t.r s ) + 1; : • t linnet 131(4 Exhibit D frontage Improvement To SW Greenburg Rd, TO s HWY217and - _. - Hal Washington Square dW I} 9 d dedicated public trail a ---- e - 7 pariung wetland buffer boundary parking I welland/buffer fill a j - parking extent of grading landsc4e..bu" !.J.................._-------_ ........... ...:~'/--/ _,) ., - wetland � overlook Origin;site area 11.17 acres a Right of way dedication 0.32 acres Net site 10.85 acres C/] .- Rause c+eek. 4tgn restor4twn open meadow Existing wedands 6.62 acres Proposed wetlands fill 0.42 acres W o +✓ }3 f` Preserved wetlands 6.20 acres Planned Development Concept Plan • 11 17 acre property z • Approximately 4.44 acre development site ��..., + Approximately 050 acre wetland fill Ash Creek F �U m • APproximately6.80acre wetla+ds/openspace Multl-family buildings 4 story 210.225 dwelling units total I Density target 50-55 dwelling units/acre n..iue+irv. i - Pool and other recreation opportunities f Enhanced wetland meadow Future trail easement to Ash Creek trail or boardwalk • Oak Street frontage improvement t I P2.2 I , t "� a �:�'��:' ���a:��`•:''•' J s: S :lir; :•F� ::':':::::::•: ;:;:::. - - ' \ :< X. ........... . ... ........ PHI rim cn R � I PLANNING SUBMITTAL 9/18/14 L� A+0 APARTMENTS CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DBG OAK OTIM.114 N UK A PAM Pucc r GJ � OVERALL DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUN TFo*nA '�2 AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: January 13, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2014-00002 Planned Development Review DR)2014-00003 Site Development Review SDR 2014-00004 Sensitive Lands Review SLR�2014-00002) A+ O APARTMENTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: DBG Oak Street,LLC OWNER: Oland,Ltd. c/o Skip Grodahl c/o The Othman Group 2164 SW Park Place 215 SW Washington Street,Suite 202 Portland, OR 97204 Portland,OR 97204 LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of SW Oak Street opposite SW 90th Avenue at 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street; comprised of Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, and 4400 and Washington County Tax Map 1S1 35AD Tax Lot 1303. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space, Goal 9 Economic Development, Goal 10 Housing, Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services, Goal 12 Transportation, and Goal 13 Energy Conservation; Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12 ,and 13;applicable Federal (USACE),State, or Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues or regulations. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit n Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: January 13,2015 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent—(Speaking In Favor Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,.Address&Phone No. Name,address Phone No. Name,.Address&Phone No. r�17(Z41����`�� fo -7sn 4o�rr Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Ph ne No. Name ddress&Phone No. /Q) 3L)2743 G a 0 , C15� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. '� �� (�(CLS to a-3( �iW )A9 1 -- A rp o e- Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,_Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. 111m if P'gl?.I N '*40 5W COAOir-5v ' (C'rA�f., D 2- Oa22- Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. logL 6 s k/ T;Sa�►-� a�, �i �L z Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit n Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: January 13, 2015 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent—(Speaking In Favor Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,.Address&Phone No. me,Ad e s&Phone No. / Name,address&Phone No. i 6 ( 14L-6.0�w 14 J j7 r z J Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. A(A'Kt j -rrw 7310 8W RilSa P-1514+ T10" a� q 5� , - jai 6 (- I C16 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. V `c' 6- e ms D 'f ' rqa�4 72 Name,.Address&Phone No. Ne,_Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. r`1( WA.rre� So s \/ ICP2 Aw. . Soars Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. StiNn Lp�� X073 ° sw 7zw� � V3 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. r) I QxPOLY S03 3A0 — C3S-7 Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit n Testimony Carol Krager From: Councilmail Councilmail Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:08 PM To: John Goodhouse; Marc Woodard; Marland Henderson;John Cook;Jason Snider;Council Email Dump Subject: FW: Remarks,for the record/tonight From: Marty Wine Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:08:24 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada) To: Karen Crichton Cc: Councilmail Councilmail Subject: FW: Remarks, for the record/tonight Dear Ms. Crichton, At Mayor Cook's request I am sending you information to respond to your email to the Tigard City Council on Saturday and again today about the meeting notice and materials. The City has met the notice requirements to inform the public of the place, time and agenda of the meeting 10 days in advance of the meeting. As such, a request for the Planning Commission to revisit the decision is not indicated. Below are the Tigard development code requirements for Type IV hearings; the dates that the notices were mailed and published are noted in red below. 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure D. Notice of hearing. 1. Required hearings. Two hearings, one before the commission and one before the council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the City Council is required. 2. Notification requirements. Notice of the public hearings for the request shall be given by the director in the following manner: a. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: (mailed 11-3-2014) i.The applicant; ii. Any affected governmental agency; iii. Any city-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and iv. Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council resolution. b. At least 10 business days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the city.(Pub 11-20-2014) c. The director shall: i. For each mailing of notice, cause an affidavit of mailing to be filed and made a part of the record as provided by subparagraph 2.a of this subsection D; and ii. For each published notice, cause an affidavit of publication to be filed and made part of the record as provided by subparagraph 2.b of this subsection D. As to getting access to the record, the record can be accessed via web links to the documents posted on the websites of the City Council or Planning Commission agenda,and also the City Recorder's web page links. We did experience periodic trouble with the links the project files on the City Recorder site, but those were checked and fixed within hours of knowing that they were not working. What is placed on our website is in addition to other ways to get to the record—people can also come in to view or get copies of the record on request, or have them sent electronically for a small cost, and the Council packet materials are available to be viewed for free in the Tigard r Public Library. In addition to accessing the records online, the required notice states,in part: "Public Information Requests: A copy of the application, documents and evidence considered will be contained in the public record and available for public review. If you would like to review this material at no cost, please schedule an appointment with Lora Garland, Records Management Specialist, 503-718-2483. If you wish to receive copies of the materials, city records will prepare them for you at a reasonable cost." To the best of my knowledge,if you believe a violation of public meetings law occurred,remedy is sought by filing the complaint in circuit court. I do not believe that the Ethics Commission is involved in such allegations. I invite any further questions or concerns you have. I can understand your frustration in the moment you could not get to the documents online, and I recommend that if that occurs and you can reach out to our staff to let us know accessing the documents is a problem,we can and will work to be sure they are available through all the means explained above. The city agree that the intent of the public meetings law and notice requirements is transparency, and city did nothing to interfere with that in intent or practice. Thanks, and regards, Marty Wine Marty Wine tett'M msggt 0 0MCIT 503.7111144 4 cut N6-4194NI tMM1 manye"Prd•4►Rav wo wwwollard-Or.Kov ciFy of,rj¢yra I COf1'MA*4MWNRtf 31125 3W Mqt 6otlavard,VW4.CM 97123 From: Councilmail Councilmail Sent:Tuesday,January 13, 2015 1:24 PM To:John Goodhouse; Marc Woodard; Marland Henderson;John Cook;Jason Snider; Council Email Dump; Marty Wine Subject: FW: Remarks, for the record/tonight From: Karen C Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:24:17 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Councilmail Councilmail Cc: Carol Krager Subject: Remarks, for the record/tonight Regarding the A + O apartments proposal - PA) 2014-00002 (PDR)2014-00003 / (SDR)2014-0000 / (SLR)2014-000 2 . Carol Krager From: Councilmail Councilmail Sent: Tuesday,January 13, 2015 1:24 PM To: John Goodhouse; Marc Woodard; Marland Henderson;John Cook;Jason Snider, Council Email Dump; Marty Wine Subject: FW: Remarks, for the record/tonight From: Karen C Sent: Tuesday,January 13, 2015 1:24:17 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Councilmail Councilmail Cc: Carol Krager Subject: Remarks, for the record/tonight Regarding the A + 0 apartments proposal - PA) 2014-00002 (PDR)2014-00003 / (SDR)2014-0000 / (SLR)2014-000 To refresh your memory - I had contacted you after the Dec. 15th Tigard Planning Commission meeting regarding this development, because I was unable to open & view all the relevant files on your website, before that meeting. Again, these are files you are *required* to provide to the public in a transparent, timely manner. I have checked for the doc(s) regularly ever since - and have been unable to open the "public comments" doc until JUST NOW. This makes it clear it was a tech problem at your-end, and you chose not to correct it in time for me/anyone to view all the relevant docs before tonight's meeting. When the public is only able to view a document a few hours before a decision is made, it violates public disclosure requirements. Therefore, now that all the docs are *finally* accessible, and I find there was relevant information contained there, I call for you to postpone tonight's Council meeting & vote, and hold a new Planning Commission meeting & vote on this development. This is from the same ORS section that I'd quoted when I filed a Federal discrimination against the City of Tigard, FYI; 192.620 Policy. The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. [1973 c.172 §1] As for the proposed-development itself - I always find it informative to review others' comments, when I am involved in a local issue. Now that I can view them - I find that this time is no exception. There are long- i time Tigard residents who provided well-informed opposition to the development, there. So, for the record - I agree with the points laid-out by those who have written in- opposition (no one wrote in-favor, by the way). Sincerely, Karen Crichton DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 . Carol Krager From: Councilmail Councilmail Sent: Saturday,January 10, 2015 6:30 AM To: John Goodhouse; Marc Woodard; Marland Henderson;John Cook;Jason Snider; Council Email Dump; Marty Wine Subject: FW: Good morning From: Karen C Sent: Saturday,January 10, 2015 6:30:04 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Councilmail Councilmail Cc: ogec.mail@oregon.gov Subject: Good morning Leading up to Friday-before the December 15th Planning Commission meeting (A + O Apt. proposal on the agenda), I was able to view all the documents in the files attached to your "public notice" post on the City website. But on the Friday before the meeting, I was unable to open the "public comments" link on this post. I easily opened other documents there. I had intended to use some of the information contained in those wise & well-researched public-comments to do further research, ahead of the PC meeting. I found this broken-link to violate the legally-required transparency at the heart of the public-posting requirement for publicly-owned documents. I was able to view this doc since then, so I was confident I would be able to utilize it this weekend. And now - here we are again, it's the weekend before the next meeting on this matter, and I cannot open this particular document - again. So, I am now calling for a new Planning Commission hearing & vote, before this matter can be considered by the Council. This email has been copied-to the Oregon Ethics Commission, I will discuss the issue further with them directly, next week. Sincerely, Karen Crichton DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 f J T6- 1, g a r a C +l C o u n(', l SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 0;jJ i Oct I I FO(ATE l _ / 3 - a is— OF MEETING) Vj ar4) OR 4Dar Co u n c I t�1is 4-Skory ayar> mend compIt-X gels c, pooI-ho(d , ct PIAnilck.-i >t of h+g k rlsP;S W i I I Lol lov( dowiN O zk Slree t,, W ll-h +k c h i e s s i n 9 s o4 +6 +A&ns of hi'9h Finance, O� Se,akre. , +.kis area. JI became a W,.\,- zone, 4redevt1 opyntnMetzger Sck01) c¢ hfz,cr� in 4s Iotah'on an SW a0}�`; will be +he f1r51 �iC Jmn An el041 mite. From lt�ave co-n&+ruc ion is no plvu }-or ch',Ir ref-I Ln �6e ?9010 's, pr6mo�ion fdr- +he -251den+e, "PurkwaV ealfed for rkloLahan OF 5e hool , Js green acres deemed Aen - as now - 16Lnd vvas4e.d. 6n k",ds , No aIferna4-1v�,- 51k Nos foand. Pre side.vi�s Parkwa� 'S 9(or) Fjec( plan �o pug a, 12—ucrz idtke , 5 t,rrom/,q J bg r4 --ail shops and re&faaran+s on +h.e Flooedplaly\ +hay clbtA- +ht c1par+me-nt ea%k , exe.mpliF-its +he d icho Ye-my 4-hAt j.xi5r-5 b-cfweea those who see VaI ue in open space and Iho5t, who 5e.e. 0PR-v1 space aS wGSI-ect VAIuE . Metzger school provides oVial4l eclucc4ion for 650 Sl-�ndenls. �+ i5 a social cen+er cAnd inforrnat+ion resource for +k c, w'holc cotnmunil-� . Metzyor- kay always bsen a desirAle, Place. f-a 1►✓e . leo busy urger"jeds bisecf our heiyk6arkod-5 W4.1ker5 , J031W5, and btcL�cli�, s c+ijoy a. Reace uncteVtIev virvaekli unckan jea in a PaS+- 5o 9ears rs} in i I I ini . J'ropzY--t) ve, ae.s w'1 i! • ✓� wi)1 fell r� ,Yur C.omrnun'i4q is +o foe -rvi4ou+ A viab)� .J.2men4-ury sC, ojl. COn41--loins Alread] zx*154- VkO& 1 +'mid +hQ Sg3,care`s ��lans }o rec�evelop the IaTtd. NVt5f o� 4al) '6j-v& , OP-av°S rain }urns SVS( �lo� �n� o a r�v�r flown j Prom Stns LocwSf 3, 06(k., On +he �iUOAPIA)r) 2o, ,)50 Cy off- hea-Y-1 Con7�rUj)oyj Fii I Par CL lno[e� Oh Git-Ren bury • ACIVt r-CduCeCL V4/e0a)1e( hold,1, n3 CUpaCi+� b 4, o bo, 000 Lo-Vns , SfOrm i,va+i: s`rarn she Tiyard Fired hte�er sf-ore. blowy info )ire Flood pla.►rn via Ash 'braok. Som'- 40 sin9le. Fd,rnily ho-wits art Slakd for Csns� ri.kc �io'n 'it) a. 1�Ck F-Y)1iats OF + :Jhol:)P,n9 e-ehle.r, Add f,--, 4+'s }ke di'ma+c recast 4 heavy-e-r rw'nPed l fr$�V, Pd6 f�c. Nor}kwe s+. No s 4-r,6 4-J a c k e t b i n el s las �o a 'Zara c�o.r►cJ.e, m a.19- in ano4w r dP-a LoU ope ci al 11 or- Ce r+&)n +p do 7u c.k harm }-o ours eomrnu�n i+J . A Com prehan.sive. ?rUT857iOY%&j 5btrv-eu 0f i! +k-p- OorrtOf r3 d= Ash anr.1 �ann� C,reuks cot,, 1a 9� id-z �Ia►�riinj , prev2r,-1 �o,i-I1 -p��pe,-4J hi c�lou�ge, until �l�►er- insurcu-i ce rat-es, i1 d Savz our school . a vision _f ekeelsk phis opp3r4uh'i . �i►'��e rtlti It is in our power to imagine the world vve want for our children. For most of us, this is a world where our basic needs for food, shelter and safety, as well as our yearning for nurturing and love, 1310 3hi Pil%tc ��F � far justice and peace, and for a sense that what we do I ic)ura� 971-.3 has meaning and helps others as well as ourselves, are fulfilled. Above all, it is a world where our children survive and thrive. It is up to us to help create the conditions (� that support this vision. Kiane Gisler 'The Real Wealth of Nations` • SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR 1 - / 3 - --'G / e k Co (DATE OF MEETING) ' e The Ash Creek Coaf t on rte,Rive Fms of Fanno,Creek _ Audubon society of Ported Crestwood Headwab=v up Concened Cities of M /T"igard Petition to Tigard City Council for presentation at January 130 2015 public hearing Please deny the proposed applications for the 215-unit apartment complex on Oak St. 002014--00002, PDR20i4-00003, SDR:014-00004, S1.R2014-00002. Allowing high-density development in a 100-year floodplain/wetland that has a history of flooding every 50 years will put people and property at risk.The proposal does not meet the Washington Square Regional Center conditions and is requesting variances including removing 0.42 acres of delineated wetlands from the Comprehensive Plan's Wetlands and Stream Corr;dor map's Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant wetlands designation along with removal of the same area from the`significant Hauis:at areas snap. Please deny the proposed application. Name ands address: 2. DoeA`LD LTottt�5oN __ 03 , 1. 11IN , yt T/js, ,d geg `'l7ZZ3 3. r•si� �c �,� ^ jv1& I Sw a7r`' 7.)-13 4. 5�•'' iN 31 4l� 5y,) C��hK�QEh� S 4 1 i(a pt 12Rf2Z 6. � `l '131 O -P, -Po)",cd R 7 9-23 7. 8. 9. 10. 21. 1.2. 13. geek Co � The Ash Creek Caidirxvn TuWatin Riverkeepers Fans of>~anno Creek Audubon socia of Pa Miand C.reawood ik-adwa=s Grout Conte Citiam ofh+>atgW/T igard Petition to Tigard City Council for presentation at January 13, 2015 public hearing Please deny the proposed applications for the 215-unit apartment complex on Oak St. CP02014-00002, PDR2014-00003, SDR2014-00004, SLR2014-00002. Allowing high-density development in a 100-year floodplain/wetland that has a history of flooding every 50 years will put people and property at risk.The proposal does not meet the Washington Square Regional Center conditions and is requesting variances including removing 0.42 acres of delineated wetlands from the Comprehensive Plan's Wetlands and Stream Corridor map's Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant wetlands designation along with removal of the same area from the Significant Habitat areas map. Please deny the proposed application. Name and address: 1. qago 5w A v*, ixik OV, gIA3 3 2. 4 3 s-�11 I J, 2;�z3 s"o3-y5--21 3. �ti'�' r7� ���e w3r/1(, 12l �' SO D `17223 5. 74or Stw ,l7Z23 5z;5 S; I. 6. j ` w 7,' e '- ej7LZ3 8. O_V\Vr,'<�,V�e7jaa, L7 led 602 c)-7 �J 10. ya&l 12. /L S1 v 1N i :IA c ( 1ti--Ll J, 13. inl�i� 14t,Ik r r C, 75-43 tifc Avc 3 lo JW T Aa, Sign this petition y� r, First name w 1 ast namp -1 "i 13 United States Petitioning City of Tigard City Council •. ' Street address Deny the proposed applications Zip code for the 215 unit apartment i I'm signing because— (optional) complex on Oak St. CP02014- 0 0 0 0 2, PDR 2 014-0 0 0 0 3, 9 f Share with Facebook friends SDR2014-00004, SLR2014-00002. ;lit Warr: II Display my signature on Change.org By signing.you accept Change.org's terms of ssrvics and V and agree to receive occasbW ertMils about Allowing high density development in a 100-year floodplain/wetland that has a campafgr»at Changs.ag.You can urwAno lbs at any Wm history of flooding every 50 years will put people and property at risk. A letter from the state floodplain manager cautions against this development because the City of Tigard will no longer qualify to be in the national flood insurance program. Taxpayers will be culpable for property damage and legal challenges. According to FEMA it is not buildable land. Legitimicy of The Washington Square Regional Center can be challenged because there were too many unanswered questions and contradictions between local jurisdictions. In spite of Metro assuring there would be no up zone in residential neighborhoods and open space lands, City of Tigard up zoned from R4.5 units per acre to 50+ units per acre mixed use. There was no public support or citizen requests for State agencies incorporated in the plan. This isn't a question of if it will flood, but when.With climate change the next flood will be extreme. On the map the wavy line is Oak St., the yellow line is Hall Blvd. I submit this testimony in opposition to the application from A&O Apartments,requesting several actions of the Tigard City Council: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection from the Plan's"Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map." 2. Sensitive Lands Review(SLR)approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping of the existing ground surface to decrease the floodplain area without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the site. 3.A parking exception to reduce required parking below what is required by the development code. By their own admission,The developer has determined that without these concessions,this development just doesn't pencil out. And as I explained to the Planning Commission last month,you don't have any obligation to improve the ROI on any development. But you DO have a responsibility to protect the interests of this city's residents and its taxpayers. I am opposed to this development for the following reasons: The development would be built in a flood plain The City Staff report makes no mention of the implications to the City in allowing a development inside flood plain boundaries,including financial and legal liability issues that could arise. Yet this is perhaps the most important aspect of this application. The development has inadequate parking Residents of the apartments will have to park their cars on the street,and it should be noted that neither Oak Street or 90th Ave have developed streets with curbs on both sides. This will add to congestion in the area. The development would destroy wetlands There was much discussion in the Planning Commission over the'quality'of the wetlands that would be impacted,but as a resident reminded us in her testimony: the wetlands aren't for US,they're a refuge for wildlife and an essential system for maintaining good water quality.Designated wetland areas should stay intact in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances. The area has insufficient infrastructure to suaport a development of this size 90th Ave appears to have inadequate drainage, and Ash Creek may be overloaded with runoff during heavy rains. During heavy storms,all of the runoff will be headed for the development,and the flood plain in which it will sit. Inadequate sidewalks in the area There are no sidewalks that residents can use to get to/from a bus stop. There are no continuous sidewalks that will allow kids to walk to school without having to go into the street. The sidewalk required by the City simply creates another'sidewalk to nowhere'along Oak St. Although they recommended approval to the Planning Commission and now the City Council,The Applicant and our City Staff have not made a compelling case that the city benefits in any significant way from granting these waivers. The risks to the City and it's residents far exceed any benefit the community would realize in having these apartments built. I urge you to protect the taxpayers of this city from financial liability,uphold the city's parking and zoning requirements, and reject this application. Stephen Bintliff 13520 SW 122nd Ave Tigard,OR Gary Pagenstecher From: Elise Shearer <elisesarge2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 6:06 PM To: Councilmail Councilmail; Marty Wine; Mark Bernard; Mike McCarthy; Tom McGuire; Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Per Item #6 on tonight's agenda I apologize for not making it to the hearing tonight as I have a severe head cold and do not want to share it with the crowd at Town Hall. 1. I would like to applaud and support the development of the Oak St. apartment complex across from Metzger School. I have read the staff report and scanned other docs about the wetlands mitigation and believe that if the developer follows staff recommendations,this could be an excellent workforce housing development near Washington Square and the Lincoln Center,preserving greenspace, adding to the trail system and making the area more walkable. Proximity to transit is good with the Washington Square Transit Center with access to six transit routes about 1.1 miles away (four minutes by car). 2. The only concern I have is directly concerned with the "Safe Routes to School" program. The question of whether Lincoln Avenue is made a through street, and the intersection now created at SW 90th Avenue and Oak Street by the driveway of the complex, set up traffic safety issues including increased vehicle traffic count, potential pedestrian and student crossings. I hope that all efforts will be made to install a sidewalk along Oak Street from 90th to Lincoln, as well as crosswalks being put in at both locations and four- way stop signs. 3. Even if Lincoln Avenue is not made a through street,the sidewalk makes sense and would support the safety of the pedestrians and students walking in the Metzger School neighborhood. Where the money will come from to do this will be an issue. This also would directly support the Metzger neighborhood community which is currently mostly unincorporated but served by the City of Tigard Utility District. Due to past history, brownie points could be accrued by the City of Tigard for annexation goals in the distant future. Thank you for your concern about this matter. i OTHMANg`aROUP PORILANO 1 ERBIL / ABU ONABI January 6,2015 Mayor John Cook and City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97224 RE:Multi-use path connecting between SW Lincoln Street and SW Oak Street Dear Mayor Cook and City Councilors, I represent Orland,Ltd.,the owners of tax lots 3300 and 3302 of WCTM 1S1 35AB located on the north side of SW Oak Street,just east of Lincoln Center.These parcels he south of the current southern end of SW Lincoln Street. Orland,Ltd.,has agreed to provide a 12-foot wide pathway easement and any necessary construction easement over these parcels to DBG,LLC,with the intention that DBG,LLC will construct a 10-foot wide asphalt multi-use path between SW Lincoln Street and SW Oak Street and then convert the easement to a public pedestrian easement. Please be aware that we plan on the pedestrian easement to be located such that this area will later be incorporated into the right-of-way for SW Lincoln Street when that street is extended to connect with SW Oak Street.The multi-use path would then be replaced by the improved street and sidewalk. Sincerely, d�� awza Ot n The Othman Group On behalf of Orland,Ltd. 215 SW WASHINGTON STREET SUITE 202 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 P.19713026983 F.1 971 544 7698 H,U'-O G k1sl 0�V PORTLAND I ERBIL I ABU BNABC January 6,2015 Mayor John Cook and City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97224 RE: SW Lincoln Street north of SW Oak Street Dear Mayor Cook and City Councilors, I represent Orland,Ltd.,the owners of tax lots 3300 and 3302 of WCTM 1S1 35AB.These parcels are located on the north side of SW Oak Street,just east of Lincoln Center.These parcels lie south of the current southern end of SW Lincoln Street. It is understood that the City of Tigard will at some time want SW Lincoln Street to be extended to connect with SW Oak Street,thereby requiring that right-of-way be acquired from these two parcels. On behalf of Orland,Ltd.,I would like to say that we understand the City's desire to extend SW Lincoln Street through these parcels. Orland, Ltd.,is willing to cooperate with the needed right-of-way acquisition for this section of SW Lincoln Street at a fair market value for the affected property. However,please note that extending the full 62-foot right-of-way width of SW Lincoln Street from the north across Orland Ltd's properties would greatly reduce their development potential so we would hope that we can agree with the City on the right-of-way width tapering from 62-feet at the north side of tax lot 3300 to approximately 50-feet in width where it intersects with SW Oak Street. It should be understood that Orland,Ltd's agreement to cooperate in providing the necessary right-of-way for extension of SW Lincoln Street should in no way prohibit the owner from developing the affected properties consistent with the exiting zoning. Improvement of this section of SW Lincoln Street should be the responsibility of the developer(s) whose development project(s) triggers the need for the street improvements based upon the City's review of their development applications.Orland,Ltd.,is willing to commit that Orland,Ltd.,or the developer of Orland's property will pay their proportionate share of the needed street improvements at the time of improvement of the street. Sincerely, � awzad O a `Irhe' Othman Group On behalf of Orland,Ltd. 215 SVC'WASl lINGTON STREET SUITE 202 PORTLAND.OREGON 9.204 1-.19713026983 F.19715447698 !i t Transmittal Emerio Design Cell: 503-780-4061 8285 SW Nimbus Ave, Suite 180 Email: ryano@emeriodesign.com Beaverton, Oregon 97008 TO: Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner FROM: Ryan O'Brien, Planning Consultant DATE: 1-5-15 SUBJECT: A + O Apartments I represent Gene Davis, the owner of property on the north and south side of Oak Street adjacent to the proposed A+O Apartments. We request changes to the following approved Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 8 to require public right-of-way dedication for the extension of Lincoln Street to Oak Street over Tax Lots 3300 and 3802, Map lS1-35AB when determined to be necessary by the City of Tigard. City of Tigard Proposed Conditions 7 and 8 7. The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identifies in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised development plans to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality, as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Orland LTD owns these tax lots and also owns the property where the A+O Apartment will be developed (See attached Tax Map). We assume Tax lot 3300 and 3802 were purchased so Orland LTD could extend Lincoln Street in the event it was required for the A+O Apartments. An agreement recorded as a deed restriction on Tax Lots 3300 and 3802 should be required to assure the right-of-way dedication will occur. Otherwise, the Tax Lots 3300 and 3802 could be sold and the new property owners may not agree with the right-of-way dedication. This agreement needs to be recorded prior to issuance of development permits for the 1 A+O Apartments. This condition of approval modification will provide the proportionality as identified in following Section 18.810.020.A of the Tigard Development Code. 18.810.020 General Provisions 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 facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directl related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. If this right-of-way dedication Condition of Approval is not specific, too much discretion and confusion will result from the city, property owner and applicant attempting to determine how to comply with Condition of Approval No. 8. This street dedication is also necessary to comply with Condition of Approval No. 7 for pedestrian access. Clearly this right-of-way is needed for access to the Lincoln Center. Future development of Lincoln Street will help relieve AM peak hour left turning movements from 90`h Avenue to Locust Street. With this option, the property owner will have a clear understanding about the proportionality requirement. We are not asking the applicants or the property owner to develop Lincoln Street. We are only requesting street dedication. If this street dedication is not required with the approval of this application, we have no option except to request city condemnation of the right-of-way so additional development applications can be submitted to the city. This process will be very expensive and time consuming. Orland LTD should dedicate the Lincoln Street right-of-way just to be good neighbors and to benefit all property in the Lincoln Center area including the future residents of the A+0 Apartments. The next development along Oak Street will probably push the capacity of surrounding streets to an unacceptable level of service which will require construction of the Lincoln Street extension. Possibly 600 more apartments can be developed in the area in addition to hotels and other commercial buildings. It is important for the city to be able to properly plan for future development of the Lincoln Center area. The benefit of the Lincoln Street dedication is the opportunity for future developers in the area to build this Lincoln Street so the owners of Tax Lots 3300 and 3802 will have a fully developed street on their property. If the owners of Tax Lots 3300 and 3802 submit a development application for these tax lots, then they would be required to build the Lincoln Street extension. This street dedication appears to be a great benefit for future development of Tax Lots 3300 and 3802. 2 We have discussed this with Nawzad Othman who represents Orland LTD. Nawzad said he would discuss this with the property owner. He agreed the City of Tigard should be the decision maker about when the right-of-way should be dedicated rather than having and agreement with Gene Davis or other developers in the area. We agree with this option. However, he needs approval from Orland LTD. 3 1612500 I "IN t I ) 161T60C seoz $ 6303 $ 6201 Bo• .23 AC .18 AC .18 AC }T1H1HS}1T}S-t}Wof }}�t•�{}.�{•_ �. ��``7. �_ M �,� 50' I 67 I SD' I I SO' I SD' ! 60' I SD I 1 5D 00 00 BO I 50 I 60 1 50 J^g'9g�4;�2 IJ•2 '28 I ( I l 1 00 3 12 1 11I 3 2 11 SI 1 8I IwA 0 $ ffM I I 4 I 1 m l 4 1 3 1 2 1 o a4 I 3 '02J 1 2 f I I II I II r .11A C1 24�C I o -�-�-� 900 5 12 1.97 Ac to �p 12 I III I 1.0 oc bI 12 V 1 a1 I,___. ADD_� �•.I >L_ �7 ,s, p ,Da 9 bl 8 METZGER 6 11 III 6 11 Iw 6 11 6 ELEMENTARY lb - I SCHOOL 11 I lop, =88.28 ,,, ,�•:� 1,.68 I I ,° . I I I I I I ,� � I I I I 7I9AI 10 ! .�I I_9 44i i� 7 8I 8III 911I 1010 79.14 �U 1CIDlSDJ QII I'!) 1II �� •\ ` f 19B.9J t Q ' �`''I 7.10 AC 0811 VACATED R&D 78.232 _ _ _ A� _ VACATED 2003-114480 60�tea 8 SD' �1 60' 60 1 1-6077 6077 ' MRd`0^O 1 ; 50�•i 6p, 5O�i�-I-i O5 IBB,78 4. ,7A. I c�Ib I Cb c,. 3 2 I 1 1S 4 I 3 2 1 IR 4 IIS 5 bI ,2 bIl Ib 11 r/I I blI b I 12 I L _1010 04- D,, e? --1n(-� I�)a IN s n! I I 1� 3.21 AC I Ia~pry b I'`r ( p -6NB0� E -11 1 /ALJ I 4'-� 1 �� l ,)>� 6 j�f"I 11 SII MN 31 ( L NMal- , bI m el (b ^ � bl I I I I J00_ i `!,,U9�. I. c 7 I 10 I 7 I 10 I �� 7 8 101 r\� 7 b 10 0I uur_ (-moo--7 - - 1 T 1 9 bI �s, is a of 9M. oI! 6 b Il 9 II 1 b I II 1 M. J \y°�?S�? c- W. _l0a_ _lOD_ a.zz cH f l I6 49 I I ^ 3201 1 s AC �I a n 3300 3401 __ I .81 AC .38 AC I I 75•_� 76� � I � 3206 I 4� .16AC I �I 210A I O I I `1 al 63200 0AC ^Y P I I 11 i I 6s e.o9� 9 7 8 3 3202 O C I I I bi 76' We 75' 100' I .38 AC ' T, > Ac 304 JO2 3 3403 .22 AC 22 AC .28 AC I O46�\4 °x N88-21E688•JTW .� 2 0.22 CH ! 4.22 CH I I 4.22 CH I 100' 60 S Be-68082 � I ryb D 0 ---� OAK D (CR 823) b D STREET F51'03 70.70 64.00 73.38 70' 6o' 0918 CN 100' I NB8.22E ISI3SAC 39M .18 AC �ti{b'� 26 AC 10005 bbd''3300 0 S403sAC 1S1.SAC .700 �o S ' b ODS $v .28 AC $ 36 AC n 3AC .30 AC 14136AC .17 AC .600 1.71 AC .b. 0 112.00 / N86.25.00W o 20' Lei R see-Jow 16 AFAper's _ ' ^ 1613640 7 e26-D 77. s A ry ` `� �� 48.83 NBB-26.00WId m$ /� } CR m .30 AC n 16136AC m / .\ -• 4100 36DD \ $^ N68.26•oow .12 AO `• t.' 173.40 180 AG 77.39IP z VFFICE Dorothy S.Cofield, Attorney at Law VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL January 5, 2015 Mayor John Cook and Tigard City Council c/o Gary Pagenstecher—garvp@tigard-or.gov Tigard Civic Center—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,Oregon Re: Quasi Judicial Public Hearing A+0 Apartments(CPA 2014-00002; PDR 2014-00003;SDR 2014-00004; SLR 2014-00002) Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the City Council, I represent Jill Warren and Trudy Knowles. Ms. Warren and Ms. Knowles testified to the planning commission on the above referenced applications. After the planning commission adopted staffs recommendation to approve the subject application,they retained my legal services. My preliminary review of the Public Meeting Materials that are posted on line reveal that the city council should not approve the A&O Apartments for a number of reasons. I also ask that you continue the public hearing so that my law firm will have the necessary time to review this matter. The planning commission hearing was held on December 15, 2014 and with the intervening holidays and new council members, it is in everyone's best interest to continue the hearing to February. These four complicated development applications (including a comprehensive plan amendment to remove a Goal 5 Sensitive Wetlands Designation from the subject property) should not be summarily approved. OBJECTIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL Commercial Zoning Districts: The property is zoned Mixed Use Employment 1 (MUE-1) and Mixed Use Residential(MUR). Yet,the project is comprised of 215 apartment units. Tigard Development Code (TDC)§18.020(G)describes the MUE-1 as"designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with the employment character of the area." The MUR zone "is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas,where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. " Both of these zones are MIXED use, not solely residential as the A&0 apartments are planned. 1 5032,!q SO i:AX 503.675 -132" There is no purpose in designating a mixed use zone if the entire development is not a mix of employment and residential. The Washington Square Regional Plan was adopted to provide new mixed-use zoning districts along with existing residential zoning districts. TDC§18.630(A)(5). The plan is being gutted by allowing this developer to build a residential apartment building with no mixed uses because it is more profitable. The city council must deny the planned development concept plan on this factor alone. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The applicant seeks to remove nearly a half-acre of significant Goal 5 wetlands from the property. The applicant does not begin to meet the applicable criteria at TDC §18.775.130. The applicant states there are no other sites in the Tigard Planning Area (TPA)that would allow the use without the comprehensive plan amendment. It appears that the applicant only looked at vacant land in the Washington Square Regional Center(WSRC). It is hard to believe there is no other vacant land in the TPA that does not need to use a significant Goal 5 wetland to build these apartments. Even if the Council finds the WSRC only needs to be studied, the applicant's"survey" is far from substantial evidence and is not in the form of an accurate inventory of available,vacant land. For this reason alone,the Council must deny the CPA. The Applicant's ESEE Analysis Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence: The applicant states that it is not economical to build the project without filling the Significant Wetland. The applicant alternatively states that the applicant would realize"far less economic benefit" from remodeling or replacing the four existing houses." Alternatively,the applicant states that without removing the Goal 5 Significant Wetland,the applicant would need to build a six to eight story building and it would cost too much. Staff Report, p. 10. The applicant has no evidence on why it cannot build a six to eight story building to protect the Significant Wetland and the standard is not met. The ESEE is a balancing test and is not overly weighted on the economic factor. When the city adopted its Goal 5 wetland inventory, it found that this wetland was significant. A Goal 5 rating of significance is much different that the State's wetland program,which allows wetlands to be filled if there is corresponding mitigation. This wetland, as the applicant's own consultant determined, is significant. The applicant's consultant determined that Wetland A(which the applicant seeks to partially remove from the City's Goal 5 Inventory) provides rearing and migration habitat because of its connection to Ash Creek. Appendix E, p.4. The applicant's consultant further determined that "even though the quality [sic] of the wetland, its connection to Ash Creek still ensures it would be regarded as significant." The applicant's consultant also found that Ash Creek provides rearing and migration habitat for steelhead trout which is listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Appendix E, p. 1, p.7. Thus the applicant chose to do an ESEE type of comprehensive plan amendment (which arguably allows the applicant to make the economics of filling the wetland more important than protecting the wetland.) The applicant's ESEE also states that the applicant cannot avoid removing the wetland from the City's inventory because the alternative would not meet the City of Tigard's requirements for density and parking. Id. This may be true for residential use, but not for mixed use which does not require 60 units - per acre. There are no density requirements for the commercial development standards in Table 18.620(2), The real reason the applicant seeks the comprehensive plan amendment to fill the Significant Goal 5 resource is to make more money for the project, 2 The Applicant Has Not Mitigated for Its Traffic Impacts: My clients are presently having a traffic engineer review the applicant's traffic study and may provide a separate letter on this issue. As a preliminary comment,the applicant is relying on transit to mitigate the impacts of 1,430 new car trips a day. Appendix A, p. 14. The applicant has also said future occupants will be able to work at the Washington Square Mall which is close by. The applicant has said the apartment rents will be in the range of$900.00 to$2000.00 a month. The developer testified that an income of$3000 a month is needed to support rent of$900.00 a month. The attached Occupational Employment Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Studies finds that the average Oregon retail worker makes a yearly salary of $26,360,which is not enough to pay for the cheapest studio apartment the development has projected. Retail workers will not be able to afford the A&0 Apartments to live and work near the Washington Square Mall and thus these apartments are not achieving the purpose of the WSRP idea to create a mixed use development, nor will the traffic from the 215 apartments(1430 trips a day) be mitigated by walking to work. The Exception to the Parking Standard is Not Met: TDC§18.765(b) states an exception may be granted when a use has a "low demand for off street parking." The applicant states that A& O Apartments are low demand because they are 64 studios and 98 1-bedroom apartments. The code speaks to a low demand use such as a nursing home, in which most of the residents don't drive at all. The applicant's traffic study determined that the apartments will generate 1430 daily new trips. Appendix A, p. 14. That is not a low demand use by anyone's definition. When combined with the lack of affordability of the apartments to nearby employment and the need for all the required parking,the exception to the parking standard should not be granted. The Applicant Must Pay Its Share For Funding Future Transportation: Staff has prepared a rough proportionality study that shows the monetary impact the A&0 Apartments will have on public infrastructure. Staff Report, p. 54. The full impact is$3,431,596. Less the Transportation Development Tax(TDT) and the%street improvement to Oak St.,the applicant is being asked to mitigate less than half of its impact, leaving the public to pay the rest. This is not proportional. The rough proportionality test requires a "nexus"to any required dedications or improvements and the amount of improvements must be "proportional." Staff has concluded that the applicant's traffic analysis does not satisfactorily address the additional traffic on SW 90`h,a 50-foot local street,as the primary route north to SW Locust for southbound Greenburg/Hwy 217 trips. Staff Report, p. 28. The WSRC plan anticipates that Lincoln Street will be extended to mitigate some on the Oak St. trips. The applicant is substantially impacting SW Oak Street with over 1,430 new car trips a day. The applicant must provide a Dolan analysis that describes the impact area;the applicant's impact in a ratio to the impact area and then the City Council can determine if funding the future improvements to Lincoln are warranted. At a minimum,the applicant must mitigate the full 1.8 million dollars of impact it is creating. Floodplain Alternation Is Not Allowed: The applicant is seeking to alter the 100-year floodplain by filling .35 acres of it and building a portion of Building A on the fill in the floodplain. Under TDC §18.775.070(B)(2),floodplain alterations are allowed only on land designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan.Staff Report, p. 14. The applicant's property is designed MUE and MUR(both commercial zones) but the property is being developed as completely residential. While it is not clear why the code prohibits filling residentially zoned land in a floodplain, it may have something to do with Federal Flood Insurance requirements. The city council should look further at the code requirements in filling the floodplain with residential apartments and the city's liability if there is flooding. My client,Jill Warren, will be submitting a separate letter on floodplain requirements. 3 Conclusion: The applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate all the approval criteria[for the four requested applications have been met. As shown in the above comments,the applicant has not met its burden and the applications must be denied. I will be at the public hearing on January 13,2015 to further testify on the A&0 Apartment applications and to answer any questions the Council may have. Very truly yours, COFIELD LAW OFFICE f v l✓ Dorothy S. Cof' Of Attorneys fo ill Warren and Trudy Knowles DSC:dsc Attachments: As Stated 4 1/5/2015 Estimates from the Occupational Employment Statistics Survey t to E IMM t FA05 I A".—II RI_Y I ()onyoc'U+ Subscribe to E-mall Updates Fa9ow Vs )I What* Naw I Release Caiemiar I Site Ma,.• Search BLS.gov Home I Subjects I Data Tools I Pub!icntions I Economic palonses I Students I Baia Occupational Employment Statistics Query Sy ;;:YWTS;ZZQ System (For more informaWn or Occupational Employment Statistics Area:Oregon Period:May 2013 Employment` Wage __ –7 l percent F~ percent Hourly Hourly �–Hourly Hourly Annual Annual Annual relative Hourly`Annual relative 10th 25th Hourly 75th 90th�� 10th 25th Annual 75th Occupation(SOC I ( standard mean mean standard percentile percentile:median percentile pementile percentile percentUe median:percentile colo) ;fmployment111 ermtf7l wage waget3l error121 wage wage 1 wage wage ! wage wagem I wage(21 wagaL21' waged 5 les6012012.7 12.67 2636 persons(412031) 0I 1 3 9.46.1 9.101 1b 19000 0 _._._ ___...._ _ _ _ 1 11.0 J 13.83-...__._...._... ........ 18. 1969 22690 ...................._______ __....___... .._.._._�______28780 Footnotes: 1U Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals Include occupations not shown separately.Estimates do not include self-employed workers. M Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by 2,080 hours,where an hourly mean wage is not published,the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reporte data, M The relative standard error(RSE)is a measure of the reliability of a survey statistic.The smaller the relative standard error,the more precise the estimate. code:Stand�accupa'tionaRl'assifica`£on code-see'�Fittp37ww`w.b . c0NY�sa/ o w _---------- —_----------- �pata extracted on lanu�_5,20 LS TOOLS CALCULATORS HELP INFO RESOURCES Areas at a Glance Infl.Oon Help&Tutotials i vel«it's New Irspector GenerA'OIG) hxtustrim at a Glx,co Location Quotient FAOs Careers @ BLS Budget and Pc-'an,ance Ecoruxnic Releases Injury And illness Glossary Find It!DOL No rear Act Calabasas&Tables About BLS Join our Mailing Lists USA.gov Maps conlact Us Urddng&copyright Into Bendfits.gov Disabiity.gov Fleece,'nr L,fmrt>atiat.Act i P,ivaty A Secu,ity state-mrrt I Discw;,m t cieto oerswvr<y j Imputint Netic" U.S.Bureau of tabor Statistics I Division of Occupational Washing _.._...._2021.—._.._�__�__._.________._.___ pat Employment Statistics,P58 State 2135,2 Massachusetts Avenue,NE Washington,OC 20212-0001 www.bls.00v/Oes/!Telephone:1.202-691.5569 1 Contact OE5 http://data.bls.gov/oes/datatype.do 1/1 Carol Krager From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Tuesday,January 06, 2015 2:19 PM To: Carol Krager Subject: FW: Parking comparison document-A+O Apartments Attachments: Parking comparison121514.doc Carol, A further request by the applicant to include this document in the record and to make available to the CC for their review. Thanks, Gary From: Jerry Offer fmailto:jer[y.offer@otak.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:16 AM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Nawzad Othman; Skip Grodahl; Don Hanson; Mike Peebles Subject: Parking comparison document -A+O Apartments Good morning Gary, Attached is a minimally edited version of the document that I submitted to the Planning Commission showing how other Portland area suburban jurisdictions' parking standards would apply to the proposed unit mix for the A+O Apartments. We would like the City Council to see this document—either in their meeting packets or in the work session prior to the public hearing. Don or Mike will be referring to this comparison at the public hearing. Also,we will be sending you a couple of letters from Nawzad Othman on behalf of Orland, Ltd., regarding: 1) providing a 12-foot pedestrian easement over the future right-of-way for the SW Lincoln Street extension and DBG, LLC providing the asphalt path within the easement; and 2) Orland agreeing to cooperate in the provision of right-of-way for the SW Lincoln Street extension when needed. Those letters are currently being processed and scanned and will be sent to you in short order. im Jerry Offer I Planner 808 SW 3rd Ave.,Suite 300, Portland,OR 97204. Main 503.287.OTAK(6825) 1 Fax 503.415.2304 1 Direct 503.415.2330 Aat Otak,we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments,if any,may contain confidential material,and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.Distribution to,or review by,unauthorized persons is prohibited.In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend,indemnify and hold harmless the sender,Otak and its principals,agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages.The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer.If you have received this transmission in error,immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments,if any. 1 Tigard Code Section 18.765.070.H Table 18.765.2 parking requirements applied to the A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio (<500 so 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Subtotal 215 266 15 percent additional onsite parking required for visitors - 40 Total MFR Units/ 306 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces On-Site Parking Spaces Provided Type of Parking Space Onsite Parking Spaces Provided Surface parking—standard-sized 121 Surface parking—compact 115 ADA surface parking 5 Parking garage—standard-sized 17 Parking garage—compact 18 Parking garage—ADA space 2 Total On-site Parking Spaces Provided 278 On-site Parking Spaces Total compact spaces 133 spaces,48% of total In addition,an estimated 16 parking spaces will be provided along the site's SW Oak Street road frontage. An Exception to the minimum on-site parking standard is requested to allow 278 spaces to serve the development whereas the typical on-site parking standard would require 306 on-site parking spaces. This would constitute a 9.1% reduction in parking.With the 16 on-street spaces added to the on-site parking, a 4%exception to the maximum parking standard would be what is requested. Washington County Community Development Code parking requirements if they were applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Table 413-7 Wash. Co. Development Code Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio (<500 so 64 64 1 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 98 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 242 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Tualatin Community Development Code parking requirements if they were applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Tualatin Code Section 73.370(2)(a) Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking Spaces MFR Unit Units Proposed Required 1 space/studio 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 266 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Lake Oswego parking requirements if they were applied to the A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required Per Lake Oswego Code Section 50.06.002 Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio (<500 so 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—25 of the required parking must be non-reserved so as to provide for common or visitor use _ _ Total MFR Units/ 266 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Beaverton Community Development Code parking requirements if they were applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Beaverton Code for Multi-Use Zones Section 60.30.010 Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio 64 64 1 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 98 1 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 53 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 215 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Carol Krager From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:54 PM To: Carol Krager Cc: Jerry Offer Oerry.offer@otak.com) Subject: FW: memo for the City Council - A+O Apartments Attachments: CityCounci1010815.pdf Carol, Please submit the attached memo to CC for the A+0 Apartments hearing. Thanks, Gary From: Jerry Offer [mailto:jerrx.offer@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:50 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Skip Grodahl; Nawzad Othman; Don Hanson; Mike Peebles; Kelly Laustsen; joeT @ankrommoisan.com; 'John van Staveren' Subject: memo for the City Council - A+0 Apartments Hi Gary, One more thing to submit to the City Council in advance of the hearing on Tuesday. This memo basically requests that recommended conditions of approval No. 7 and No. 8 be eliminated (or modified as needed). The memo presents a ridership and walkability study as requested by your condition of approval No. 7, and explains what can be done to improve the gap between sidewalks on oak Street from the proposed development site to the sidewalks along the Lincoln Center's frontage. It also reports on our ongoing effort to negotiate an easement with Lincoln Center for a transit shelter at the existing bus stop on SW Greenburg Road. The memo addresses recommended condition of approval No.8 by summarizing the two letters to the Council from Nawzad Othman regarding the provision of a pedestrian easement and pathway within the area of future extension of SW Lincoln Street to SW Oak and the commitment of the property owner Orland, Ltd., to cooperate in the provision of right-of-way for the SW Lincoln extension —but with a reasonable expectation of the future right-of-way being made available at fair market value to another developer. The memo also provides a very basic accounting of the more than $2,800,000 in systems development charges and school excise taxes that will be generated by the proposed development as part of its contribution towards the public transportation and other public facilities in the Washington Square Regional Center area, plus the required Oak Street collector street frontage improvements. Please submit this to the Council in advance of their meeting. I assume that they have already been provided with the TriMet letter and Mr. Othman's letters referred to in this memo. Thanks. As you know, I will be out of the office until January 19`h. During my absence, please consider Mike Peebles to be the applicant's primary contact for this application. GO DUCKS! i Jerry Offer I Planner 808 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 300, Portland,OR 97204. Main 503.287.OTAK(6825) ( Fax 503.415.2304 1 Direct 503.415.2330 Aat Otak,we consider the environment before printing emails. The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments,if any,may contain confidential material,and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to,or review by,unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend,indemnify and hold harmless the sender,Otak and its principals,agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages.The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer.If you have received this transmission in error,immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments,if any. DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 Memorandum To: Mayor John Cook and City Councilors EN From: Jerry Offer,Otak Senior Planner 808 SIS 3'AHenue Srate 300 Copies: Skip Grodahl(DBG-Oak Street,LLC—applicant), Po h=4 OR 97204 Nawzad Othman (representing Orland Ltd.— Nbou(503)287-6825 owner);Gary Pagenstecher,Tigard Planning Dept. Fax(503)415-2304 Date: January 8,2015 Subject: A+O Apartments—Request to Modify/Remove Conditions of Approval Project No.: 17044 The December 15,2014 Planning Department staff report,which has been forwarded to you with a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission,includes two recommended conditions of approval that we believe we have satisfied subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing,or at least have satisfied to the extent practical by this applicant.We,therefore,request that these conditions of approval not be included in the City Council's final decision approving our requests. The recommended conditions of approval from page 3 of the staff report are: 7. The applicant shallprovide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures that the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in the TriMet comment letter dated December 4,2014. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects,such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to mugh proportionality, as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council Response to Recommended Condition of Approval No. 7 With regard to recommended condition of approval No. 7,TriMet's letter already notes that there are currently approximately 80 people boarding and unboarding from TriMet buses daily at transit stops in front of the Lincoln Center complex.Those transit stops are slightly more than one-quarter mile from the proposed development site.We are unclear what more can be done as far as a transit ridership audit than that. As far as a walkability audit,Otak staff have visited the site and assessed the current state of improvements between the proposed development site and the bus stops on SW Greenburg Road. There is a sidewalk gap between the proposed sidewalk/multi-use path along SW Oak Street between the subject site and the existing sidewalk on the north side of the street along the Lincoln Center frontage.At present,it is believed that most pedestrians would walk in the roadway in the L./proj/17000/17044/admin/con/CityCouncil010815.wpd City of Tigard City Council Page 2 A + O Apartments— Conditions ofAppmval January 8,2015 area of this gap rather than walking in areas of tall grass,blackberries,and other vegetation. However,the right-of-way extends substantially beyond the road pavement in these areas such that pedestrians could walk within the undeveloped right-of-way within this gap between sidewalk segments if the vegetation were to be removed or cut back.The applicant and property owner do not have control of the properties within this gap,with the exception that Orland,Ltd.,also owns approximately 150 feet of additional property adjacent to the north side of SW Oak Street to the east of the sidewalk along Lincoln Center's frontage (tax lots 3300 and 3302).That property is not included in the current application.Nevertheless,Orland,Ltd.,is willing to cut and maintain the vegetation within the SW Oak Street right-of-way in front of its site to improve pedestrian access in this area.We are unable to require the other property owners within this"gap" to remove or cut vegetation along their properties to enhance pedestrian access along the road. The City,however, has the ability to remove or maintain the vegetation within the right-of-way by its own action,or to cause the adjacent property owners to do this. As far as lighting,there are already streetlights along this stretch of SW Oak Street,including at its intersection with SW 90'e Avenue and near the eastern end of the sidewalk adjacent to Lincoln Center. The TriMet letter suggests that the prospective developer negotiate an easement with the owners of Lincoln Center for the purpose of providing a transit shelter at the existing bus stop. I have been in contact with the property managers for the Lincoln Center regarding the possibility of Lincoln Center providing an easement for the shelter,with an understanding that the current applicant PBG-Oak Street,LLC) would provide site preparations including a concrete pad,and for TriMet to provide the transit shelter structure.Negotiations continue on this front—and I believe that they are promising. Based on the foregoing,we believe that this analysis and the ongoing negotiations regarding the provision of a transit shelter on SW Green burg Road have satisfied this recommended condition of approval,thereby making recommended condition of approval No. 7 unnecessary. Response to Recommended Condition of Approval No. 8 With regard to recommended condition of approval No. 8,we first of all do not understand what City staff is looking for with regard to"a revised development plan."We are unaware of any concerns which the staff or Planning Commission have with regard to the proposed site plan relative to any future transportation or public improvement projects. Some concerns have been raised by neighbors and City staff with regard to possible off-site improvements and/or participation in future improvement projects,but nothing has been raised with regard to on-site improvements that would affect the development plan for the site. If this recommended condition of approval is targeted at participation in off-site transportation or public improvement projects in the area,we believe that the A+O Apartments project will make a substantial contribution to such future transportation and public improvement projects commensurate with the anticipated impacts of the A+O development.The proposed 215 unit multi- family development would be expected to pay over$1,130,000 in Countywide Transportation Development Taxes (at the current rate of$5,257.00 per multi-family unit),over$1,108,000 in Parks Systems Development Charges (at current rate of$5,156.28 per multi-family unit),$356,032 in L:\Project\17000\17044\Adniin\Coffesp\CityCouncUO1081S.doc City of Tigard City Council Page 3 A + O Apartments—Conditions eApproval January 8, 2015 Water Systems Development Fees (assumes use of a 4-inch water meter),$244,000 in school district construction excise taxes,and significant other amounts in storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems development fees. The proposed development plan also provides for the development to construct over 690 feet of collector street frontage improvements to SW Oak Street. In addition,City of Tigard Planning Department staff suggested that the applicant/developer and the property owner consider participating in providing an interim pedestrian/bicycle path between SW Oak Street and the current temporary south terminus of SW Lincoln Street in front of SW Metzger School.To that end,the property owner has agreed to provide the developer with a 12-foot wide easement for a pathway connection between those streets over the other land that Orland,Ltd. owns on the north side of SW Oak Street which is not actually involved in the current application. The applicant/developer of the site subject to this current project,DBG-Oak Street,LLC,has agreed that they will construct a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway within this easement,and then assign the easement to the City of Tigard as a public pathway easement.The easement and pathway will be located within the intended future right-of-way of the SW Lincoln Street extension to SW Oak Street.At the time that the street is extended,the trail will be removed and replaced by the combination of sidewalk(s) and roadway.A letter from Nawzad Othman has previously been provided to the City Council regarding Orland,Ltd.and DBG-Oak Street,LLC's commitment to provide the easement and path to the public. Mr. Othman has also submitted a separate letter which assures the City Council that Orland,Ltd.,is willing to provide adequate right-of-way for the extension of SW Lincoln Street to SW Oak Street when it is found necessary for that street to be extended. Orland,Ltd. (or its successors)will dedicate the necessary right-of-way if a development project on their property adjacent to the street extension is found to trigger the need for this street.Alternatively,Mr. Othman's letter notes that Orland,Ltd.,is willing to sell land for the needed road right-of-way at fair market value in the instance that another development project triggers the need for this street connection. LAProject\17000\17044\Admin\Corresp\CityCouncil010815.doc la VFFICE Dorothy S.Cofield, Attorney at Law VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL January 12,2015 Mayor John Cook and Tigard City Council c/o Gary Pagenstecher—g-arr+p@tipard-or.eov Tigard Civic Center—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,Oregon Re: Quasi Judicial Public Nearing A f 0 Apartments(CPA 2014-00002;PDR 2014-00003;SDR 2014-00004;SLR 2014-00002) Additional Written Comments Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the City Council, I represent Jill Warren and Trudy Knowles. On behalf of my clients, I submitted a letter to you on January 5,2015 which should be in your packet. This letter will provide additional objections to the A&0 Apartments after having reviewed the traffic study with a traffic engineer. The traffic engineer noted that while the Kittelson&Associates'Traffic Impact Study does correctly note none of the nearby intersections are failing,the project does not meet the requirements for the Washington Square Regional Plan(WSRP)and its transportation component in a number of ways. Table 18.810.1 states that parking on a collector is subject to Note 4. Note 4 in turn provides that onstreet parking is allowed in the Downtown urban renewal district. The subject property is not downtown and the inference is that onstreet parking is not allowed. Rules of statutory construction provide that when there is a legislative provision,the governing body should not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted." ORS 174.010. The planning commission recommendation allows the applicant to have onstreet parking to meet the parking requirement by inserting into Note 4 the allowance of onstreet parking. However,the apparent purpose for Note 4 is to state ONLY downtown urban renewal can have collector onstreet parking. Figure 18.810.2 shows Collector Sample Cross Sections. Footnote 1 also provides that"Parking is allowed on collectors within the downtown urban renewal district. Again the plausible interpretation of having such a footnote is that parking on other collectors outside the downtown core is not allowed. 1 Bclverton, Oregon 0-008 The recommended Condition of Approval#7 allows the applicant to meet an approval criterion without any evidence of feasibility in the record. Specifically Condition 7 has the applicant submitting a "Walkability and Ridership Study"to meet Trimet's concerns. See Exhibit C.Trimet wants the applicant to negotiate an easement from the owner of the property at 10250 SW Greenburg Rd. so Trimet can place and maintain a bus shelter. Trimet notes that without the required right-of-way and bus shelter, taking the bus is not"palatable." In other words, people won't use the transit option the applicant is depending on to meet TDC 18.630; 18.705 and 18.765. There is nothing in the record that shows the applicant will negotiate such a bus shelter easement yet without such a shelter,the applicant cannot meet TDC 18.705(d). Staff specifically notes that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and thus meeting TDC 18.705(d) and imposed Condition 7 to meet the standard. The applicant does not have substantial evidence in the record that standard can or"will be" met and the city council should deny the application on that basis, or make the applicant prove in this application that it can meet the standard. The applicant is asking for an exception to providing enough parking spaces for the 215 unit apartment project as well as reducing the right-of-way width for SW Hall (and deleting the left hand turn lane). The applicant is proposing 26-feet of pavement (two travel lanes of 12-feet). See Staff Report p. 25. Yet the Tualatin Fire& Rescue's letter states that"Roads 26 feet or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane." See Exhibit B. Without using the street for parking,the applicant has an even greater deficit of required parking spaces and cannot meet TDC 18.765. See Staff Report p.24. More critical is that the city engineer has determined the applicant's proposed exception to the street standards"is not permissible." Staff Report, p. 26. The City Engineer than "adopts" a revised section for SW Oak Street without any legislative process in the staff report finding for TDC 18.810(b). Amendments to the city's code must be done in a separate legislative process. TDC 18.390(B)(4). The city cannot waive an adopted requirement by simply writing a finding of a waiver of the requirement in the same quasi-judicial hearing in which the applicant needs the waiver. For this reason alone,the city council cannot approve the application until the legislative process is completed. The A&O Apartment applications must be denied. I will be at the public hearing on January 13, 2015 to further testify on the A& O Apartment applications and to answer any questions the Council may have. Should the applicant submit any new testimony,evidence or revisions to the application, I hereby request that the city council leave the record open for my clients to review and respond. Very truly yours, COFI_LD IAW OFFI orothy S. i 1d Of Attorneys Jill Wa ren and Trudy Knowles DSC:dsc 2 r RECEIVE: JA J 12 2015 To Mayor John Cook and Member of Tigard City Council, CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING As a resident of Metzger for 40 years, I have witnessed all kinds of growth in my neighborhood. I have supported some of the development while opposing others. I attended all the meetings regarding the Washington Square Regional Center. I was an advocate of keeping Metzger community livable.That was the reason for the banner I had made that read KEEP METZGER LIVABLE. I placed that on the side of my house for over two years.Again I find myself putting up this banner. At the present fifoe,I afo adamanfly opposed to the proposed 215 apAft ief3t eeaiipl&prepesed by Otak. The negative impacts far outweigh the benefits. I would like to provide testimony regarding this proposal to be placed in the public record.There are many factors why I oppose it, but for this testimony I am submitting just a couple. The first major reason I am opposing it is the negative impact it will have to Metzger EI. School located at 10350 SW Lincoln St. The school enrollment is at capacity now. They have an enrollment of 650 students with no room for additional students. Where are these future students going to go to school? Is the developer going to build a new school? I know they will not be required to do this.Also, they cannot prevent families with children per state law ORS 197.505 to rent these proposed apartments. In addition to the enrollment issue,a major obstacle is the safety of the students attending this school. This development is putting its main entrance on SW 90`h which will lead traffic directly to the backside of the school. How is this going to provide safety?The congestion of cars driving to and from their destinations is going to dramatically affect the school and local residents. Not to mention the parking. Also, this proposal improves one side of SW Oak(the development side, but not the other)Again, this is a real problem. The proposed extension of SW Lincoln street which was not part of the initial traffic study will adversely affect the school.This is on the front side of the school. I can't imagine what it will be like when school busses, parents dropping off their students, the staff,volunteers and workers at Lincoln Towers all convene on this road to get to their destination. Please consider this very careflly. Who is going to be liable in the event of an accident or disaster?CC C �CX (-_ � F . � , f c The second issue I would like you to consider is this: Is our community unduly being saturated with apartments? I took a drive through the neighborhood and took an inventory. The Metzger EL School boundaries are included in my testimony. While driving around it is boundaries, I counted over 25 existing apartment complexes.All of these apartment complexes are of varying sizes. I would like to see the statistics showing the need for all this development of high rise apartments. We are not an urban community, but I feel we are being forced into that. I was not in favor of this high destiny crammed into my neighborhood (Washington Square Regional Center) It does not have the infrastructure to support it. Who is going to pay for this?The taxpayers should be burden with this, especially when they will receive no real benefits. In all, please do not approve this project without further examination of the facts and studies. I am submitting some attachments along with my testimony. 1. Picture of banner 2. A map of the boundary of Metzger EL School 3. List of Apartments in neighborhood Please note this is not all of them 4. Pictures of the 1996 flood. I did not address this in my testimony. This is what occurred upstream from this proposed development. I just want you to see what happens when you fill the floodplains and remove wetlands. Trudy Knowles Trudy Knowles 10430 SW 82nd Ave. PO Box 230275 Tigard, Or. 97281 '� r �• METZGER -UVABCt��6" 900o 3 ST St S7 TEP ~b s j/A49NNw n i` HEMIM:K 3T d v CORAL T S x ST y s LOCUST ST C' 1 MpO;1W1R 10000 210 � � CT . y School aaK ST " AE•r as DCT hoofZF x i r T a C SER MST 99 EN c F - _—.EOELLECT rN ST ST :. 217 —" T N r 1 RS0EI IM - CI- EIIf4LE — i F m TI'O g gC ST i` axe 11000 21bn1 TEP 3F TUN N. NORTH ST z O Q F i 2Ez 95 rEM TT R ¢ CT BAYLOR ST Ks o " C.F. g �. TI GA RD GT CLINTON S srTMOUTH Fowler � re000 Middle a EUMAiST School MNUT ST r —. R � I Tig EggL Sf � rrlNiwnsr - C Tgard s PS hoof i mr 13000 CrO D6 � ARNS sr _ Ff Ft1 Cr sr rf py�� F W E� ST $ \\ S' Nle S1 le T Y I). i Ut �+ Ok.A0.ST ' �79E` EDGEWOOD.T Existing Apartments within the Metzger EI. School Boundaries; Size of each of these varies. 1. Washington Retreat (SW Locust) 2. Brownstone at the Square (SW 92nd and SW Hall) 3. Crown Oaks (SW Greenburg) 4. Hallmark (SW Hall Blvd.) 5. Village Apt. (SW Hall Blvd.) 6. Washington Square Apartments (SW Washington Dr.) 7. Cross Creek Apts. ( SW Hemlock) 8. Shenandoah Apts. ( SW Hall) 9. Metzger Park Condos (SW 85th) 10. Willow Creek (SW 85th_ 11. Metzger Park Apts. (SW Locust and SW 851h) 12. St James on Hall Apt. (SW Hall) 13. White apartments which I could not find a name (SW Hall) 14. Village at Washington Square 15. Gatehouse Apartments (SW Pfaff le) 16. Carriage House (SW Pfaffle) 17. Hawthorne Village (SW Pfaffle) 18. Tigard Woods Community Condos (SW Spruce) 19. Gettysburg Apartments Going towards Tigard on SW Greenburg (SW PACIFIC HWY) 1. Ash Creek Apts. 2. Autumn Apts. 3. Fir Terrace 4. Walnut ? 5. Ashbrook 6. Tamara Apartments. Going towards Beaverton by Red Tail Golf Course Royal Oaks Apartments Oleson Woods Apartment Not to mention several on the backside of Joannes. I e At j - sl OF �,. W vY I Ir -1v Aof- - "ftw Y n• P t • R y�F I 4 �t' C Y � i � � tisk - k , _ r g \ � -,t� 7---.�' 1 � '?'`, Y "a'E` ',awe.eCvac�-I' � ��' . "iii �^"" ,q� �► 7a; , _ r - i .r Ar lit Or it r 14 l foe :J OF ,w+ law 14 or y i Fr „• �.Xag. a�+ � ,-,�.-s,�,;`3� rte-..t � a,.�. � • -'"�, ' ^ ... ♦."ref 1 +�ti - '��': ',�yP,,t rad z �; f ,:. I. • l r i " " .. ice sM f f • - " j' ClJPH—A+O Apartments January 13, 2015 Potential amendments to conditions: Existing Condition 7:The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. Proposed revised condition 7: To promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site,the applicant shall,subject to engineering review and approval for compliance with city standards, 1) design and construct a sidewalk (6"curb, 6'concrete sidewalk and storm drainage)connecting the subject site with the existing sidewalk at Lincoln Center and the proposed pedestrian path on Lincoln Street within the existing right of way,2)complete easement negotiations with the owner of property at 1025 SW Greenburg and build a 5'x 20'concrete pad to accommodate a transit shelter, and 3)design and construct walkway improvements east of the subject site to provide continuous and safe pedestrian access to SW Hall Blvd along SW Oak Street and to SW Locust Street along SW 87th Avenue. Existing Condition 8:The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality, as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. Proposed Revised Condition 8: Subject to Council Deliberation,Staff can accept deletion of condition 8 EXHIBIT C Tigard Code Section 18.765.070.H Table 18.765.2 parking requirements applied to the A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio (<500 s fl 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Subtotal 215 266 15 percent additional onsite parking required for visitors - 40 Total MFR Units/ 306 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces On-Site Parking Spaces Provided Type of Parking Space Onsite Parking Spaces Provided Surface parking—standard-sized 121 Surface parking—compact 115 ADA surface parking 5 Parking garage—standard-sized 17 Parking garage—compact 18 Parking garage—ADA space 2 Total On-site Parking Spaces Provided 278 On-site Parking Spaces Total compact spaces 133 spaces,48% of total In addition,an estimated 16 parking spaces will be provided along the site's SW Oak Street road frontage. An Exception to the minimum on-site parking standard is requested to allow 278 spaces to serve the development whereas the typical on-site parking standard would require 306 on-site parking spaces. This would constitute a 9.1%reduction in parking.With the 16 on-street spaces added to the on-site parking, a 4% exception to the maximum parking standard would be what is requested. Washington County Community Development Code parking requirements applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Table 413-7 Wash. Co. Development Code Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio (<500 s fl 64 64 1 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 98 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 242 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Tualatin Community Development Code parking requirements applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Tualatin Code Section 73.370(2)(a) Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 266 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Lake Oswego parking requirements applied to the A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required Per Lake Oswego Code Section 50.06.002 Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking Spaces MFR Unit Units Proposed Required 1 space/studio (<500 sf 64 64 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 122.5 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 79.5 Visitor parking—25 of the required parking must be non-reserved so as to provide for common or visitor use - - Total MFR Units/ 266 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces Beaverton Community Development Code parking requirements applied to A +O Apartments proposal On-Site Parking Spaces Required per Beaverton Code for Multi-Use Zones Section 60.30.010 Parking Spaces Required per Number of Auto Parking MFR Unit Units Proposed Spaces Required 1 space/studio 64 64 1 spaces/1-bedroom unit 98 98 1 spaces/2-bedroom unit 53 53 Visitor parking—no requirement - - Total MFR Units/ 215 Parking Spaces Required 215 units spaces EXHIBIT D Transmittal Emerio Design Cell: 503-780-4061 8285 SW Nimbus Ave, Suite 180 Email: ryano@emeriodesign.com Beaverton, Oregon 97008 TO: Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner FROM: Ryan O'Brien, Planning Consultant DATE: 12-15-14 SUBJECT: A+O Apartments I represent Gene Davis, the owner of developable property on the south and north side of Oak Street adjacent to the A+O Apartment property. We are not opposed to this apartment development. However, we believe this development should include the improvement of Lincoln Street to Oak Street or at least the right-of-way should be dedicated so Lincoln Street can be improved in the future. Orland, the owner of the A+O property, are also the owners the property where this right-of-way would be located (Tax Lots 3300 and 3302). A Map of this property is attached. Temporary construction easement will also be needed. The surrounding property owners mentioned this at the neighborhood meeting. We agree with the comments in the Tigard staff report regarding the Lincoln street extension and improvement. The Lincoln Street extension is needed for good traffic circulation in the area. Orland LTD purchased the land where the right-of-way would be located if Lincoln Street was required for development of the A+O apartments. I do not see any reason why this right-of-way should not be dedicated with the development of the A+O apartments. This right-of-way dedication and street improvements will benefit everyone in the area including employees in the Lincoln Center offices. This will also reduce on traffic on 90th Avenue which is a local street adjacent to Metzger Elementary School and existing single family detached houses. The need is clearly stated in the Tigard Staff Report. The following are additional reasons for the Lincoln street extension. 1. The land where the Lincoln Street right-of-way is located has no value except for the livability of the rental house on the property. Dedication of this right-of- way and improvement of Lincoln Street will be required when this property is developed in the future (Tax lots 3300 and 3302). Dedicating the right-of-way would be a benefit to Orland because other developers in the area would probably build the road at no cost to Orland. 1 2. Dedication of the Lincoln Street right-of-way would be a "Good Neighbor" gesture because it will help everyone in the general area and especially the property owners along 90t Avenue where street improvements are minimal. Development of 215 units will change the character of the neighborhood and the function of 90th Avenue. 3. Section 18.350.050.A.3 requires the "PUD Concept Plans to identify how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood." The traffic study indicated 90th Avenue has capacity 215 additional units. However, the function of 90th Avenue will be degraded. About 600 additional multiple family units could be developed in the area which will require the extension of Lincoln Street. 3. Section 18.350.070.C.8.a allows development if "Public safety is not compromised." Even though the traffic report does not require 90th Avenue improvements to Locust Street or the extension of Lincoln Street, safety issues may occur from the lack of adequate circulation. This is especially true for students that attend Metzger Elementary School and the residents along 90th Avenue that are required to back out from their driveways. 4. The Tigard Staff Report on Page 25 indicates the need to improve accessibility in the Lincoln Center Commercial District in accordance with the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC). The Purpose of the WSRC Plan District in Section 18.630.010.A.4 requires "Improved multi-modal transportation links to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth". 5. Section 18.630.0 requires "All new developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets and participate in funding future transportation projects within WSRC." Based on this requirement, dedication of the Lincoln Street right-of-way should be the minimum to demonstrate Orland is cooperating with the city to adequately plan for future development in the WSRC Planning District. The only reason why Orlando would not dedicate the right-of-way is to stop other property owners from developing their property. If the right-of-way is not dedicated, the only option available to the city is condemnation which will require the expenditure of public funds. This is not a reasonable alternative. There is a need for other properties to develop along the north and south sides of Oak Street so full street improvements will occur along Oak Street. 6. Page 28 of the staff report indicates an analysis of existing street improvements along 90th Avenue were not included in the traffic study. 90th Avenue will be a primary route to Locust Street. The code does not specifically address this issue. However, a local street is not intended the have traffic which exceeds 1500 vehicle trips per day (vpd) when fully improved (See Figure 18.810.4 in the Tigard Development Code). An unimproved road will have less capacity. Figure 18.810.5 and 18.810.6 show local streets with ranges from 200 500 vpd. 2 7. The Purpose of Street connectivity in Section 18.630.040.A, indicates that "The standards provide a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the WSRC. The primary objective is to create a balanced, connected transportation system that distributes trips in the WSRC on a variety of streets." This purpose statement is directly related to the extension of Lincoln Street. Gene Davis was told in the past by city staff that no development can occur along Oak Street without the extension of Lincoln Street to Oak Street. 3 - ...� - i . en ,w , f Ft• I' s Sc � p V I _ •^ r �-�-�-7'' W I Ail OP Yr - I '-`•_•'�1 �k ,mow r iyF-ety f 33ot' ::E NA .L r� ' _ 1j, Z--A + Afiwl EXHIBIT E Jill Warren 9280 SW 80th Ave. Portland, OR 97223 December 15, 2014 To: City of Tigard Mayor John Cook Marty Wine, City Manager City Council CPO2014-00002 Planning Commnission PDR2014-00003 13125 SW Hall Blvd. SDR2014-00004 Tigard, OR 97223 SLR2014-00002 Dear Mayor Cook, City Manager re: 215 unit apartment complex on Oak St. City Council and Planning Commission, The Washington Square Regional Center plan was conceived 15 years ago yet never reached fruition. There were unanswered questions about infrastructure costs, impacts of development in a sensitive lands area, property damage from flooding and questionable market success. To piggy back high-density development and call it the regional center is erroneous. Is it fair to commit taxpayer dollars on a project that is high risk?There will have to be substantial taxpayer investment, i.e. urban renewal bonds for construction costs, infrastructure and potential legal issues. Flooding/Mold/Insurance Putting high-density development in a 100-year floodplain that has a history of flooding every 50 years will put people and property at risk.When people are harmed they need to be made whole.The jurisdictions that approved the zoning change will be culpable for litigation (City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, Metro and Washington County). Compound that with flooding impacts downstream and structural water damage (mold),it will be a costly disaster. Water will soak into the drywall and mold will ensue so the buildings will have to be gutted and completely rebuilt. Flood insurance is prohibitively expensive. If there is a mortgage on the property flood insurance is mandatory. If the property is free and clear there is no mandate for flood insurance. If urban renewal bonds are used for construction costs and there won't be a mortgage on the property will flood insurance be available? Removing Wetlands The proposal includes removing 0.42 acres of dileneated wetlands on the site from the Comprehensive Plan's Wetlands and Stream Corridor map's Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands designation along with removal of the same area from the Significant Habitat areas map. It is not proper to remove wetlands from what is currently on the books. If they have to do this to move forward it illustrates this is not the right site for this project. Bull Mountain When Bull Mountain was being developed the real estate community knew it was overbuilt. No developer in the private sector would heavily develop that site because they have to mitigate risk.Sure enough 15 years later City of Tigard had to purchase a house from erosion damage because it was "cheaper than being sued". Does the City of Tigard have the resources to purchase a 215 unit apartment complex and do repairs? Is it right for City of Tigard to use taxpayer dollars for investment and repairs and then commit to another high-risk project? Conclusion Before approving this proposal there needs to be more investigation from state agencies and risk management. The regional center was stalled for many reasons and we need to revisit questions that were raised 15 years ago. This proposal will change and modify the wetland/floodplain dramatically. There are many alterations in the plan that are extreme in order to pencil out, proving this is not the appropriate site for this project. Respectfully submitted, T EXHIBIT F TIGARD Firsthe"' 5 Members of the Tigard Planning Commission, My name is Steve Bintliff, a resident of Tigard and member of the citizen group,Tigard First. I'm speaking in opposition to the A&O Apartments application to build an apartment complex along Oak Street near 901h Ave. We have noted that the developer for the project is listed on the application as the "Othman Group", but many of the documents are on OTAK, Inc. letterhead. We know that the CEO of OTAK, Mr. Othman, was on the Tigard Task Force that designed the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. So it's no surprise that he would want to capitalize and profit from his involvement and knowledge of the area by pursuing a project here. We know that this project is funded by 'wealthy foreign investors' as part of the US Government's EB-5 Investor Green Card Program. Congress established the program to attract foreign cash by rewarding foreign investors with green cards. Foreign citizens who invest$1 million in a new businesses organized through government-approved regional centers can qualify for U.S. visas. The Washington Square Regional Center is one of these government-approved centers. (Link:http://www.biziournals-com/portland/print- edition/2011/12/09/eb-5-to-trie¢er-millions-for-proiects.html?pave=3 ) According to the Portland Business Journal,The Othman Group was launched to help Middle East-based clients expand to the U.S.. and help Pacific Northwest clients do business in the Middle East. The firm provides strategic positioning, business development, investment advice and community development services. It's clients are in Portland, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates." (link: htti)://www.biziournals.com/c)ortiand/bloa/reai-estate daiiv/2013/02/otak-founder-othman-launches-real.html) We can be sure that the investors in this project will have no interest in our community whatsoever. This project is just a clever way for them to get a green card. However,they DO expect a high return on their investment, and to assure that,they're asking Tigard taxpayers to improve their ROI and cover their risk should something go wrong with the property. We have two main areas of objection: Wetlands: By changing the master plan to allow them to take almost half an acre of the wetlands on the site, we, the taxpayers of Tigard become responsible for whatever happens. What could go wrong on land built in a floodplain, to a development built on land we KNOW will flood? TDC18.775.130 requires that the economic benefits of the project must justify the loss of the wetlands. The Staff report supports the project consuming puts a portion of the wetlands, yet the report does nothing to explain what these benefits are to the community. So we ask: What benefit do the taxpayers realize in exchange for this? By the applicant's own admission,they never seriously considered other alternatives that would leave the wetlands intact. They claim it would result in higher rents, but they never actually put pencil to paper. Honoring the current wetland boundaries might result in higher costs or a lower rate of return for the foreign investors involved, but that's not a problem for our City Staff or for this body to solve, and not a reason to waive or modify the rules for the development. Parking: By admission of the applicant and City Staff,the proposed development doesn't include enough parking. If a waiver is granted by this Commission,we believe the residents and their visitors will have to go looking for on-street parking, adding to traffic and congestion in the area. The applicant's weak promise to 'make information available about rideshare services' is NOT an effective mitigation of this possibility, nor is City Staff's assertion that there might be future transit and walkability improvements available to residents. Again,the City Staff report doesn't adequately justify why a parking exemption should be granted. This body should require the parking spaces as specified by the code. Tigard First strongly urges you to reject the current application, until the project can be resized or restructured preserve the current wetland boundaries, and to have the required number of parking spaces on—site. =��froN►tu�o {S ID ��aj -aaa `uT�c�r o `loin vo IV?1v ��� 454a aHt' �-A-2A f L,l� ',�ntN u. 0-4j 2)k'vfSIp +-AQyS -P 4Srr. tbM d-2'ar4OQ-J-O t(f�M Juou ` G+1'009 taogYipVly p-«'1711ADd N+ fo -A(V� Q1-t'Yjl1.�StitO� -r�ua°7 �at1e� -�y(1 3�°ung vu-10-{s Jo -fstia Pzm + +"L4 °fdo1zttiV}� 1'-V1�.►�c�iwis�j pti►ro ��c1,uro�- �}(rwr asror,�ur Q fI-v, skr(d Ft'J ail tirzna Jv a r� Q9 off. SZ _,n!o GU i C� � '-}�r�►,�+�-tau -, ,���1 51 f('17 j u"V A (-k(P LU-XV M S M QA p l.k Q f,► -ArYt..4 S V ZUD -ArHI W -45V'D?' -0 j a-tro'U,, t MDu tdais a�vt uw� a,M w-Ay A.QJ sp(og --Ar4s-9 a�� t��M fo M� r(a�r�� �ta,t -ap�u4 Srot� asaj (�j ui 1.taa-p� ,j�p-"j +� av�of Yuen-V . S ('N t4'21)I S a �fi �a? .has-x-(.S j hDLJ J I f4t ��ro �{url Q 2n rb -'� `M-cjtA-,,q sa � uo 6-Ahp-Ir�j n -4¢n!' IQ0�a N-t ,-o j 4 y Sluc I/vjQ j. ' fi ckolss ,�w 9 IIEIHXa Wa6hin94-orn Sq.td-re, dep-ands upon oL nz+wu-rk of pipes fa clr n It 1l.cizr Itj�i tiA iVdJe�, Sa-mz � Ct ca—cL5 &8o wco-LY rose up f-kc, hta(- du.c;Fs 4 }- o- ►.e s-1 re.. Mg wusboma w6rl-CecA for t7e1 U&l , f-he, campcul,� lhctE res pa r,cled �-o 4 em¢�ry�n . A 5o-deer resic[,vn �� 1-h� areo,, I was lnvolveJ in Ct, fY�+Flyct+�vn of 5 Orn� , 27 aLr2-s W �hi" 15 a•rtCk , Fln.e IC,Ctl ming �o replace, 5 + n c ctn+ tn/-PJ 1 an. s 6si +n iOui Icl i n9 CL �laFe 1 n-e-x 1 Io Grazan burg R.&. W 1 Lcrt m a s� -Vv irvR,,r o'n e e M.e ct m us Ee.acL , �l,►e, ty I aa f)and , tic-g �� .4w OYegm T-�epl, of F+Sh 4n.el wiIiitFe-� ids •5urv-ottrtcls -6 be. P,l lecl wl4l-, 1� a55z5 , 5hru65 � Imes +o replace, Food 0.nel •,he.I{&V- el' +• 2 os4 ka(), vo-� 1 Ilm {v IRA +6 lmlh�asi�, yo-ns 6F F,11 ) over- 4-4t- I +M'i4 stl by I�te US Arrh� CMT ar Ggj`+ne-rs, has buyie-A }k9- formo,r Wewwnd , LaCALkc( on tAe .Pa ciG,•G AIgill,1 44 gilt an oG1=e.rV-J t-Ai�rA4i-; Q birds LL r'.esti'n9 plae¢ ane( X00 its lana o�vdct►:E5 . our bey+ reSf ra4-16w.e40-r+jam -Ef- is a h"4,gvu,9 6t5 a vuAv renhWry ofhe•r� �nla -r �s 9e-+'n9 d-o be, a- mo.,jo-r i5SL.LG, ror O-►is lama , baundtcZ bJ 2 �, Gremburg axut Gak., ID re rain Zantng For any deve.lopme)-4 . Eilery Sehud m inck, 4-a my rri�nd, 5flould b.e f-r'w red For• +hz 5forrn\,V&6.r pro� ecFj.oh 1� oFFer5 FrR� o� c{ut r9e ; o Wa.{,hrvtg lan sC a.re., uplivid rR,d4,vs1 oprr►¢vLt Grtd clawnl-owe 1E9arcl �terct ,e,!-s , M 5�— Pnrlar�.�, EXHIBIT H December 15, 2014 To: Planning Commission & City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Testimony re: Ash Creek and Oak Apartments (A+O Apartments) Case ID Numbers: CPO2014-00002 PDR2014-00003 SDR2014-00004 SLR2014-00002 Dear Commissioners, Councilors, and Mayor- The Neighborhood Meeting about this proposed development drew 55-60 concerned citizens last February. The September CPO-4M meeting had 39 attendees with many concerns about these applications. At its last meeting in November, the membership of CPO-4M voted unanimously to oppose portions of these application/s. This is a Type III=PC LAND USE REVIEW. We are hoping that you hear all of the public input prior to your deliberations and a decision. The County Commissioners allow 2 minutes for individuals and five minutes for organizations like CPOs. Can CP04M be allotted five minutes? Why are the four applications in the above cases not considered separately? Please do not streamline these cases, but separate the four applications, and allow 2 min. per application We see that the City planner has outlined a lot of conditions that need to be met before implementation if approved. What is the applicant's response? Because we believe that after tonight's hearing there will be some outstanding questions that need to be answered, we request a continuance and that the record remain open to allow for more input and answers to the questions raised in these cases prior to your final deliberations. We disagree with the staff recommendations and find errors in the applicant's assertions. On page 1 of the staff report misspells the applicant's name. This creates difficulties for people trying to research more info about the applicant. Whereas staff asks for the exact name of the permittee,staff misspells the applicant's in its posted report to the council and PC. _ _ _ = = = = = Wetlands CPO-4M opposes the requested amendment to remove/decrease any acreage or partial acreage(0.42 acres)of existing wetlands south of southwest Oak Street from the Comprehensive Plans map. Uses that conflict with the city code should be prohibited. Recent climate change has brought some extreme conditions elsewhere that don't suggest any modification of this 100-year flood plain is warranted here at this time. Almost every winter over at least four decades, CPO members have seen from viewpoints {on SW Oak Street, SW Spruce Street, Oregon Highway #217, and SW Greenburg Road) those lands covered with water supporting fish and wildlife habitat. These are federal and state "wetlands"that have increased and the City of Tigard has deemed them to be `significant wetlands'. It appears that the combination of the proposed decrease in wetlands acreage and the proposed wall would increase the elevation of the surface water of the 100-year flood plain CPO-4M was involved in the lack of fulfillment of the proposed Washington Square Regional Center and the Presidential Parkway proposals in the late 1990s. CPO members thought the wetlands were protected. TRAFFIC &PARKING Does Tigard have traffic problems already? Yes. Has there been a city traffic study along SW Oak Street recently? This morning at 6am I did a little parking study. On the north side of SW Oak Street there are signs that say"No Parking This Side of the Street" I saw two vehicles parked illegally on the north side of Oak Street and in the bike lane. In addition, parking along SW 90th was full this morning at 6:10am. At the Neighborhood meeting, the applicant said: "Parking will be provided to meet minimum requirements of City of Tigard." But now they want a variance on parking. CPO-4M opposes the request for a variance for off-street parking and loading requirements code [Code 18.765] because they are unable to provide enough parking spaces for all the 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Fifty-one vehicles without parking spaces will create a serious parking overflow. The applicant's claims about Tri-Met are not accurate either. It is more than one-quarter of a mile to any of the Tri-Met bus line stops (routes #43, #76, #78) on Locust, Hall or Greenburg roads. [Goal 7 Hazards] There are economic and insurance liabilities from building in the floodplain. The City of Tigard and its citizens have already experienced costly negative economic issues due to overbuilding (poor planning decisions) on Bull Mountain. [Code: 18.795] Visual clearance—The proposed four 4-story buildings along SW Oak Street would block scenic viewpoints. Also, for the record, when asked at the Neighborhood Meeting if any of this `complex' will be affordable housing, the developer's answer was, "No, it won't be affordable." The applicant's minutes of the Neighborhood meeting clearly differ from our minutes. So in summary, we oppose the variance in city codes for parking and wetlands and request continuance beyond the holiday season to allow for full deliberation of the issues. Respe fol y bmitted, Av-� Jim on g, a Citizen Participation Organization-4M 10730 SW 72"d Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Letter to Gary- My story: EXHIBIT I My husband and I have been living at 10455 SW 87th since 1996. Our front door faces the old Lyon (Don and Hazel) farm house across 87th that sits on Hall. In 50 years their house never flooded. Ash creek runs through it until it runs under the bridge across Oak and on to the flood plain adjacent to the wetland that this apartment proposal hopes to molest. Every winter since we moved in, the floodplain to the right of us would fill with water-until 2004. When the sewer line was installed in 2004, that stretch, we noticed truckloads of dirt being brought in to the flood plain (with tremendous amount of dust to compromise our attempt to paint our house) At the same time pumps where being brought in as well. As I understand it, the owner of that property was exercising his own agenda for pumping water. As well he pasteurized horses as the rest of my neighbors were told they could not have chickens. Since that time the water has found another place to go. It now collects across from us in the yard of Hazel Lyon. III and elderly she worried about her property but had no energy to research it. She has since passed away and a new owner has acquired the land. Below are photos of her flooding which is happening half the time now during winter. In the center of the 4th photo, is a berm added by the sewer project, but you can see it did very little good. As well our back yard has become a soupier each winter. The more this stretch of land gets messed with, the wetter we become. So my question is,what exactly do I have as a land owner, beside the fact that I am a Audubon member and bird steward who is profoundly disappointed with the zoning that allowed for this proposal, and besides the fact that I have already witnessed multiple traffic accidents on that blind corner of 87th, and Oak, and besides the fact that my neighborhood already rejected the regional center plan, that would see any benefit to this investment that is applying a real hazard to us and other neighbors. I vehemently urge reconsideration of this plan. Gary Pagenstecher From: Brian <brian@tualatinriverkeepers.org> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:04 PM To: Redon Charles Cc: Gary Pagenstecher; Paul H.Whitney, Mike Skuja Subject: Comments on Oak Street Estates wetland permits. Application APP0056389 Please accept these brief comments on the Oak Street Estates wetland permit application. Tualatin Riverkeepers met with the applicant's team on site. 1. Has avoidance been fully implemented? Increasing height on some of the buildings could reduce the footprint and be compatible with Tigard's regulations. 2. There are plenty of publicly owned places to mitigate in the Fanno - Ash Creek Watershed. That would be a better choice to mitigate local impacts than a mitigation bank near Hillsboro. 3. We appreciate the voluntary planting the developer has proposed for the floodplain. Brian Wegener, Riverkeeper Advocacy & Communications Manager Tualatin Riverkeepers 11675 SW Hazelbrook Road Tualatin, OR 97062 503-218-2580 Keep up on the public policy decisions that impact our creeks,wetlands and river. Read and subscribe to Tualatin Watch. TUALATIN.}? RIVERKEEPERS' www.tualatinriverkeepers.org i - " FOREIGN MISSION FOUNDATION Dr. Gene Davis, President 10875 S.W. 89h Ave — �- Tigard, Oregon 97223 USA Tel: 503 246-5862, fax: 503 977-9343 Email: fmf.india(a�yahoo.com Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 Date: 11.6.2014 Re: Case#CPA2014-00002,PDR2014-00003,SDR2014-00004, SLR2014-00002 Dear Gary, I am very opposed to the circulation plan if I understand it correctly. Orland purchased Tax Lot 3300 and Tax Lot 3302 for the purpose of opening Lincoln Street extension to Oak Street which was a City requirement at the time. That connection is a minor collector on the City Master Plan and is necessary if an additional 215 multi- family dwelling units are going to be able to move in and out of our community, or any other development in the area. SW Oak Street certainly needs to be expanded from 40 ft. to 60 ft. without which there will be congestion that does not meet City development codes. Beyond this, SW 90"'is a residential street with parking on one side and without this street parking there isn't enough space for the residents to accommodate their vehicles. You might note that Orland owns a full 1 acre at the corner of 95th and Oak which they plan to put a hotel on. Plus they own .91 acres in Tax Lot 3300 that will be their next development. This development more appropriately should be a plan use development with a Master Plan for the community, not piece meal. The Oak Street is planned for a 60ft. street and this development will not properly fit into the transportation Master Plan unless the 60 ft. width from Greenburg Road to Hall is required and put in at this time. Beyond that no parking along that 60ft. strip should be allowed in the overall Master Plan. When the rest of the properties are developed, will there be capacity for both parking and traffic circulation? Thank you very much! Dr. Gene Davis RECI',-- ��VD N O V 2 0 2014 November 20, 2014 CIT`,`OF_fIGX-iD PLANNINGi-C'N yI JEERING Jim Long, Chair Citizen Participation Pr2ram-4M 10730 SW 72 Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 To: City Council & Planning Commission c/o Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Testimony re: Ash Creek and Oak Apartments (A+O Apartments) Case ID Numbers: CP02014-00002 PDR2014-00003 SDR2014-00004 SLR2014-00002 Dear Mayor, City Council,and Planning Commission: The Neighborhood Meeting about this application drew 55-60 concerned citizens last February. The September CPO-4M meeting had 39 attendees concerned about this application. Last night, the membership of CPO-4M voted unanimously to oppose portions of the application/s. 1) We oppose the requested amendment to remove/decrease any acreage or partial acreage (0.42 acres)of existing wetlands south of southwest Oak Street from the Comprehensive Plans map for Most winters over at least four decades, CPO members have seen from viewpoints (on SW Oak Street, SW Spruce Street, Oregon Highway #217, and SW Greenburg Road)those lands covered It appears that the combination of the proposed decrease in wetlands acreage and the proposed wall would increase the elevation of the surface water of the 100-year flood plain Conflicting uses should be prohibited. Recent climate change has brought some extreme conditions elsewhere that don't suggest any modification of this 100-year flood plain is warranted at this time. CPO-4M was involved in the lack of fulfillment of the proposed Washington Square Regional Center and the Presidential Parkway proposals in the late 1990s. CPO members thought the wetlands were protected. 2) [Code 18.765] We oppose the request for a variance for parking. Not enough parking spaces are provided for both the 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Fifty-one vehicles without parking spaces will create a serious parking overflow. 3) [Goal 7 Hazards] Economic liabilities from building in the floodplain. The City of Tigard and its citizens have already experienced costly negative economic issues due to overbuilding on Bull Mountain. 4) [Code: 18.795] Visual clearance— Scenic viewpoints would be blocked by four 4-story buildings. 5) Why are the four applications in the above cases not considered separately? Also, for the record, when asked at the Neighborhood Meeting if any of this complex will be affordable housing,the answer was, "No, it won't be affordable." Their minutes of that meeting clearly differ from our minutes. ResActfully sjomitteq, JifLong ����od `7aw�v�nSut -ark ��1�-�0+ ' �x►I,�n _ doh. 144ro 1ry,)b 1x.9 ni 1V 1 V P o OlIc C,144# 114--tP I-4 711-t Ot Y 1,fV -#tea u+cL j Y`ap r►�;urn - 1tv�u� ?�+nv V-+V A.Q f '?4133 T, ' bu+ ASai�°Aga��a s6o.�y •.a.a �XIIS u► �ur.�rU� I-- � �{Q - a -nft T�bU,�r �us� �,a�j �tsro ���'olv �' �;e('��"1� kU IM p�4 c'pM I s:kaf%-A`u.1 ,- ri )+ro pc)xj dv It, F .fit H 7 +J+-) tad a44 Un ' 1119 -.2,4f ? fV* Iy ? sum- W44. -of iS161 -1vJano3 a� �cfS. ` iu�a ti sv� r `ob c L4v alp+ S • r u n�-�,�04 u�M Qj uMQr (ALanti "a�9VI+b_1)a u-0 o+uI 6UCp) Irta ffVf� �acduu� a4 �ut�unjd sn �ia�c����ol�� sb st rrosQdQad Si1p, /1 W]" -Alr#L 4 6u -fQvl IUV tLO(udQr'rAv' n c XAauuua o? 4v1 Q1,11 tM,. S p uY)(.{aM T o 4-f 4S #X-7 o-} r-L -?s Pspu+.ua. V fat, `-01V ►4.waQ4s -041.1 "Id Uf!via-c 04 -"TIVA s{, ap j �s fi.pry p lnQ qg �J! D ?,LN ?tAV (1 TM V ua 'LPtodoI nay oru+ puad 4 fi��tS• a g40Q, Mf o _+n ?.a u1 'HUM ON1833Nf-?,C!OP,'INNVId ti�o2 a ti r ;, ..A' RECEIVED NGV 2 0 2014 CITY OF i IGARD PLANNING,ENGINEERING T. ) "A ako iL4 - 0coa PpK 03 mcl n of�le ►s rt nPrinCL 4not Z 1ivL T�l �anar)ct cam- -fhcl't �1 m e.. wcL-s in Forme of GZ.�bc c �h e Cc�Ctc.�i rn n a r--L r ol)oj PI QIA o_rrjcA-., cdl d. at 6 ear tac 3z0Z• • 3(o c.4,)a,s a ea . (jt we� -/o/d Fcr� ti bo✓h o ad. fhoo( 4-he e4- n si o r) ce bile-a(r) a 4o &x p eoC dzv-�.� BPrn 1a j 6r16 n of Prd��e�t eS � m 6 �11i S <Sv o-F� _ ass ttil 7 - cc'tc (5-r /h bjf-4-1 G-�(ecu 1- Ya-3 Corn e �o m 0) cST` J'✓l Ino r ho c. eJ(' t'o(A� . Z-F' (ter�CeJ(ri�Sf /S 'Wt' 1:3 13 a, f'c sld-ei9ra�f 6ffC_e-,jt W Lf% On (5 rtet fwl"l - e r Gmcgo s • a . a4 e.,e, cc r)Of CO d CA'S h �a :I-V-Ao c o r) bt�L - IOa r��r f�5 4, 1,0 t eu4 c+10(�� . air ctolc� pto- peibf-A V6(C axvt l btu 30 11 La(f) cc b � Fc-brcco_-r cut toe- C..qc-rc. to( a t-h c--S . a n oC --O at n d h of in +Allo- b -f rr r- f OF �� YV KOPc e CA, � vc� CCK , Cc--r f+vS c(r-jcjolortN e,..-vt bu-t e r4'orce.S CWC l,� 6 6 VoV rrt,� O-A of � v-r-- . E( c M sS cPf-12.ot4t -b000 z, -MZ PPk- 00/y-oo0o,3 -SOIZ Mill- 00.00Y iR-&W 5 7-t CH -5. A-je- 5 7_A"__OJ2- _ 'FZ zz ele t At*AA-F- A-APO A-m SD ,f- Zia A A RECEIVED NOV 20 2014 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNINGIENGINEERING Jill Warren 9280 SW 80th Ave. Portland, OR 97223 December 15, 2014 To: City of Tigard Mayor John Cook Marty Wine, City Manager City Council CP02014-00002 Planning Commnission PDR2014-00003 13125 SW Hall Blvd. SDR2014-00004 Tigard, OR 97223 SLR2014-00002 Dear Mayor Cook, City Manager re: 215 unit apartment complex on Oak St. City Council and Planning Commission, The Washington Square Regional Center plan was conceived 15 years ago yet never reached fruition. There were unanswered questions about infrastructure costs, impacts of development in a sensitive lands area,property damage from flooding and questionable market success. To piggy back high-density development and call it the regional center is erroneous. Is it fair to commit taxpayer dollars on a project that is high risk?There will have to be substantial taxpayer investment, i.e. urban renewal bonds for construction costs, infrastructure and potential legal issues. FloodingJMold/Insurance Putting high-density development in a 100-year floodplain that has a history of flooding every 50 years will put people and property at risk.When people are harmed they need to be made whole. The jurisdictions that approved the zoning change will be culpable for litigation (City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, Metro and Washington County). Compound that with flooding impacts downstream and structural water damage (mold), it will be a costly disaster.Water will soak into the drywall and mold will ensue so the buildings will have to be gutted and completely rebuilt. Flood insurance is prohibitively expensive. If there is a mortgage on the property flood insurance is mandatory. If the property is free and clear there is no mandate for flood insurance. If urban renewal bonds are used for construction costs and there won't be a mortgage on the property will flood insurance be available? Removing Wetlands The proposal includes removing 0.42 acres of dileneated wetlands on the site from the Comprehensive Plan's Wetlands and Stream Corridor map's Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands designation along with removal of the same area from the Significant Habitat areas map. It is not proper to remove wetlands from what is currently on the books. If they have to do this to move forward it illustrates this is not the right site for this project. Bull Mountain When Bull Mountain was being developed the real estate community knew it was overbuilt. No developer in the private sector would heavily develop that site because they have to mitigate risk.Sure enough 15 years later City of Tigard had to purchase a house from erosion damage because it was"cheaper than being sued". Does the City of Tigard have the resources to purchase a 215 unit apartment complex and do repairs?Is it right for City of Tigard to use taxpayer dollars for investment and repairs and then commit to another high-risk project? Conclusion Before approving this proposal there needs to be more investigation from state agencies and risk management. The regional center was stalled for many reasons and we need to revisit questions that were raised 15 years ago. This proposal will change and modify the wetland/floodplain dramatically.There are many alterations in the plan that are extreme in order to pencil out, proving this is not the appropriate site for this project. Respectfully submitted, Jill Tellez 4280 S.W.80th Ave. Tigard,OR 97223 JAN.31,2000 Brian Moore,Presiding Officer TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 RE: PROPOSED WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN ISSUES OF NON-COMPLIANCE TO METRO'S 2040 FUNCTIONAL PLAN I would like this testimony to be submitted into the record to the Tigard City Council in reference to the Washington Square Regional Center proposed plan. There are several aspects of this plan which do not conform to Metro's 2040 Functional Plan. Excerpts taken from Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission Agenda Item 4, Sept. 23-24, 1999, LCDC Meeting. Following referenced goals are adopted State-wide LCDC God. The following italic text are observed deficiencies in the proposed plan which I wish to draw your attention to. Metro's Urban Growth Report contains an analysis of key factors that influence regional urban form and the amount of land needed in the UGB and in future urban reserves. Examples of analysis included in the Growth Report include: a. GIS land information research; b.field investigations and expert testimony on infill and redevelopment activity levels; c. evaluations of various"inefficiencies"(impacts from slope,soil conditions and existing development for example)that occur during the land development process. <There have been no impact reports submitted by governmental agencies or private consultants concerning the risk of building high density inside a floodplain, or of the environmental impacts upon the Ash Creek wetlandlfloodplain.> The proposed regional center plan conflicts with the following: Goal 5-7 resources are made considerations for UGB expansions in Policy 1.7 and the Metro Code governing UGB amendments requires compliance with Goal 14•which included consideration of the environment. Policy 1.1 requires attention to providing access to nature as part of the regional urban form. Urban Form is defined as"the net results of efforts to preserve environmental quality, coordinate the development of jobs,housing,and public services and facilities,and inter-relate the benefits and consequences of growth in one part of the region with the benefits and consequences of growth in another."<The City of Beaverton is not being impacted by higher density up zones, yet the Nimbus area is still in the proposed plan>.Thus,concern for environmental quality is a primary concern in creating the preferred urban form. The 2040 Growth Concept designates open spaces and trail corridors that include parks,stream and trail corridors,wetlands and floodplains, and largely undeveloped upland areas. <The proposed high density up zoning is being concentrated in one small area(please refer to sub area "C" of proposed plan), a sensitive lands area, and not being absorbed by the other proposed sub areas.> oa 8 Recreational is addressed both through the open spaces and trail corridors policies but also in a recommendation to cities Wildcounties employed in th is ois high density plan.>pulation ration for creational facilities. <There are no new recreational facilities The oal9 Y expectation ectation that an economic opportunity analysis be prepared is addressed P development in Metro's employment forecasts. Adequate land is included for economic areas. These designated Industrial Areas,Employment Areas and mixed-use design type designations have bare dispersed approped for riate for desirable sub-regionauing review to determine l jobs o housether the ing balance. designated for jobs ,This pian has not provided an analysis of jobs to housing balance.> Metro's Regional Urban Growth dme tsobo�d eObjectives toj state statutes and)tobjective e statewia coals as being part th Metro Code governing UGB amen of the Metro's standard for amending the UGB. "Type,mix and wages of existing and anticipated lety ,mix jobs"are not explicit standards found either in statutes or is no in a goalss.sis insta�es'or Goals ford wages of...jobs"within an area may be preferable, allowing them to override e Pands area to accommodate licit Goal values such as agricultural growth targetsand Q iolates this objectrve.> <Compromising a sensitive fiMwth Manpment Growth management poliicy "Me management of the urban land supply shall occur in a manner consistent with state law that: Encourages the evolution of an efficient urban(growth)form. <This plan has no prescribed stages of evolution.> nities to uv There is no basis in state policy example the the maintenance Boal of protecting resourcedclands. <Compromising a automatically other goals, sensitive lands area to accommodate growth targets violates this objective.> Rggiona� i ,. 1 Cenler�- According to Metro: variation from the recommended design type densities as °in the long run work for station leeway communities,town ensitiecenters workable in egional centerand main streets. it is s. Market and fiscalwhether much if any leeway from design densities demands would appearand employment. close <Reg onal center designations cannote regional eexistwi type in both housing units P Y inventing a new high density zoning designation. This Laguna aggressive Sacramento CA,and The repeatedly and resulted in bankruptcy proceedings for Lag Beaverton Round, Beaverton, OR. A "regional censer"is a gambling prospect at best with knowledge of possible failure.> ent The Department recommends inclusionhether the functions of Regional date item in the Centersa�re adequately r Metro to research,monitor and evaluate implemented by current measures. <There has been no research, monitoring or evaluation oft is proposed regional center or if it will function properly.> BnilIt nyirQILmenl4 to the The 2440 Framework Plan built fbits a egh atures oee of f an urban envir nment.ppolic es upportts'ngtand interaction between naturaland fostering these interactions result in blending will the purposes of CT°al�s 3 through 7 with those Of �oalc 8 throueh_.14- included among these policies are: Preserving access to nature, Designating and protecting open spaces inside the UGB and in rural reserves, ,Applying regional standards to designated water quality and flood management areas,and Directing a region-wide C:oa15 riparian corridor protection plan. <There is no fiaaU ripe corridor protection plan in this plan>. � ,.ar.o��ve Ply G^o"dLnatioa'Wat>_+ All Levels_Ot �overman�� «fLQgJ2 requires,in part,that comprehensive plans be"coordinated"with the plans of affected government units. Comprehensive plans are"coordinated"when the needs of all levels of government have been considered and accommodated as much as possible."coordination RS19l�a two Brown v.Coos County,31 Or LUBA 142, 145(1996). Comp?ebeplan step process,which requires: I.The makers of the(comprehensive)plan engaged in an exchange of information between planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units,or at least invite such an exchange." 2.The jurisdiction used the information to balance the need of all governmental units***in the pian formulation or revision".Brown,31 Or LUBA at 146,citing Rajneesh v.Wasco County, 13 Or LUBA 202,210(1985). 3. A local government is not required to`accede to every request that may be mad cy.' Brown at 146. It must,however,`adopt findings responding to by a state agen legitimate concerns.' Id., citing Waugh v. Coos County,26 Or LUBA 300,314(1993). art of the The essence of A and he courts can can r findings or ther proerative effort on the pcedural devices two demonstrate that ental es involved. LUBA and the �1 uiM the necessary efforts have been undertaken. But in the last analysis,the participating bodies alone are responsible for undertaking on theefforts.�I s active defficult sires imd efforttse a tomake i dependss that successful. The for its success than this participants LUBA and the courts may require can be nothing more fundings and other procedural trappings that substance for them to than shadows if the parties are not committed to achieving any on v. etm,3a3t.20,20000)• reflect."(State of Oregon Court of Appeals, 1000 Friends of Oreg lain .cT he concern of local conservation endorse thito�proposeserve ed plan in it's currhe Ash Creek o m�Cohes��t been addressed. CPO-4M elements that are necessary for a succssful regional center are being compromised in this draft The upzorning to high density in a sensitive lands area conflicts with the Metzger/Progress Community Plan drafted December 27, 1983, Washington County>. The 1997 Urban Growth Report Update(by Metro),published in September, 1999,states: "There is now no new up zone applied to neighborhoods and parks and open space lands". 1 am respectfully requesting that these regional center elements be =r orae Oi of flu's to this proposal, oposed plan.Therefore,should to consideratto create an economition of this cally and environy nmentally balanced these elements should b0 incorporated r our consideration. regional center plan. Thank y Y Cordially, 91tu, ,� G Pat Whiting, Chair CPO 4-M c/o 8122 S.W. Spruce Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 1, 2000 Tigard City Council c/o Brian Moore, Presiding Officer 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Washington Square Regional Center Plan Boundary, Up-zoning and Infastructure Dear Councilman Moore and City Council: January 26, 2000 , Citizen Participation Organization 4-M (CPO 4-M) adopted a resolution supporting Tigard' s city-wide Policy 7 . 1. 2 as pretains to mandatory infastructure facility preceding development and opposing staff-proposed Policy 11 .8 . 3 which contains language that will allow develpment before proper water and drainage facilities are in place. Also, any proposed policies that seek to allow development before transportational infastructure is also opposed given the possible impacdts to the existing communilty and to any new community that may develop. During the Task Force meetings a letter from the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service dated July 28 , 1999, and a second letter dated Agusut 23, 1999 , noted that although the Service regularly assumes a regulatory role (Section 404 - permits, etc. ) , they "prefer to provide technical assistance in earlier planning stages when more options are typically available and natural resource problems can be avoided more easily and less expensively. " (Please refer to attached letters) . The Task Force did not invite important agency personnel to our meetings to help shed light on the fu�tions and values of floodplains, riparian zones, wetland and wildlife despite requests from some Task Force members and two letters dated July 19 , 1999 , from Tualatin Riverkeepers and from Crestwood Headwaters Group of Ash Creek. 2 Pat Whiting 1/1/2000 TCC:WSRC Proposal During the Planning Commission public hearing on November 15, 1999 , the staff for the regional center proposal were asked if employees of government agencies were asked to speak or participate in discussions regarding natural resources and the values of water quality, fish and habitat. The response seemed to be that there wasn't much response. Attached for your rektlew are the letters listing the agency employees of seven major areas who are experts in their fields and interact with jurisdictions in Washington County. Some are involved in Fanno Creek management. As of this writing three of the seven people listed in these letters who I called yesterday, January 31, 2000, had not been called or contacted. I 've not heard back at this time from the remaining people listed. Before the Council considers finalizing any portion of this regional center plan or the plan itself, we are requesting that you hold a City Council worksession with the state and federal agencies to discuss the issues at hand that impact floodplains, wetlands, wildlife and habitat as well as fish and air quality. Your deliberations and decisions should be predicated upon as mXuch informatpdn as possible given the enormity of the proposal before you. It is requested that you opt for greater dialogue and resolve problems that face this proposal prior to adoption. Therefore, it is requested that you consider giving this planning process more time to evolve and not make final decisions at your meeting of February 8th. If you opt to not secure more factual dialogue with state and federal agencies regarding these issues, given the potential high-density development/redevelopment activity through proposed regional center up-zoning i!f major sensitive lands area and 3 Pat Whiting 1/1/2000 TCC:WSRC Proposal and an existing residential community, we request that the regional center plan boundary to the east be S.W. Greenburg Road. This would effectively eliminate most of the problems with the current proposal that are in conflict wilth the Up-dated 2040 Plan of September, 1999 . Sensitive lands and existing residential communities are not to be subject to increased denisty provisions within a regional center. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Pat Whiting f TUALATIN Riverkeepers 16340 SW Bee(Bend Rd. Sherwood, OR 97140 r - (503) 590-5813 fax: (503) 590-6702 • triverk@teleport_com www-teleport.com/—triverk July 19, 1999 Laurie Nicholson,Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms.Nicholson, The Tualatin Riverkeepers are dedicated to protecting and preserving the natural systems of the Tualatin River and its tributaries. We feel that the best time to work at protecting these resources is early on in the land-use planning process. It is essential that those involved vith iand_use planning get the best advice possible on how to protect these resources. Thus far_the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force has not involved employees of government agencies who could best advise the task force on protecting wetlands and floodplain for the values of water quality,fish and wildlife habitat and flood prevention- The Tualatin Riverkecpers request that you invite the foUowiag.agency representatives to participate in the next Task Force meeting_ Jan. Stuart, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Jennifer Thompson,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jim Giimes,Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Bill Parks, Oregon Division of State bands Tom Melville, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Jim Turner,National Marine Fisheries Service Yvonne Valletta,Environmental Protection Agency We believe that involving these agencies now v-M help protect wetland and floodplain resources_ and'"U prevent costly plan revisions later in the development process. Sincerely, Brian Wegener President, Tualatin Riverl;eepers c: Jim Nicoll,Mayor of Tigard Elaine Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan 07/Z7/bV 15:17 U503 684 7297 L:I'llur 'r1l;A" 10001/00, ws.raves ••....•. .• - --.. - W.Retizcr To:curie Nicholson Crestwood Headwaters Group 5115 SW Alfred St Portland, OR 97219 July 19, 1999 Elaine Cogan Laurie Nicholson/Planner Cogan Oaten..-,Cogan City of Tigard . 93 13 S.Vti'. Ider Street 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97302 Dear Laurie and Elaine; Please invite the following people to speak for a few minutes at Wednesday, July 28, uare Regional Center. I believe it is very 1999 Task Force for the Washington Sq important that the task force have their perspective_ Jan Stuart Yvonne tiallette army Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Bill Parks Di-,ision of State Lands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Torn Melville Jim Crimes Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Jim Turner National Marine Fisheries Service Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ler f. Retzer estwood Headu-atcrs oup J7/26/99 WED 11:48 FAX 5032318195 FWS—oSo f .GHT O Q o o t -United States Department of the Interior - FISH AND W -DUFF,SER`4'ICE Oregon State Office 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 (503) 231-6179 FAX.: (503) 231-6195 Reply To: 6500.3001 Fite Name: w,ksQunF.s.%%,pD July 28, 1999 Washington Square Regional Center Task Force c%Elaine Cogan Cogan Owens Cogan 813 SW Alder Portland, OR 9705 Dear Task Force Members: The U.S. Fish anal Wildlife Service(Service) is submitting this letter to urge the Task Force not to recommend upzoning of the wetlands and Regional Center development area. floodplain gt within the proposed Washington Square . particular, the Service is con ocmed about the �,etjands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek that would be impacted'if the area between Oak and Hwy 217 is upzoned to 11110%,41 for aminimum of.50 units Per acre. The Ser�7ce eneou�ages the zoning. y conservation of these valuable and sensitive natural resources bmaintaining the more protective ID addition to the numerous fish and wildlife species typically associated with wetland and floodplain habitats, Ash creek is known to support sensitive species such as cuttliroat and the northem reed-legged frog. In addition;Upper Willamette River steelhead,which are listed the Endangered Species Act as threatened, occur dov mstream and may occur in Ash Creel;trader Unfortunately,Ash CMc-k is currently included on the tyre ori D Quality's 303(d) List of Water g Department ofEnvir'onrflmtal to poor water quality, Quality Lrmrted Waterbodies for declining fish communities due P q ty, low dissolved oxygen, high summer temperatures,.and fecal eoliforrn• Tlie recover),and sustainability of fish and wildlife species requires conservation efforts that Brad to improved watershed health Thus is a challenging goal to achieve in " ecurban area, not only because of direct development pressures on sensitive areas, but also bause of the intensive off- site and indirect impacts related to urbanization. Long-term planning and sound policy development are two of the most effective protection mechanisms available for minimizing both direct and indirect impacts to natural resources and their associated functions and values. Local conservation efforts can play a key role in complimenting, supporting, and expandictg upt�n tliosc at the regional, state and Federal levels, To ensure that local resources continue to provide benefits to fish, wildlife and people, and for consistency I-vith re the Service recomm. ends that the Task Force worl, to protect Ash creel: and associated ripations that 'Ail] affect e site, areas, t"leodplair:s, wetlands and hufiers by supporting zoning and of}ter corLservation strategies that will prevent resource degmdation. eru 11.40 rAA 50JZ316195 FWs-0so X00 , The following is a list of some of the man • wetlands provide. Y functions that floodplain,riparian zones,and • Fj i r There are currently 54 Fedcraily lista]tht�atene Special concern species within MuItnorrtah, teaedi endangered,propos,candidate, and 80%of these species depend on wetlands ri n' and Clackamas counties. Aver for one or more stages in their lite cjes' p habitat,or the functions they provide Protection can benefit listed RiPa Ian,floodplain and wetland area species, as well as prevent the future listing of other l-lealthy ri ariau areas P cd,protected co species. P Provide connect rridors for between seasonal ranges and alternate habitats _ wildlife to travel mobility facilitates genetic exchange and allowing f species cies dispersal pees l Potential habitat. • Undisturbed riparian vegetation composed ora Plant con�munitie$ P mosaic ssax.y to successional stages and equates to high habitat diversity necessary to support diverse communities and Populations. • Undisturbed riparian systems typically contain an assn including multiple canopy layers,snags,woody debris,,Rent of habitat characteristics diverse interface between riparian areas and differing habita�aeedges(which Provide a diversityj,undercut banks andoverhan typ •furthering habitat ging vegetation. These complex characteristic provide the diverse habitat requirements necessary to support a wide range o{natutI s is occurring fish and wildlife species. ' Although riart an and wy P wetland areas cannot ameliorate all adverse upland impants� �e}, provide the greatest resources needed by fish and wildlife in the smallest area, are a priority for protection. e�and thus In developed and developing lanoscapes,riparian - refuge when adjacent habitat is lost or degraded. and wetland areas can provide critical • Floodplain naturally accumulate matter and dissolved nutrithe. aPPropriate type and balanced amount oforganic ents which are flushed into streams and rivers durinrun events. At natural levels, this material supplies fish and n g off source of food that can enhance production aquatic invertebrates with a rich • Intact vegetation buffers the impact and erosive forces of rain as it hit`the helps to slow and store v,•atcF as it flows across the gr°tind,and cover in a watershed,the �ndscape. The greater the vegetative gradual rel greater the amount of water that can be slowed and held for ease. Rtpariaa areas and floodplain moderate both high and low stream flows, Providing more consistent flows throughout the year. • VGrater moves from the active stream channel onto flaodplains d providine natural areas for flood storage. Alterations to iloo lig Storm events, of vegetation or creation of irnpervious surfaces,r-educes the flood story Cathe removal infdtratior,of water over the floodplain. In turn S parity and flaws moving downstr this results in increased and expedited problems that may affect 1 fe and property. to K�degradation and potential flooding P P Y. .uat'tr Riparian buffers which retain adequate veg poretation and intact soils intercept, biodeoradc significant tions of pollutants. Riparian buffers filter and breal,down nutrients. I3y preventing exccssi:•e aouatic ] e nutrient loading and l' ant and algal grow U, (.:hicl,ccn ultimately cause oxygen depiction 2nd excess arrunonia). an increase in water acidity is avoided, whirl, would othem,ise 3 adversely impact fish and other wildlife by slowing fish growth and negatively impacting � r :oduc-uon in some snecies. • Ple it roots help to stabilize the soil. Maintaining woody vegetation and limiting soil disturbance in riparian areas will prevent significant quantities of sediment from entering stream systems. Efforts are necdt;d not only to maintain, but to improve watershed health throughout the metropolitan region. Locally Iead and supported efforts are needed more now than ever to recover species%uch as threatened and endangered salmon and stcclhead. The opportunity is still available at the proposed Washington Square Regional Centcr to avoid unpacts to natural resources,which is much more effective than fixing problems later both in terns of preventing irreplaceable resource losses, maintaining environmental health and preventing the unnecessary costs of repair,restoration,or attempting to recreate lost functions through artificial means. PIease ensure that all Task Force members receive a copy of this letter, and that it is included in the Task Force Record and in the Regional Center Plan Appendix for consideration by local jurisdictions. Feel free to contact Jennifer Thompson or Kumari Sivarn of my staff at (503) 231- 6179 if you would like to discuss these comments,or if we can provide you with any additional information. Thank you in advance for considering our input and keeping us informed of your decision regarding this issue. l Sin ere]. , State Sup or cc: Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Members Tigard City Council Tigard Planning Commission Ash Creek Water Resources Overlay District from the City of Tigard Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map -- yam- t w • — t 14Okwo r! • r .. r rte• � +1 f •.uar sr � { •�i'� , .. PINP- � r .• •,� y _ µ`ms � . i f � i N Wetlands ',,, �r w r - Tigard riparian Setback USA water Quality BLffler --- City City of Tigard Area of interest .,,!`Urban Service Arent J, -- httr://www.ci.tigarci.or.us/MAPS/wrod.pdf October 5, 2005 TO: CCI/CPO Marketing Sub-Committee From: Jill Warren, Chair and Pat Whiting, Vice-Chair CPO 4-M CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Attendance and volunteer participation at the local level continues to fall since policy changes took place in late 1990 ' s to present regarding local governing decisions that have not taken into consideration recommendations by local citizens and neighborhoods on policy development and planning changes. At issue is how and what was decided regarding density population goals and where the Washington Square Regional Center was located - superimposed on top of the Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain and adjacent existing neighborhoods consisting of single-family residential and higher density residential and small businesses. THe actual process that appeared to abide by LCDC Goal 1 recommendations of citizen participation appears on paper to have achieved out-reach and incorporation of public participation. What transpired was a lack of inclusion of citizen recommendations or even discussion of recommendations over a three year period. The data citizen groups developed and submitted was scientific based and very serious. The plan reflects no alternatives and CPO 4-M considers it flawed despite the repetitive statements by consultants to the local municipality that "There are no flaws in this plan. " Since the late 1990' s local citizens from Tigard and from Metzger and from Portland when attending or testifying before the city council were treated rudely and sometimes yelled at with little provocation. Very elderly people who wanted to participate and testify were so frightened at times that they would tremble and could not proceed to actively testify. Why am I referencing these occurances? Because they have to do with what is part of the problem of citizen participation today. For decades I witnessed citizens in Tigard, Metzger & Progress Ainteract, participate and volunteer. we have witnessed a mowing off of participation and a lack of confidence in somef the governing processes in the City of Tigard which impacts Metzger. Having volunteered to be on the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force and witnessing the process that was consultant/ staff driven and how and what was decided and then unable to vote in favor of the final plan which contains many problems, as an individual and as a member of CPO 4-M I then volunteered and participated in the City of Tigard' s Visioning Process. The Visioning Process consisted of excellent city staff/ citizen interaction and sharing of ideas and recommendation formulation. The futuristic plan is a very good one and I am proud to have partiGpated. However, the previous experience of the adoption of the WSRC by the City of Tigard has had great impact ,on active citizen participation. Interacting with Washington County staff, agencies and elected officials continues to be positive with a "two-way street" interaction, sophisticated processes of governance and respect of citizens in county meetings. However, high-impact local city processes have made it difficult to convince a . lot -. of previously active people to continue participating. Over time this can be overcome. That is why we continue to exist and to develop the agenda items we have brought to the public. There are many new people coming to the area. Hopefully we can increase participation in the future. Pat Whiting, Vice-Chair Oct. 5, 2005 The Ash Creek Wetland/Floodplain has been up-zoned to 50+ units per acre (up from 4.5 upa) . This floodplain/wetland is an important feature in the Metzger/ Tigard area and is part of the Fanno Creek Watershed. CPO 4-M opposed up-zoning this important natural resource and the testimony submitted by Jill Tellez in 2000 sites Oregon Land Use Planning excerpts and portions of the WSRC plan contents that do not reflect impact reports, compromises sensitive lands area violating Statewide Goal 9. The WSRC up-zones neighborhoods and open-space lands. Yet the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update by Metro, Sept.1999, states: "There is now no new up zone applied toneighborhoods and parks and open space lands." Pat Whiting Attached: J.T.1/31/2000 letter and picture of Ash Creek area upzoned to 50+ units per acre. IJere W.Retzer,6/3/99 8:31 PM,Re: FoRowup on Ash Creek Article 1 {' From: "Jere W. Retzer" <jere@teleport.com> To: jandjay@ixl2.ix.netcom.ccm Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:31:48 -0700 MINE-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Followup on Ash Creek Article Priority: normal X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by ixmail5.ix.netcom.cam id UAA29887 Here is the attachment pasted as good old text (looks like a great letter): DRAFT June 1, 1999 Ms. Elaine Cogan Cogan, Owens, Cogan 8313 SW Alder Street Portl n r(d ( Oregon 997302 �O1, Q�Dyy�o�tti5 a�Q�GfO�I'Y+CG� �' Dear Ms. CMiogan: v Ll t&A The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) serves as the state,s floodplain management agency under an agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The department supports the need for Regional and Town Centers such as the proposed Washington Square Regional Center. However, we are concerned about the particulars of this proposed development which would impact lands in the Ash Creek watershed protected by other statewide planning goals (Goal 5 - riparian areas and Goal 7 - floodplains and other natural hazards). As the States floodplain manager, I am most concerned about the impacts of this development on the Ash Creek floodplain. Under federal floodplain management regulations (44 CFR section 60.20) communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, including the City of Tigard, shall evaluate a number of standards in considering proposals for floodplain development. One standard is that the community shall consider the adverse effects of floodplain development on existing development (44 CFR 60.22(c)(4)). In addition, the community shall also consider diverting development to areas safe from flooding in light of the need to reduce flood damages and in light of the need to prevent environmentally incompatible flood plain use (44 CFR section 60.22(c)(2)). Therefore, the City of Tigard must thoroughly evaluate the consequences of developing Ash Creek,s floodplain before issuing a permit. Also, it appears in this situation that there is acreage in the proposed development where higher density development could be diverted to protect the floodplain and wetlands area. The City of Tigard, as a requirement of participating in the national flood insurance program, needs to fully evaluate the consequences of this development. If you have any questions, please contact me at 503-373-0050 (ext. 255). Sincerely, Ann Beier State Floodplain Program Manager Co. Mark Eberlein, Federal Emergency Management Agency Meg Fernekees, Oregon Department of Land Conservation 6 ,ej Development �PO,,,-A LAe�, - 1p @ Ax.netcom.com 1 r -rte y y • _ "�.l I �r'�1 y. +t-.l ��I M 1 Z, � �';►i�$ �� ,�.. �'� ���y ��.��,� �! ;'91'!x' ' �.,����.. '� � f Ir Ing 1� ;tom ' ', � �, #. _.rf # � � _ � R�'•':�'�•:�. 99 �1�F 1' �,�- r4. ���� t!ti•,r"{".•ly`k4f'S.'r� 4'L+'i �r Ak aeras p. fe Table 6 Watershed Peak Flows at Selected Locations Existing Future 2040 Creek Location Event Year, Cis Event Year, Cts ID N Rch M12 2 10 25 100 2 10 25 100 Ash Creek RR tracks near N Dakota & AS1T A-1 428 322 491 574 685 485 738 861 1028 End of Spruce St & AS4E A-2 3.53 316 476 553 655 495 732 845 999 Hemlock&Hall Blvd &AS7T A-3 2.80 285 426 492 582 514 748 857 1002 Taylors Ferry Rd & ASSE A-6 1.34 124 187 217 257 240 348 400 470 Ball Croak RR tracks near 74th Ave & BL1 B-1 2.38 381 555 638 7491 437 629 720 841 Bel Alre Creek Bel-Aire Dr & FMSW1 BA-1 0.38 1 62 91 105 1241 76 111 127 148 Derry Dell Creek Walnut St & DD1 DD-1 0.82 1 112 167 193 2281 160 233 268 315 Morgen CA & DD3W DD-3 0.61 85 127 147 173 120 176 202 236 Fanno Creek Tualatin River Confluence ... TOTAL F-1 32.06 1438 2147 2501 2989 1565 2350 2744 3269 Durham Rd Bridge & FL3SE F-1 3129 1418 2117 2468 2958 1550 2330 2711 3224 Ball Confluence & FLBL F-2 30.50 1435 2192 2563 3063 1615 2427 2829 3391 Red Rock Confluence & FLRR F-5 27.08 1339 2048 2393 2856 1508 2275 2660 3176 Derry Dell Confluence & FLDD F-9 24.32 1309 2012 2365 2824 1549 2329 2726 3276 Summer Confluence & FLSM F-10 23.44 1264 1939 2281 2722 1472 2217 2591 3091 Ash Confluence & FMAS F-11 17.20 936 1427 1667 1987 1037 1552 1808 2149 Hiteon Confluence & FMHN F-12 12.70 713 1070 1249 1492 791 1184 1375 1630 Near Nimbus Drive & FM4T F-13 11.54 713 1078 1257 1499 799 1200 1395 1657 Bel Aire Confluence & FM5W F-13 9.99 701 1050 1223 1455 793 1182 1375 1632 Bohmann Parkway & FMBS F-17 8.47 783 1173 1361 1614 897 1338 1551 1835 Woods Confluence & FMWD F-19 8.16 765 1154 1340 1591 876 1313 1523 1803 Nicol Rd & FMD F-20 6.68 685 1032 1198 1419 808 1208 1400 1653 Vermont Confluence & FMVT F-21 6.42 735 1099 1272 1504 877 1301 1505 1775 Pendleton Confluence & FUPN F-22 4.85 603 895 1035 1221 728 1071 1233 1445 Sylvan Confluence & FUSV F-22 4.46 552 821 948 1118 669 986 1136 1331 Hiteon Creek Hart Pond & HN1 H-1 0.77 121 179 206 243 144 209 239 280 Pendleton Creek Chinese Resturant PN1 0.39 55 81 93 109 63 92 106 124 Progress Creek Garden Home Rd FM9S P-1 0.14 1 10 14 17 201 31 44 50 59 Red Rock Creek RR tracks at Wall St & RR1 RR-1 1.62 1 277 401 459 5381 317 455 521 607 Summer Creek Fowler Middle School & SMI S-1 6.13 508 762 881 1050 648 951 1103 1308 Kreuger Confluence & SMKR S-1 5.65 555 821 941 1112 749 1072 1251 1485 Summer lake -SM4LK S-3 4.67 465 684 780 923 645 915 1078 1293 Katherine St & KR1 S-2 0.83 95 144 167 197 142 209 241 282 Sylvan Creek Scholls Ferry & SV1 SV-1 120 ' 111 169 196 2331 196 288 331 389 Vermont Creek Oleson Rd VT1 V-1 124 1 172 254 292 3441 197 289 332 390 Woods Creek Portland Golf Club & WD1 W-1 1.37 171 253 292 344 253 369 424 497 & WD3 W-1 0.99 145 214 247 .2911 185 268 307 360 0 Location(Node)in HEC-t model where subbasin flaw is combined Rch Reach code reference(for Natural Resources elements) OSr Four-digd METROil1SA quarte-section 10N M(2 Subbasin Area(square miles) Existing Land use modeled using METRO Ione coverage,with vacant and public open lands deleted Future 2040 Land use modeled using 2040 coverage obtained from METRO Evert Year These are the design events modeled(the 2-,5-, 10.,25-,506,and}00-year everts) Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan Section 111 16 CleanWater SeiviceS Our commitment is clear. CVJS F;le Number Service Provider Letter 14-001441 This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 07-20). Jurisdiction: Ti and Review Type: Tier 2 Analysis Site Address 9000 SW Oak ST SPL Issue Date: August 07,2014 1 Location: Tigard, OR 97223 SPL Expiration Date: Aucust 06,2016 Applicant information: Owner Information: Name Name NAWZAD OTHMAN Company PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES Company 9450 SW COMMERCE CIR 215 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE Address WILSONVILLE OR 97C70 Address 202 SUITE 180 PORTLAND, OR 97204 Phone/Fax (503)570-0800 Phone/Fax E-mail: E-mail: 1 S135AD01303, Tax lot ID Development Activity 1S135AC04000,04100, 04200,04300,04400 A+O Apartments Pre-Development Site Conditions: Post Development Site Conditions: Sensitive Area Present: I^I On-Site � Off-Site Sensitive Area Present: � On-Site � Off-Site Vegetated Corridor Width: 50 Vegetated Corridor Width: 20 Vegetated Corridor Condition: Enhancement of Remaining Vegetated Corridor Required: � Square Footage to be enhanced: 3,933 Encroachments into Pre-Development Vegetated Corridor: Type and location of Encroachment: Square Footage: Parking/Building(Permanent Encroachment;Mitigation Required) _ 44,295 Mitigation Requirements: Type/Location Sq.Ft./Ratio/Cost On-si;e; Per Section 3.08.1.b, Enhancement of the existing Sensitive Area has been proposed through a Tier 2 Alternative Analysis 139,480/3,2:1 0 Conditions Attached a Development Figures Attached(9) ❑Planting Plan Attached ❑Geotech Report Required This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. Page 1 of 5 CWS File Number 1 14-001441 The encroachment into the vegetated corridor meets the following criteria,as required under a Tier I analysis: 1.The proposed encroachment area is mitigated in accordance with Section3.08. As discussed above,mitigation for permanent impacts to the vegetated corridor will be achieved through the enhancement of Wetland A with native trees and shrubs.Section 3.08.11.allows for enhancement of the existing Sensitive Area for mitigation.This project is proposing wetland enhancement at a ratio of 3.2:1 (3.6 acres).Two acres of the enhancement area are proposed for required mitigation;the additional 1.6 acres of enhancement is proposed for public benefit to water quality.The enhancement of Wetland A meets CWS'requirements for mitigation and public benefit as described below. The existing vegetated corridor,north of Wetland A,is in degraded corridor condition.Vegetation consists of non-native grasses,and Himalayan blackberry;no trees are present.The existing corridor provides little in the way of creek or wetland protection or habitat function.The riparian ama adjacent to Ash Creek is narrow,and is dominated by Himalayan blackberry;water quality and wildlife habitat functions and values within the creek and within Wetland A are low. Enhancement of approximately 139,480 acres of Wetland A will more than compensate for the encroachment of the degraded vegetated corridors north of Wetland A. The southern area of enhancement will elevate marry functions and values within Ash Creek.Trees and shrubs will provide shade to protect and improve water quality;native trees and shrubs will improve wildlife habitat;a wider forested riparian buffer will reduce human and domestic animal disturbance within the creek. The northern area of enhancement,adjacent to the new development,will also provide several important functions.This area is wetland,and native trees and shrubs will increase the wetland's functions for wildlife habitat.This area will act as a buffer,reducing the likelihood that area residents will use the wetland in inappropriate ways. Planting in the northern and southern mitigation enhancement areas will occur at 100 percent of CWS densities for trees and shrubs.As such, 1,395 trees (139,480 x 0.01)and 6,974 shrubs(139,480 x 0.05)will be planted within Wetland A. Planting in the central enhancement areas will occur at a density that achieves 100%areal coverage;as such,7,419 plugs will be planted within Wetland A. 2.The replacement mitigation protects the functions and values of the Vegetated Corridor and Sensitive Area. Currently,the southern portion of Wetland A within the project area provides some water storage and delay functions. Planted native woody vegetation along the banks will slow floodwaters during flood events,which may alleviate downstream flooding.Water quality is expected to increase because of the native trees and shrubs that will be planted along Ash Creek.The native trees and shrubs will provide shade,cooling summertime water temperatures. As discussed above,the vegetated corridor to be impacted is in degraded corridor condition,and is not forested.The vegetated corridor provides very little in the way of protecting the functions and values of the wetland or of Ash Creek. The enhancement of Wetland A as mitigation will occur at a ratio of 3.2 to 1.This large ratio ensures that the functions and values lost through vegetated corridor encroachment will be more than adequately recovered through the enhancement mitigation process. 3.Enhancement of the replacement area,if not already in Good Corridor Condition,and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource,whichever is less,to a Good Corridor Condition. The wetland enhancement area will be planted to CWS densities for trees and shrubs.The southern enhancement area will occur within the 50 feet closest to Ash Creek,with widths ranging from 50 to 110-feet from Ash Creek.The northern enhancement area will occur south of the development area.The remaining VC will be planted to good corridor condition, at CWS'densities for trees and shrubs. 4.A District Stormwater Connection Permit is likely to be issued based on proposed plans. The applicant reasonably expects to obtain a District Stormwater Connection Permit based on proposed plans for the project. Pape 2 of 5 •, , CWS File Number 14-001411 5.Location of development and site planning minimizes incursion into the Vegetated Corridor. The proposed development plan is located in the northern portion of the site.Retaining walls were used to minimize impacts to wetlands and the vegetated corridor.Permanent impacts are necessary to meet the housing goals and density of the Washington Square Regional PIan Center,minimum parking requirements(assuming the 10%parking reduction variance is approved),neighborhood compatibility with building heights,as well as stormwater treatment outfalls. Encroachment into the adjacent vegetated corridor has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable.Vegetated corridor encroachments are limited to those necessary"for construction of the plan as proposed,to accommodate buildings, parking areas,stormwater treatment outfall,and garbage/recycling dumpster areas.The overall development has sought to maximize the developable area on the northern portion of the site because the southern portion is encumbered by the remaining portion of Wetland A and its vegetated corridor.The encroachment is required to adequately site the proposed buildings,drive aisles(access and emergency vehicles),and parking areas within the developable northern portion of the site.The multi-family residential"product"proposed on-site is dimensioned to meet the market demands of this specific housing type and address the neighborhood compatibility concerns of the nearby property owners.Any decrease to the unit count may impact the marketability of this development.As such,the proposed encroachment is limited to the greatest practical extent to make this project economically feasible. A site alternatives analysis is provided(see SPL Attachment 2)that shows a matrix of development alternatives(A-D) that were considered,and a qualitative comparison of impacts,as well as comments regarding building type,parking, stormwater treatment,and site design options. 6.No practicable alternative to the location of the development exists that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. Alternative site designs were considered,and the current design(Alternative D)was chosen due to site constraints. There are multiple benefits of locating the development at the proposed site,which would be negated if the development were moved off of this site.The site will be a residential development,which is in keeping with adjoining land uses.The project site is located within District C(Lincoln Center-Ash Creek)one of five districts within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Regional Center Pian describes strategies that make the most efficient use of urban land in the face of dramatic population growth. Regional centers aim to reach densities of 60 people an acre through housing and employment-the metro area's second- highest density after downtown Portland.Residents of high density neighborhoods(Lincoln Center is designated as one of the highest within the plan area)will have easy access to nearby jobs,essential services and retail resources.The sites location is within walking distance from public transportation,and is centrally located among commercial and retail development,public schools,public parks,as well as many commercial businesses that provide employment opportunities for future tenants. 7.The proposed encroachment provides public benefits. The public benefit of vegetated corridor encroachment includes supporting City and Regional Goals for"smart growth" via affordable housing.The site is located near the Washington Square Mall,which will provide close-in access to retail, restaurant,office,and service businesses,much of it within walking distance of the site. Water quality is expected to increase because of native trees and shrubs that will be planted along Ash Creek.The native trees and shrubs will provide shade,cooling summertime water temperatures.The enhancement of Wetland A at a ratio of 3.2: 1 will elevate the functions and values within Wetland A and Ash Creek,providing water quality improvements for public benefit. The proposed development will have an overlook along the southern edge of the parking lot.The overlook can be used by residents of the apartment complex for wildlife and native plant viewing.A future trail may be proposed along Ash Creek; if this regional trail is constructed,recreation and educational opportunities will increase. Page 3 or s CWS He Number 1 14-001441 In order to comply with Clean Water Services water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area or Vegetated Corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed in R&O 07-20, Chapter 3. 2. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the Vegetated Corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed,staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the Vegetated Corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by R&O 07-20,Section 3.06.1 and per approved plans. 3. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area,the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city)with copies of all DSL and USAGE project authorization permits. 4. An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. 5. Prior to ground disturbance an erosion control permit is required through the City. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's)for Erosion Control, in accordance with Clean Water Services' Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual,shall be used prior to, during,and following earth disturbing activities. 6. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.6. 7. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with R&O 07-20, Section 5.10. 8. Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the greatest extent practicable. 9. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by Clean Water Services,the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 10. For Vegetated Corridors up to 50 feet wide,the applicant shall enhance the entire Vegetated Corridor to meet or exceed good corridor condition as defined in R&O 07-20, Section 3.14.2,Table 3-3. 11. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction,the applicant shall provide the City or Clean Water Services with a Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. Enhancement restoration of the Vegetated Corridor shall be provided in accordance with R&O 07-20, Appendix A, and shall include planting specifications for all Vegetated Corridor, including any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet in Vegetated Corridor rated""good."" 12. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the Vegetated Corridor shall be removed per methods described in Clean Water Services' Integrated Pest Management Plan. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native tree and shrub species. 13. The City or Clean Water Services shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in Landscape Requirements (R&0 07-20, Appendix A). 14. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with R&O 07-20,Section 2.11.2. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping falls below the 80%survival level,the owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting Page 4 of 5 CWS He Number 14-001441 opportunity and the two-year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 15. Performance assurances for the Vegetated Corridor shall comply with R&O 07-20, Section 2.06.2. 16. Clean Water Services shall require an easement over the Sensitive Area and Vegetated Corridor conveying storm and surface water management to Clean Water Services or the City that would prevent the owner of the Vegetated Corridor from activities and uses inconsistent with the purpose of the corridor and any easements therein. FINAL PLANS 17. Final construction plans shall include landscape plans. In the details section of the plans, a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials is required. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season identification and shall remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 18. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates(minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30), 19. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the Vegetated Corridor(indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked in the field. 20. Protection of the Vegetated Corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the Vegetated Corridors. Fencing and signage details to be included on final construction plans. This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS-approved site plan is attached Please call (503) 681-3653 with any questions. Amber Wierck Environmental Plan Review Attachments (9) Page 5 015 Agenda Item: fes_ Hearing Date:December 15,2014 Time:7:OOPM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION a FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = 1/28/2015 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: A+ O Apartments Planned Development CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)2014-00002 Planned Development Review (PDR)2014-00003 Site Development Review (SDR)2014-00004 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR)2014-00002 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval is requested to remove Goal 5 protection (allow conflicting uses) from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands,designated as significant on the Comprehensive Plan's "Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map." The remaining 6.20-acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping the existing ground surface to decrease the areal extent of the floodplain on the site without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the floodplain on the site. Planned Development Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan approval is requested for the plans to develop 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve over 6-acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of pedestrian trail easements to the City for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. APPLICANT: DBG Oak Street,LLC c/o Skip Grodahl 2164 SW Park Place Portland,OR 97204 OWNER: Oland,Ltd. C/o The Othman Group 215 SW Washington Street, Suite 202 Portland, OR 97204 LOCATION: 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street; south of SW Oak Street opposite SW 90th Avenue;WCTM 1S135AC Tax Lots 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300,and 4400 and WCTM 1S135AD Tax Lot 1303. ('P.13)140(X1U2/PDR2014(XW3/9')R2014(KX(4/.9..R )14(KKX12-A+O APARTMF.N1N PAGE,1 OF 56 ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: MUE-1 and MUE-2: mixed use employment districts. The MUE-1 and 2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with employment character of the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE-1, the high density-mixed use employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE-2 requiring more moderate densities. MUR: mixed use residential districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with the residential use. A high density., (MUR-1) and moderate density (MUR-2) designation is available within the MUR zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.350 Planned Development Review, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban Forestry; 18.795 Visual CIearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 5 Natural Resources, Goal 6 Environmental Quality, Goal 7 Hazards, Goal 8 Parks Recreation and Open Space; Statewide Planning Goal 5; applicable Federal (USACE), Oregon Department of State Lands, and Metro (Titles 3 and 13) statues and regulations. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION :Staff iecon-unends that Planning C-omrr,.tssion find that the proposed Comprehensive Plan ..imendmeut, Sensitive Lands Reviett,and Planned Development Review will not adveisely affect the health, safety and %clfatc of rhe Ciii and meets the Appioval Standards as outlined in Section VI of this report 'I hetefoie, Staff recorrunends that the Planning Commission fission iecommcnd to Cin, Council APPROVAL, subject to the follow mg recommended Conditions of Apptoval and an^ modifications that result from the Commission's delibtCations (:Pn2+)144XX)02.'Pt)it?v14-iNKX)3/SDR2014-(XXX)4,'sr.»1i4-(XXK)2-n+o nrnxIMi.�Ts PAGF.2 or 50 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORD: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Prior to any ground disturbance work, theproject arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. 2. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city- the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. 4. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. 5. In the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area, extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. Under state law (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.74) archaeological sites, objects and human retrains are protected on both state public and private lands in Oregon. If archaeological objects or sites are discovered during construction, all activities should cease immediately until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. If you have not already done so, be sure to consult with all appropriate Indian tribes regarding your proposed project. If the project has a federal nexus (i.e., federal funding,permitting,or oversight) please coordinate with the appropriate lead federal agency representative regarding compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA). 6. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent with I-1 standards. 7. The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site,including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality,as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or gregCatigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 9. Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements, public utility issues,and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for C3'A:3i144XXXY2,'PDIU)14-(XXX)3;%I)R2()14-(XXK)4,S7.R2)14iXXX)2-A+(1 APARTWNT\ PAGE 3 OF 56 the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessany from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Clean Water Services, and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. 11. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the Oak Street design which is anticipated to include a 20 foot paved half width, plus 8 foot planter with street trees and underground utilities,and 12 foot sidewalk in a 40 foot right of way half width. 12. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall obtain city approval of a design access report. 13. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 14. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. 15. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them, including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. 16. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction, operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. 17. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (1 VWD) of the design of water service to the site. 18. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. 19. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site,the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued b; the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 20. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Alanual, February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." THE FOLLOV qNG CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Sen-ices) for all work to be done on site. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. c;PA201400[%)2/PDR2014XXX)3/JDR20WXXXK'%UR20144XXX12—A+OAPARITIVNIN 1)AG F 4 OF 56 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.- The NSPECTION:The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the Community Development Department Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 24. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall contact the Planning Division (Gary Pagenstecher,503-718- 2434) for a final site review to ensure consistency with this land use decision. Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approvaL• 25. Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer, storm drainage,water, etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenancepplans.The developer's engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmansh1p and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,and are of High grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance 26. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include 20 foot paved with, 8 foot planter with trees lights and utilities in a 40 foot row width. 27. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction ol the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. 28. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete construction of the stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. 29. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of the complete construction of the proposed driveways.The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. 30. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue (I'VF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessary construction prior to final inspection. 31. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THIS APPROVAL.SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. (,])A2114-(KXX 2fPI)R2014(tXX)3/S7)R20144XXX)4/SI.R2()144XXX)2-A+Q AP:Vt1D11N1;ti P.1(;!i 5 OF 56 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History and Description The subject property is bordered on the west by the abandoned Oregon Electric Railroad alignment and has been used in recent times as pasture.The property is comprised of six parcels, four of which are currently developed with vacant single family residences along their Oak Street frontages. According to Washington Country records, the dwellings were built in the late 50s and early 60s.The property annexed into the City in 1987. Vicinity Information: The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center District and is zoned MUE-1,a high density mixed use employment district and MUR-1,a high density mixed use residential district. Lincoln Center north of Oak Street is an example of high-density mixed use employment development within this district,which generally extends east of Greenburg between Hall and Hwy 217. The MUR-1 district lies between the MUE-1 district to the west and Hall Blvd to the east, extending south of Locust to Hwy 217. The subject site is centrally located Mithin these zones Midi like-zones adjacent. The immediate vicinity south of Oak Street is characterized by the Ash Creek drainageway and associated wetlands. The subject property contains an approximately 1100 foot reach of Ash Creek at its southern boundary located mid-way between its confluences with Fanno Creek to the west and the South Fork of Ash Creek to the northeast. Proposal Description. The applicant's narrative states that "The general objectives in proposing the Planned Development Combined Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan for the A+O Apartments and the open space protection for a large portion of the site are to: • Help meet the need for multi-family housing in Tigard; • Provide market rate multi-family housing within a reasonable distance from the Washington Square Shopping Center, Lincoln Center, and other nearby commercial uses in a location that is (or is planned to be) well connected to those areas by pedestrian and bicycle pathways,public transit,and roads; • Provide an attractive living environment for project residents; • Border the apartment project with preserved open space to the south in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and Highway 217, as well as between the apartments and a developed neighborhood of detached single- family homes to the southeast; • Preserve and enhance valuable open space areas while utilizing portions of the overall site which are not significantly constrained by floodplain,wetlands,riparian areas,or significant vegetation for residential purposes; • Provide adequate parking for the needs of residents and visitors; avoid parking overflow into nearby neighborhoods." The proposed development plans provide for development of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units within four 4-story multi-family residential buildings located on an 11.17-acre gross area development site. The plans for the project provide for dedication of 0.32 acres of additional right-0f--way for the widening of SMC Oak Street across the site's frontage leaving a site area of 10.85 acres. 6.62 acres of the site is delineated wetlands (See Wetland Delineation Report and map by Pacific Habitat Services, Impact Assessment Report B). 4.23-acres of the net site is upland without either mapped 100-year floodplain or wetlands. The proposed development plans provide for the filling of 0.42 acres of previously degraded wetlands adjacent to the southern edge of the upland portion of the site. The development plans also use 0.21-acres of non-wetland area which juts southward into the wetlands as permanent open space. All of this area and the remaining wetlands area will be located to the south of a retaining wall(6.41-acres total south of wall)which will separate this area from the development site area of 4.44-acres. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND INTERESTED PARTIES The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the conceptual development plans for the project and to gather comments on those plans at Metzger Elementary School on February 20, 2014. Approximately 60 people attended that meeting including many nearby residents, representatives of CPO 4M, representatives of the Friends of Fanno Creek and the Tualatin Riverkeepers, and a reporter for the Tigard Times. Meeting notes from that C 'A2U14(XKX12.`P[)K2O14-(xxx)3./,a)R2(114(xKxg,'.SlR2t)14U(NNt2-A+O, RARIMENII, PAC I?6OF56 meeting are included in Appendix B of the applicant's submittal, along with a copy of the notice which was mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the site. Affidavits regarding mailing of the notice and posting the site with a sign regarding the meeting are also included in Appendix B. Representatives of the project development team also met with CPO 4 on September 24,2014 to discuss the plans with the CPO members. In addition, representatives of the project development team met onsite with representatives of the Tualatin Riverkeepers organization on August 28, 2014 to discuss the plans for the project and the status of the wetland-related permitting process. The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to neighboring property- owners within 500 feet of the subject site boundaries and interested parties on November 3, 2014. The City received seven written comments identified below: Jim Long, 10730 SW 7TO Avenue, Chair CP04M, writes in opposition to the proposed impacts to wetlands and floodplain and to the parking exception, and further highlights issues associated with economic liabilities of buildings in the floodplain and impacts on views. Nancy Lou Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, writes in opposition to the proposed wetland impacts, in favor of their benefits for storm water filtration and habitat values. Kristin Prince, 10455 SW 90`h Avenue,writes in favor of improving SW Lincoln Street through to SW Oak Street as part of the project approval to address potential adverse impacts to local streets. She notes that ownership of the property required for extension is the same as the owner of the property subject to the proposed development. Jill Warren, 9280 SW Wh Avenue, as a participant in the Washington Square Regional Center Planning process, raises plan implementation issues associated with wetland and floodplain impacts. Dave Fahlman, 9055 SW Oak Street,writes in favor of improving SW Lincoln Street as a condition of approval to address increased traffic and the limited capacity of SW 90` Avenue. Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89`h Avenue,writes in favor of extending Stix' Lincoln Street and to full improvements to SW Oak Street. Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeeper Advocacy& Communications Manager, questioned whether wetland impacts have been sufficiently avoided by reducing building footprints through increased building height. He further questions the applicant's proposed use of a remote Tualatin River wetland mitigation bank over available local Ash Creek sites. RESPONSE: Commenters are generally concerned with the proposed development's adverse impacts on significant wetlands and on neighborhood livability due to increased traffic, particularly on SW 90`h Avenue, and off-site parking demand due to the requested minimum parking space exemption. The review criteria and findings in this staff report substantively address these issues. SECTION V. ISSUES SUMMARY NOTE: Procedure for review: according to TDC18.390.080.13.2.bdi, the decision on the Wetland and Stream Corridors map amendment (CPA) shall precede other actions. A decision on impacts to the floodplain, drainageways, and wetlands (SLR) follows as it can affect the net buildable area subject to the planned development proposal. According to TDC18.350.020.D, in the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan (PDR) . . . 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 trade at the same hearing. Wetland Impacts (CPA) TDC18.775.130 states "The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource." (I'A2Ol4-(MMM)2/Pl)R2114-1MNM13,'SI)R3)l4lMMM14/ti7.R2)144NMM12-A+()APART I-24'IS 11AG ,7()1'56 Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District.See page 11. Planned Development (PDR) Parking Exemption TDC18.350.050.4. requires that"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." The plans for the project include public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SW Oak Street,Oak Street sidewalks along the property's frontage, and primary pedestrian routes through the site. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1%, should the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkabilit7 and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014?See page 21. TDC18.350.070.C.5.d is one of five criteria that must be addressed to warrant the requested parking space exemption: "Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards )xill not adversely affect adjoining uses;" Although the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F,staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, shall the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014?See Page 24. Funding future transportation TDC18.630.010.C. states: "developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center." To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) should the applicant be asked to consider, for example,a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement?See page 28. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA The following summarizes the criteria applicable to this decision in the order in which they are addressed: A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.130 Sensitive Lands,Plan Amendment Option B. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA 18.775.070.B Floodplain 18.775.070.D Drainageways 18.775.070.E Wetlands C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 18350 Planned Developments 18.520 Commercial Zoning districts 18.630 Washington Square Regional Plan Standards 18.705 Access,Egress and Circulation (,PA2014-(XKX)2/YDIU)144XXX)3;SDIU)141KMK►4!,gi n44XXX)2-A+oAPARIT.1..NAN PAGE,8O 56 18.715 Density Computations 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.765 Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan 18.795 Vision Clearance Areas 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors"map. Applicable Provisions Of The C4's Implementing Ordinances: 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek A subject property contains locally significant wetlands identified on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Stream Corridors" map. A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. The applicant has applied for the Plan Amendment Option to remove Goal 5 protections from .42 acres of significant wetlands to allow the proposed development. 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis. A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant has submitted an ESEE analysis (Appendix C of Application and a revised ESEE analysis dated 12-8- 14) prepared in accordance with OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.42 acres of significant wetlands on the subject property. This provision is met. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites (;PA2)144XXX12/131)R2014-[XX)L}3iSl7R2(iWxmX)4./,SIJUi144XXXYL-A1 O APAIVI'MENi5 PAG 1;9 01`56 within the Tigard Planning Area; The applicant's ESEE analysis dated December 8, 2014 addresses the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, identifying the impacts to the resource site and a comparison of comparable sites within the Tigard Planning area. Although the wetlands identified for removal are degraded, their association with .ksh Creek makes them continue to be significant. Sites that could accommodate the proposed program were few and included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units and a larger site at Hunziker Road and Wall Street with some wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the mold-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss,or partial loss, of the resource; The applicant's ESEE analysis states that"Prohibiting conflicting uses would keep the wetland intact and likely limit the footprint of the proposed development activity to the existing houses on SW Oak Street. The houses would be remodeled or torn down and replaced by new houses. As there will be no change in density, prohibiting conflicting uses would impact the potential densities planned for (and required) in the Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan. The economic benefits for local businesses from developing a high density apartment complex would not be realized. The applicant would also realize far less economic benefit from remodeling or replacing the four houses. There will be a loss in short term construction jobs required when the apartment complex is developed." This provision is met. 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; The applicant states: "Developing the property, while achieving the Washington Square Regional Center Plan's minimum density requirements, would be very difficult without the proposed wetland filling to provide a more regular shaped development site. If the site configuration is not "squared up," a very inefficient site development pattern would be necessary with a resultant increase in residential building heights in order to meet the minimum prescribed density for the site. While we have not done a final site and building design for development on a non- reconfigured development site, the project team estimates that it would be necessary to have residential buildings with four- to six-stories of residential units atop two levels of parking garages within the buildings on such a site. Six- to eight-story buildings would provide a much more significant variation from the existing single-story through three-story residential buildings to the north, east and south of the site than the proposed three-story above single level parking garage buildings than are currently proposed with the proposed reconfigured site. The taller buildings that would be necessary would require significantly different and much more expensive building construction techniques than is proposed. The current proposal is for wood frame construction over concrete single-level parking garages or concrete slabs. Additional parking levels would require ramps between levels at a significant construction cost. Additional levels of residential units would, at a minimum, require more expensive wood frame construction, or alternatively push the construction type to steel frame or concrete construction. DBG, LLC is trying to develop an economically viable residential development at close to the minimum density prescribed for the site by the zones applied to it, while making a reasonable attempt to respect the lower building heights of the existing residential neighborhood to the north, east and southeast of the site. In order to bear the additional costs of construction that would be necessary to develop on the non-reconfigured site,we would likely need to increase the density further to bear the costs, and that would result in even taller buildings adjacent to the relatively low profile neighborhood." Several sites were identified in the Tigard Planning Area which included a smaller site in the WSRC vicinity that could accommodate 75 units, a site adjacent that was unavailable, and a larger site at Hunziker Road with some (I':1.J)141XXX)2/PDR20144XXX)3/SI)82014(XXX)4,'SI.R3)14(XXX)2-.X+O AR`.W1'M WrS PAG)I 10 01;56 wetlands but zoned I-P which does not allow the multi-family use. The lack of readily available sites of sufficient size and zoning led the applicant to choose the proposed development site as the preferred development site. This provision is met. 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; The ESEE analysis has been prepared by wetlands biologist John van Staveren, PWS of Pacific Habitat Services based upon their on-site delineation of the wetlands on the site and an assessment of the quality and condition of the area which is proposed to be filled. The ESEE analysis was reviewed by other team members including land use attorney Steven Pfeiffer,land use planner Jerry Offer,and civil engineer Mike Peebles. This provision is met. 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. On approval of this request the site would be removed from the inventory. This provision can be met. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the ESEE anal,•sis addresses the requirements of this section. The subject property contains Goal 5 safeharbor protection of significant wetlands. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under a Type IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development proposal for 215 apartments, the A+O Apartments. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendment is justified by and ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040. The applicant concludes that "limiting conflicting uses would result in the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A limit decision will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting all conflicting uses. Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland can be minimized (only 6% of wetlands on site will be impacted) and the remaining resource can be enhanced.There will be a relatively high level of economic,social, environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland (through its enhancement) and to the community,and strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals.The recommendation is to limit conflicting uses within the significant wetland." Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan District. It is clear that the development proposal substantial)j implements the planning goals, including density, for the Vr'SRC and minimizes its footprint given the project's 215-unit goal and the requested parking exception. A majority 94% of the wetlands are protected and enhanced on site,with a 3.2:1 off-site mitigation for the 6% of wetlands being adversely affected. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal (CWS SPL, reverse of Figure 2) provides a CWS Tier 11 Site Alternatives Analysis for impacts to the Vegetated Corridor,which is also useful for comparing incremental adverse economic consequence of not allowing conflicting uses. If Council approves the application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the "'Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Alap"will be amended to remove the site from the inventory. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Cit; Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Cl?,\2)141NNNIZ'PI)R201¢fNUMB,'SI)R2l)14(N>tl)4,'.I11U)144XXX)2-A+O.IPARTMITYII R\C F 11 01 56 R. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Sensitive Lands Review(SLR) for impacts to the Ash Creek floodplain, drainage ways,and wetlands/associated vegetated corridor. 18.775.020 G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the hearings officer. 1. The hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 100-year floodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. The proposed sensitive lands permit request for these landform alterations would normally be reviewed by means of a Type IIIA procedure by the City of Tigard's hearings officer. However, since the sensitive lands permit request is being reviewed as a combined application request including a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the concurrent applications will be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council, v(ith the Citi Council being the actual decision-making body. 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year floodplain when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e.Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size,outside of floodway areas. According to the applicant's submittal, the A+O Apartments include approximately 423 cubic yards of material removal and 3,423 cubic yards of fill material within significant wetlands and 395 cubic yards of fill within the floodplain outside of the wetlands portion of the site. The plans do not include any ground disturbances or alterations within the Ash Creek floodway. The proposed development within the floodplain does not include any activities related to existing structures, accessory structures or utilities, or any structures proposed for human habitation. 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. Appendix F of the applicant's submittal includes a Joint Corp/DSI., permit application (APP056389) for development within wetlands associates with Ash Creek, a tributary to Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River. The necessary permits have been applied for.This provision is met. As governed by CWS "Design and Construction Standards," the necessary permits for all "development," as defined in Section 18.775.020.A, shall include a CWS service provider letter, which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any, for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the agency to issue a stormwater connection permit. Appendix D of the applicant's submittal includes a CWS Service Provider Letter (SPL) and Natural Resources Assessment Report by Pacific Habitat Services. The SPL specifies conditions and requirements necessary for the applicant to comply with CWS water quality and protection standards. Implementation of these requirements will be ensured by a condition of approval of the Council's final order. This provision is met. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. CPA 014-(XKK)2iPI)R2U14-(Klu)3/SiDR2014-0(X)D4/V.R2(t14-(KKXI2-A+OAPARTAIP241S Y.1( I{1201-56 According to the applicant's narrative,proposed buildings B,C,and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill within the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2' above the existing floodplain elevation. The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation.The proposed building site minimizes the potential for flood damage.This provision is met. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection B of this section, the director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer subsections M and N of this section. Base flood elevation (BFE) has been determined for this project area. The BFE is shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map number 410276059C for the City of Tigard, Oregon, Washington County revised February- 18,2005. The floodplain boundary is shown(elevation 163) on the Existing Conditions plan (Sheet P1.1). This provision is met. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per "Table 3.1, Vegetated Corridor Widths," and "Appendix C, Natural Resource Assessments," of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in "Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard,Oregon," Fishman Environmental Services,1994. According to the Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. May 9, 2014 Natural Resource Assessment for the subject site, the proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor measured 50 feet wide.Therefore,the following wetland regulations would apply to 1.44 acres of the site. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. According to the applicant's narrative, a wetland delineation of the wetland areas on the site was done by the professional wetland scientists of Pacific Habitat Services. The delineated wetland boundary stakes provided by that on-site delineation were surveyed and mapped by the surveyors of Otak, Inc. The actual locations of wetlands on the site vary slightly from what is shown on the City of Tigard "Wedand and Streams Corridors Map. A copy of the Wetland Delineation report for the site by Pacific Habitat Services is included in the applicant's submittal as Impact Assessment Report B. The wetland boundary and associated vegetated corridor are illustrated clearly on Figure 3, PIIS Natural Resource Assessment Report,Appendix D.This provision is met 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., floodplain, are presented in subsections B through E of this section. This application includes proposed development in the Ash Creek floodplain, drainageways, and within wetlands (and associated vegetated corridor). The City Council is the decision-making body under concurrent review with the requested comprehensive plan amendment Type IV procedure. Impacts to these sensitive areas are addressed in findings for their respective approval criteria below. 18.775.070.B Within the 100-year floodplain.The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: CPA2U14-([K1)2!PDR2014-(XXX)3 tR)R2014-tKXX)4,'SJA3)14-(M1002-A+O AJ?NR-rml,- 'tti PAG M.13 OF 56 applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Report E,Preliminary Storm Drainage Report by Otak,Inc.According to the report, the fill area is approximately 0.35 acres. Figure 3 shows the proposed development in relation to the 100- year floodplain boundary (elevation 163). Proposed buildings B, C, and D are located outside of the existing floodplain area. Building A will be located on fill uithin the existing floodplain. Garage finished floor elevation will be approximately 2'above the existing floodplain elevation.The habitable finished floor elevation will be approximately 12' above the existing floodplain elevation. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this tide. This criterion is met. 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; A zero rise analysis has been completed and is included in the applicant's submittal as .Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. This criterion is met. 3. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community development code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; The site of the proposed development includes both commercial plan designations and residential plan designations. The proposed development plans show floodplain modifications within portions of the site which have a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of MUE-1. Portions of the site which include the residential MUR-1 Comprehensive Plan Map designation include proposed modifications to wetlands. However, no modifications to the 100-year floodplain are proposed within the MUR-1 area.This criterion is met. 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; A zero rise analysis has been completed and a memorandum is included as Appendix E in the Preliminary Drainage Report. Based on the analysis of potential floodplain impacts associated with the proposed development, there will not be an increase in the 100-year rater surface elevation.This criterion is met. 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Staff has determined that the Center Loop Trail alignment on SW Oak Street is preferred to the Ash Creek alignment along this reach of Ash Creek. The City Engineer has determined that a 12-foot wide multi-modal path within the Oak Street right of way along the property's frontage will be a required public facility improvement for this project. This criterion is met. 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the floodplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; CI)A3)14-txKX)2/PDR2()14(KKx)3/S1)R2014txxK14/9 R21)14(KKK)2-A+0 AR1%C1MfN1% PAGE,14 OF 56 The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. A wildlife habitat assessment, further floodplain analysis and other related studies will need to be completed prior to construction of this trail. The actual alignment of the trail will need to be determined by the City in concert with resource permitting agencies prior to the final design and construction of the trail. 7. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained; and The applicant's submittal includes a CWS SPL (appendix D) and a U. S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE)/Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans include a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of die City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known,the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS:According to the analysis above,the floodplain criteria are met. 18.775.070.D Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: A storm water ditch, or drainageway, 475 square feet in area (0.01 acre) is located in the northwestern portion of the site that carries stormwater from SW Oak Street and the adjacent condominium complex to the north of Oak Street. The Natural Resource Assessment by PHS characterizes this ditch as non-jurisdictional and therefore without an associated vegetated corridor. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O Apartments minimizes impacts to wetland/floodplain/drainage-,vays by pushing the proposed area of development towards SW Oak Street. This results in impact to an existing ditch in existing public drainage easement on the western portion of the site. It is proposed that the existing ditch/drainageway be relocated into a public storm sewer pipe with an outfall to the wetlands to the south. The proposed alteration of this section of the drainageway on the southern portion of the site is limited to only the area that is necessary to construct the proposed storm sewer to replace the existing open drainage ditch, and therefore will limit drainageway disturbances to only what is necessary for the proposed use. This criterion is met. 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development plan for the A+O Apartments will replace an existing open drainage ditch into a public storm drainage pipe located in a public drainage easement that will extend the existing public storm drainage system and convey existing runoff from the upstream basin. The proposed public (:PA2f)14-(XKK)2/in)R2014(N)(M).i/S))R20144XXK)4/q.R1)14-(NXX)2-A+()APAR'IiMliNTS PAGE 150156 storm drainage pipe will outfall to a rip-rap pad and drain into wetlands and .-ash Creek. The plans provide for appropriate erosion control plans designed to City and CWS standards so that the proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off- site effects or hazards to life or property.This criterion is met. 4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; According to the applicant's narrative, the open drainage ditch to be removed will be replaced with a public storm pipe in a new alignment that will have adequate capaciv;to convey to the upstream runoff.This criterion is met. 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, a small portion of the existing drainage ditch at its southern end will not be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. This portion will be replanted with seed mix to prevent erosion. The area to be replaced and put into a storm drainage pipe will be covered by pavement and landscaping associated with the proposed apartments designed consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.475 and related standards as addressed elsewhere in this report.This criterion is met. 6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; According to the applicant's narrative, the existing drainage ditch will be replaced with a public storm sewer pipe in a new alignment (to be covered by a public drainage easement).The proposed storm drainage pipe has been sized to provide adequate capacity to convey the maximum anticipated flow from upstream basin in accordance with the 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The public easement will be located within the drive-aisle/parking area of the proposed multi-family development. The City will have access to public storm manholes for maintenance of the proposed public storm sewer. This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; A CNX S Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (.'appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSL/ US Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit application (Appendix F).This criterion is met. 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The proposed development plans propose the dedication of a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the development of the City's planned Washington Square Regional Center Trail. Because the alignment across the property is not yet known, the City will require a blanket ped/bike easement over the entirety of Wedand A. This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the drainageways criteria are met. 18.775.070.E Within wetlands. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: Pursuant to TDC 18.775.050, General Provisions for Wetlands,wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," and to a the 50-foot vegetated corridor for (T.12()144XXX12/1'1)1t20144KXX13,'S1)R2b14(KKK)4/SIJU)14-(KKK)2-A+OAP;llt1' ENTS I ACE 16 OF 56 Wetland A,as shown in Figure 3 of Pacific E labitat Services' Natural Resource Assessment for the subject site. The proposed development would impact .42 acres of significant wetlands and 1.02 acres of vegetated corridor. Therefore,the following wetland regulations apply to a total of 1.44 acres of the site. 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; As determined through the findings in this staff report, the proposed development is in compliance or can be conditioned to comply with all of the applicable requirements of this title.This criterion is met. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan floodplain and wetland map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per "Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," for such a wetland; The applicant has requested wetlands to be removed from the designation of locally significant wetlands on the Cit-1 of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors" Map by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment portion of this application. If that request is approved, these wetlands will no longer be designated as significant wetland on the Plan's floodplain and wetland map. As such, a sensitive lands permit can be approved in accordance with this section for both the wetland and its associated vegetative corridor.This criterion is met. 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; .'according to the applicant's narrative, the proposed filling of 0.42 acres of wetlands is limited to only what is necessary to "square up" the developable portion of the site to accommodate the proposed 215-unit apartment complex and related parking and recreation facilities without creating any more wetland site disturbance than is absolutely necessary. The proposal includes ground level parking under two of the proposed residential buildings, a request for an exception to the minimum required number of on-site parking spaces in order to limit the area of development, and a retaining wall along the full width of the project's southern development boundary to limit impacts to sensitive areas. Given the findings in the applicant's ESEE analysis, this criterion is met. 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; According to the applicant's narrative, the 0.42 acres of proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site has been designed to be on the edges of or outside of the floodplain on the site. A storm sewer system has been proposed to replace the surface drainage through the wetlands on the western portion of the site. These measures have been designed in order that on-site and off-site drainage will not be adversely affected by the proposed wetlands modifications.This criterion is met. 5.Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; According to the applicant's narrative, an erosion control plan addressing the City and Clean Water Services' erosion control requirements will be submitted as part of final grading plans, as well as part of any state or federal permit applications. Disturbed areas will be replanted if not covered by impervious surfaces. This criterion is met. 6.All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All other applicable sensitive lands approval standards related to the proposed development application are reviewed in findings within this staff report.This criterion is met. 7. The necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained; 01,X21114-((XMi2/Pl)[U)14U(riR13,/tiD122U144xxxW/slR2014 xxxrL—A+0AY,UUNII?N7s PAGF 1701,56 A CDR'S Service Provider Letter for the project is included in the applicant's submittal (Appendix D). The development team has submitted an application for an Oregon DSL/ US Army Corps of Engineers Joint Permit application (Appendix F). This criterion is met. 8.The provisions of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal,shall be met; The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, are addressed further in this staff report, below. This criterion is met. 9. Physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplains and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been satisfied. The following Comprehensive Plan policies address physical limitations and natural hazards, floodplains and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, and recreation and open space. Findings address satisfaction of these policies with regard to the proposed plans for wetland modifications. Natural Resources 1.The City shall protect and,to the extent feasible,restore natural resources in a variety of methods to: A. contribute to the City's scenic quality and its unique sense of place; B. provide educational opportunities, recreational amenities, and buffering between differential land uses; C. maximize natural resource functions and services including fish and wildlife habitat and water quality; and D. result in healthy and naturally functioning systems containing a high level of biodiversity. 7. The City shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible on public and private lands. 8. The City shall protect and, to the extent feasible, restore the diverse ecological and non-ecological functions and services of streams,wetlands,and associated riparian corridors. 11. The City shall assist landowners in the protection of natural resources through diverse methods including, but not limited to: education, incentives, planned development standards and regulations, and conservation easements. The City addresses the above policies dealing with wetlands, water resources, riparian areas and u>ildlife habitat through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the standards of that permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the wetlands, habitat,and floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. In addition, application of the planned development parking exemption has been requested to help minimize the development footprint. Hazards 1. The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development: A. areas having a severe soil erosion potential; B. areas subject to slumping,earth slides,or movement; C. areas having slopes in excess of 25%;or D. areas having severe weak foundation soils. The City of Tigard's development review application process implements this policy through the requirement of a geotechnical report as part of the required impact assessment of a proposed development. The current application includes a site specific geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnical Resources, Inc. that report demonstrates that CP.\2o14(x)(X)2,.7PDR214-(xrx)3/ti1)R2[)14-(XX)w/Sl.R2114-(xKxn-A-0APARTM NTS IYAGi,19O sc the proposed development site will be suitable for development without undue soil erosion and that the site does not contain slopes in excess of 25%;areas subject to slumping,sliding,or earth movement-,or weak soils. 7. The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations, which include standards for base flood levels,flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. 8. The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100- year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. 9. The City shall not allow land form alterations or development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless: A.The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area. 10. The City shall work with Clean Water Services to protect natural drainageways and wetlands as valuable water retention areas and,where possible, find ways to restore and enhance these areas. 11. The City shall comply with Metro Title 3 Functional Plan requirements for balanced fill and removal in the floodplain. The City has addressed these above policies dealing with floodplain development and landform alterations through the development and administration of the sensitive lands permit process. The application of and satisfaction of the approval standards of the sensitive lands permitting process to the A+O Apartments development plans, including proposed modifications to the floodplain area on the site, are a demonstration that these plan policies have been satisfied. Parks Recreation and Open Space 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation;and B. undeveloped areas for nature-oriented recreation and the protection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. 22. City-owned property may be used for private wetlands mitigation considered on a case-by-case basis. This policy allows,but does not require developers to provide local wetlands mitigation.The applicant has proposed off-site mitigation with this project.The City Parks Director has commented that private wetland mitigation on city- owned property has proved difficult administratively in the past and that city property will need to be used in the future for city projects that require mitigation. In this case, city owned property is not available for private wetland mitigation. Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle trails. Policy 1. The City shall create and interconnected regional and local system of on- and off-road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods,parks, open spaces, major urban centers and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and easements on private property. The proposed development plans for the A+O Apartments include the provision of a public pedestrian trail easement within the privately owned wetland area adjacent to Ash Creek. This trail easement segment is provided to serve the Washington Square Regional Center Trail that is called for in the Parks Master Plan and is called for as multi-use path M-9 on maps and tables of the Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan. The development plans also provide for a public pedestrian path easement for the future development of a connecting trail between SW Oak Street and the future Washington Square Regional Center Trail. FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the wetlands criteria are met. (;p:%20la-(XKX)Z'111)R20144XXX),i/til)R:X1144XXX)4/11.IL )14-UINgY!-1+O APAR'1'MI-XIS PAG 19O Sys CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find, and recommend to Council, that the applicable sensitive lands review criteria for floodplain, dtainageways, and wetlands are met or can be met as conditioned, subject to a determination that Goal 5 protections can be removed,as requested by the applicant. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following criteria apply to the proposed Planned Development Concept and Detailed Plan Reviews (PDR) for the 215 unit planned development. 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.020 Process 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. D. Concurrent applications for concept glans 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. The applicant has elected to develop this project through the planned development process. In this case, the applicant is also applying for a concurrent review of the planned development concept plan and the detailed development plan. Separate concept plans and detailed plans have been submitted,requiring separate actions by the commission and council. 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria 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. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates areas on the site that are intended to be preserved as open space in the form of wetlands and enhanced wetland; active open space and recreation areas near the proposed building locations; and passive landscape areas. The applicant's narrative, along with the applicable supplemental reports in the Appendix, describe how the natural open space, active open space, and passive open space areas are to be used and how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site.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. The planned development concept plan illustrates how the plans for the 6.2 acres in the southern portion of the site will protect and enhance the natural areas on the site. This criterion is met. 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. (V,%3)14-( XX)-?,'PI)R2)1M1(X103/tia)R2014/J(NXM/A.RZ114(XXX)2 P:1(,1:1101'56 The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, along with the aerial photo of the site and its environs, Sheet P2.1, illustrates how the proposed development will fit into the street and land use pattern of the neighborhood. "Phis criterion is met. 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. The plans for the project include the provision of an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the site's frontage. The Planned Development Concept Plan, Sheet P2.2, illustrates the general areas on the site where the applicant is offering to provide public pedestrian easements for the future development of a trail along Ash Creek, and a trail to connect between that trail and the sidewalk along SAX' Oak Street. Primar; pedestrian routes through the site are also illustrated. However, given the applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.111o, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4,2014. 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. The planned development concept plan illustrates the proposed development pattern for four multi-story multi- family residential buildings on the northern portion of the site, along with associated recreation and parking facilities. The concept plan provides for approximately 4.16 acres of the site to be developed with multi-family dwellings at a net density of between 50 and 60 units per net acre, and for approximately 6.2-acres of the site to be retained as wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek. Limited public access to the wetlands area is provided for through the provision of public pedestrian access easements to be dedicated to the City of Tigard for future trail development.This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development plan for the A+O Planned Development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands and floodplain associated with Ash Creek, along with significant enhancements to the wildlife habitat values of the wetlands through the removal of invasive vegetation and the planting of significant number of native trees. This work to restore the wetlands on the site would not occur unless there was a development project occurring primarily on the upland portion of the site, along with a relatively minor amount of wetland filling to create additional developable area. The practicality of intensive development of the upland portion of the site is dependent upon the proposed wetland filling to create a more usable development footprint, and is also dependent upon having flexibility with regard to certain development standards such as by reducing the amount of on-site parking to be provided; by not providing individual decks or porches for all units as would be required through the Site Development Review approval standards; and by accounting for shared open spaces through looking at the larger development plan. In addition, it is noted that proposed A+O Apartments Planned Development will further the objectives of the Washington Square Regional Center plan by providing desired relatively intense residential development in close proximity to shopping opportunities at Washington Square and other nearby centers; close proximity to employment opportunities at Washington Square, Lincoln Center, and other nearby office and commercial centers; and within close proximity to transit opportunities on SW Greenburg Road, SW Locust Street, and SW Hall Boulevard. While the proposed development will be fairly intensive compared to the existing neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-family residences to the south and east of the site, the proposed A+O (:P;\2U14410(M)Z'PI)R2Ul4-(XXY)3/SURA)14-"XKF4/til,R2i144XXX)2—A+0 APAR7T11MS PAGE 21 OIC 56 Planned Development will provide a step down in intensity from Washington Square and Lincoln Center to those existing neighborhoods. The A+O Planned Development will be developed at a density (52 units/acre) which is low in the range of residential densities allowed by the MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site of the proposed development(50 units/acre minimum,no maximum). This criterion is met. FINDINGS: According to the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are substantially met. However, staff recommends that the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TtiNlet's comment letter dated December 4,2014,as conditioned below. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the proposed Concept Plan substantially meets the approval criteria and recommend approval of the Concept Plan to the City Council,subject to consideration of an enhanced mobility plan. 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements C. Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions,with the following modifications: 1. Lot dimensional standards. The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80%of the minimum size required in the base zone. There is no applicable minimum lot size in the underlying MUE-1 and MUR-1 districts. The site size will be 10.95 acres after dedication of additional road right-of-way for SW Oak Street. This standard is met. 2. Site coverage. The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such as streets and sidewalks. The concept plan provides for less than 40% of the gross planned development site area to be developed and over 60%of the site to be retained as natural and enhanced wetlands. Therefore,the proposed concept plan clearly meets this standard. Additionally, 25% percent of the portion of the site which is planned to be developed with the apartments will be landscaped and not covered by buildings or pavement.This standard is met. 3. Building height. In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the structure be set back from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2 times the height of the building. No increase in building height is request beyond that allowed by the underlying zones. This standard is met. 4. Structure setback provisions: No exceptions to the applicable base zone setback standards are requested. All buildings within the proposed A+O Apartments Planned Development will be required to meet all applicable setback and building separation standards of the underlying zones and of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. No garage entrances will enter onto SW Oak Street.Both parking garages will have entrances internal to the site. This standard is met. 5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. No exceptions are requested to an), other standards of the base MUE-1 and MUR-1 zoning districts. This standard is met. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: (:PA2()144)0(X)2/PDR2(114(KKK)3/ti7)R214-luKMi4iq.R314-(Kxx)2- \-O APARM]NI'S PAGE 22()1;56 A.The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed detailed development plan has been designed to be completely consistent with the concept plan, except for providing additional details on how the site is to be developed. No changes to the residential densities, amounts of open space and landscaping, land usage; effects upon environmentally sensitive areas or hazardous areas; or the proposed pattern of development are proposed. 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; No land division is proposed. Therefore, the provisions of Chapters 18.420 and 18.430 are not applicable to the proposed final development plan.This criterion is met. 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. 2. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. The commission may grant an exception to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer that the resulting access will not be detrimental to the public safety considering emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of transportation using the site (vehicles,bicycles,pedestrians, and transit). No exception to the applicable access,egress and circulation standards is requested. 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. Where a project site encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be aggregated for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project site, as deemed appropriate by the commission. No density bonus is requested. 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. No exception to the applicable minimum landscaping requirements is requested. 5. Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. The commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone if: a. The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than 10% of the required parking;and An exception to the minimum required on-site parking space standard is requested to allow the proposed A+O Apartments to be served by 278 on-site parking spaces rather than the 306 on-site spaces which normally would be required for this type and size of development. The requested 28 fewer parking spaces would represent a 9.1 percent reduction from the normally required amount of on-site parking. Criterion (a)is met. (:1':13)14-(XXXP-ITI)R_2(114(NKK)3/S1)R2f174-(KKK14/SI.R2(114tKMK)2-A+O APARTIMI QVIS, PAGE 23 OF 56 b. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature, e.g.,a nursing home,and which has a low demand for off-street parking; or The proposed mix of apartment units in the project with a relatively high number of smaller unit types (64 studios and 98 1-bedroom units) and the absence of larger dwelling units should result in fewer residents per dwelling unit than would be typically expected in a suburban muld-family project.Therefore,it is reasonable to anticipate that the lesser number of residents per unit would translate to a lesser demand for on-site parking spaces as compared to a typical suburban multi- family development. The applicant argues that the City of Tigard's minimum parking space standard is oriented more to the demand for parking spaces for a typical multi-family project with larger dwelling units than is currently proposed. Criterion(b) is met. c. There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that the property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement; or The applicant has not identified any opportunities for shared parking. d. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses;or According to the applicant's narrative, the site is relatively well served by transit as is reported and detailed in Impact Assessment Report F. A portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of several transit stops. This is illustrated by the Transit Availability Map in that report which shows one-quarter mile radii from the closest transit stops to the site at: 1) the west side of SVG' Greenburg Road at the entrance to the Washington Square shopping center; and 2) at the intersection of SIX'Hall Boulevard and SW Locust Street. The TriMet Trip Planner service provided on Triplet's website says that there currently are three transit stops within one-half mile walking distance of the SW 8900 SDG' Oak Street within the site for TriMet Bus Route 43 on Hall Boulevard or SW Locust Street.The TriMet Trip Planner indicates that there are three transit stops within six-tenths of a mile walking distance for TriMet Bus Routes 76 and 78 on SW Greenburg Road. Maps of these routes and basic schedules are included in the Impact Assessment report.The proximity of the site to these bus transit stops and the frequency of transit service means that good public transportation service will be available to serve the proposed multi-family development. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use. In considering the parking exemption and the potential for mitigating the adverse effects on adjoining uses, staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. e. There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features of the site which make it in the public interest to grant an exception to parking standards. The request for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces derives from efforts to minimize the amount of wetland area needed to be filled to provide on-site parking. Multiple attempts dere made to lay out the site plan to provide all of the normally required parking on-site without providing on-street parking. All such alternative plans would have required additional wetland filling and/or increased building heights to provide additional parking. Additional wetland filling would not have been in the public's interests in preserving this existing resource area. Criterion(e) is met. FINDING: The proposed 9.1% (28 spaces) exception to the minimum parking requirement is less than 10% allowed. The proposed mix of studio and one bedroom units and the availabiliv;of nearby transit can reasonably be expected to lower the demand for on-site parking. It is in the public interest to preserve wetlands to the south of the development site (Wetland A). Therefore, the commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone. However, staff finds that the availability of transit may not be sufficient to ensure its use and recommends the following condition of approval: CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership vithin a quarter mile of the subject site, c;P.,12in4-(KKKn IPl)82014-(xKK),I!SDILT14-IKKX9/1;11Un4-EKKKi2—A+O AMMU MEN11 PACit'24 OF 56 including but not limited to measures identified in TriMet's comment letter dated December 4, 2014. 6. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional requirements in the applicable zone. No exception to the dimensional standards for signs is requested. 7. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The commission may grant an exception to the visual clearance requirements,when adequate sight distance is or can be met; No exception to the vision clearance requirements is requested. 8. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks, and 18.810.060, Lots. Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis, and nothing in this section shall obligate the city engineer to grant an exception. The commission has the authority to reject an exception request. The commission can only grant an exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by the city engineer. The city engineer may determine that certain exceptions to the street and utility standards are permissible when it can be shown that: An exception to the public street improvement standards is requested to allow a narrower than the normal WSRC Plan minor collector street. TDC Section 18.630.100 states the recommended roadway functional classification map and street cross-sections in the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) Plan shall govern the improvement and construction of major streets within the WSRC Plan District. 'l'he WSRC Plan calls for a minor collector section along SW Oak Street which includes 43.5-feet from centerline right-of way and a 29.5-feet from centerline paved width (5.5-foot half center lane, 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane,8-foot parking). The applicant proposes a modified minor collector section for this street to provide 40-feet from centerline collector street right-of-way, and 26-feet of pavement from centerline to curb (12-foot travel lane, 6-foot bike lane, 8-foot parallel parking). The 3.5-foot reduction in the street width is the result of removing the center lane in the street section (subtract the 5.5-foot half center lane) and widening the travel lane (add 2-feet to travel lane). A supplemental memo to the Transportation Impact Study addressing turn lane warrants is included in report C in the Impact Assessment portion of the applicant's submittal. The City Engineer agrees with the applicant's assertion that the center turn lane is not warranted but has determined an alternative design will better serve multimodal transportation options: the SW Oak Street half section will 40 feet from center line and include a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LIDA planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike/ped path. a. Public safety will not be compromised; and The Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) description refers specifically to improving accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district. Not having a left-turn along the site frontage does not impact the ability to provide multimodal access into the office/commercial uses. The WSRC also highlights improving access to residential areas specifically for pedestrians and cyclists with autos as a secondary consideration ("as well.') and the need for traffic management techniques to protect neighborhood streets. The proposed design helps accomplish these objectives by: 1) Removal of center left-turn lane reduces north-south pedestrian crossing distance/exposure; 2) Narrower cross section reduces potential traffic speeding issues through more compact environment and reduces appearance of a wide street that might otherwise encourage cut-through traffic; and 3) still accommodates on-street parking and sidewalks. SW Oak Street is currently posted with 25 MPH speed signs. This speed will help keep travel on the street safe with on-street parking. This criterion is met. (:l'A3)14-(XXN12/PDRZ()14-(XXX)3./SDR3114(XXX)4/S).R2L)14--(XXX)2-A+-0 APAKJM1?N7ti PAGE 25()F56 b. In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a conforming design; and Maintenance costs would not be anticipated to be increased due to the reduced right-of-say and street width that are requested. The reduced 3.5-feet of pavement width would require less street sweeping and pavement overlay/maintenance in the future. This criterion is met. c. The design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of pollutant treatment. The reduced pavement width will also decrease the impervious surface which will reduce stormwater runoff from Oak Street.The proposed planter strip width will provide area for LIDA-facilities (stormwater planters,swales) that can provide stormwater quality treatment for the impervious area within the public right-of-way. In addition, the narrower right-of-way allows the proposed development to be constructed further north, reducing impacts to wetlands located to the south of the site.This criterion is met. FINDING: The city engineer has determined that the applicant's proposed exception to the street standards is not permissible. Instead, the City Engineer adopts a revised section for SW Oak Street 40 feet from center line including a 20-foot paved width with a 12-foot travel lane and 8 feet of on-street parking,an 8 foot LIDA planter and a 12-foot vide separated bike/ped path. For those chapters not specifically exempted under the planned development chapter, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested. The following standards apply to the proposed planned development. 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in commercial zones is presented in Table 18.520.1. The western portion of the site is zoned MUE-1 and the eastern portion of the site is zoned MUR-1,as illustrated on the Existing Conditions/Site Assessment Plan,Sheet PLL Table 18.520.1 of the Community Development Code lists use types that are permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited in the various commercial zoning districts in the City of Tigard. Household living is listed as a permitted use in both the MUE-1 and bIUR-1 districts in this table,with a footnote which says that all permitted and conditional uses may be subject to special development standards of Section 18.630. The proposed multi-family residential use is considered a Household Living use type,and thus is permitted in both zoning districts applied to the site. 18.520.040 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Any development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.This standard is met. B. Development standards. Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: MUE-1 Standard Proposed Minimum lot size: None 10.85 acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width (:PA3)14-cx101r�PDR3Ut4 XXX).i/5vR2(�14 XXX)4/SJ,RZ)14-(X"12-A+0 APAR1A1f2qPIm PAG H.26 OF 56 Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 10.5-feet(Buildings B and C) Minimum side yard: 0 28-feet(Building A west side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south property line Minimum building height: 2 stories 4-stories Maximum building height. 200 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 85% 75%of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement: 15% 25%of total apartment site Minimum density: 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./net acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u. /net acre total MUR-1 Minimum lot size: None 10.85-acres total site area (4.44 acres apartment development site) Minimum lot width: None 693.5-feet min. total site width Minimum/maximum setbacks: Minimum front yard: 0 6.9-feet Building D stair tower) Maximum front yard setback: 20 feet 11.2-feet(remainder of Building D face) Minimum side yard: 0 15-feet(Building D east side) Minimum rear yard: 0 over 300-feet to south Minimum building height: 2 stories 4 stories Maximum building height. 75 feet 53-feet Maximum site coverage: 8011/10 75% of total apartment site Minimum landscape requirement":: 15% 20% of total apartment site Minimum density: 50 d.u./net acre 53.1 d.u./acre total Maximum density None 53.1 d.u./acre total FINDING: Table 18.520.2 above, shows that the proposed development plans are consistent with the applicable development standards in the MUR-1 and MUE-1 zoning districts. The applicant has not applied for any variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title are addressed further in this staff report.The applicable commercial development standards are met. 18.630 WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN DISTRICT 18.630.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Purpose. 1. This chapter will implement the vision, concepts and principles contained in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and the recommendations contained in the Phase II Implementation Plan Summary Report,prepared by a task force appointed by the City of Tigard. 2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Management Functional Plan target growth capacity for the Washington Square regional center will be met by permitting mixed use development within the regional center at densities appropriate for an urban center. 3. A mixed use regional center will contain a variety of districts that vary in scale, predominant use, and character. Distinct districts, connected to each other and to the rest of the region by a multi-modal transportation system,will provide a range of working, living and shopping opportunities. 4. Improved multi-modal transportation links, higher densities, variety of land uses, and enhanced environmental qualities will all contribute to create a desirable, livable community in the face of dramatic population and employment growth. 5. New mixed-use zoning districts, along with existing residential zoning districts in established areas, are appropriate for the regional center. B. Design principles. Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. These design standards address several important guiding principles adopted for the Washington Square (:P.X2)141xu]U2;'PDl(_'(l]4(xxx)3iq)R3)14 XXX)4iSIYK3)1401XX)2-:1+0 APAR tTfl',A"I S PAGE.27 OP 56 Regional Center Plan District, including creating a high-quality mixed use area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system,and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. C. Development conformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in new non-single-family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the development and building codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. As reviewed in this staff report, the project meets or has been conditioned to meet the design standards in this Chapter and other development standards required by the development and building codes and would contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition, developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. The applicant's submittal did not address this provision. Both public comment and the WSRC plan identify the continuation of SW Lincoln Street through to SVC Oak Street as a critical future transportation infrastructure improvement. Public commenters worry that the limited capacity of SVC' 90' Avenue will not be able to handle increased traffic generated by the development. The Regional Center Plan identifies a collector system at Oak-Lincoln-Locust to distribute east/west traffic between Locust and Oak Streets and improve accessibility to the Lincoln Center commercial district and to improve access to residential areas for bicyclists and pedestrians,as well as autos. According to the WSRC plan, District C, Lincoln Center-Ash Creek, is an area "slated for high density office and residential development. Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, it will be important for this area to provide easy pedestrian and bicycle access between homes and jobs. A particular goal is to protect the Metzger neighborhood from impacts of increased traffic, while assuring free-flowing vehicular movement throughout the district." In addition, "Metro has established goals for the region to reduce the number of trips by auto relative to those made by transit, pedestrian and bike travel. Pedestrian and bike facilities developed in concert with new housing and offices will be a step toward achieving theses regional goals." The applicant's traffic analysis concludes that intersections remain functional with the development's added traffic, but does recommend improvements to the SVG'Oak and 90th Avenue intersection.However,it does not satisfactorily address the additional traffic on SW 90th, a 50-foot local street, as the primary route north to SW Locust for southbound Greenburg/Hwy 217 trips originating from the proposed development. To meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects (subject to rough proportionality) the applicant could consider, for example, a range of improvements associated with Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path,or a constructed bike/ped path uithin a bike/ped easement. The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects,such as the SAX'Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionality. 18.630.020 Development Standards A. Compliance required.All development must comply with: 1.All applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370 and subsections C through E of this section; 2.All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Development standards of Section 18.630 which are applicable to the proposed uses of this site are addressed below in the responses to the standards of Section 18.630. The staff report otherwise ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title.This standard is met. UIA2014tKMMY2PI)R2114-(XKK)31'51)R21114-(xNX)4/SI.RZ)14-(XXXr2-A+OAPAR'1'iN1N:N'!ti PAGE 28O 56 18.630.040 Street Connectivity A. Purpose. The standards provide a way for creating continuity and connectivity within the Washington Square regional center (WSRC). They provide incremental street and accessway development that is consistent with WSRC needs and regional and state planning principles for connectivity. The primary objective is to create a balanced,connected transportation system that distributes trips within the WSRC on a variety of streets. B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Section 18.370.010 where topography,barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1.Design option. a.Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance option. a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than 1-1/2 the straight-line distance. The site of the proposed development is located on the south side of SVG' Oak Street Ash Creek and its associated floodplain and wetlands are located on and to the south of the subject site, with Oregon State Highway 217 — a controlled access highway- located further to the south. These existing conditions make the development of further streets to the south impracticable. Local streets to the north include SVG' 90th Avenue directly to the north, SW 87th Avenue to the east,and the planned intersection with the SW Lincoln Street to the west. SVG`Oak Street in front of the subject site is designated a collector street All of the proposed buildings will have major entrances within 100 feet of SW Oak Street.This standard is met 18.630.050 Site Design Standards Compliance. All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan may be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010.C.2,governing criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. A, Building placement on major and minor arterials. 1. Purpose. Architecture helps define the character and quality of a street and can make a strong statement about the overall community and city at large. The placement and design of buildings provides the framework for the streetscape and defines the edges of the public right-of-way. Architecture and ground floor uses can activate the street, either by its design presence or by those who come and go from it. At intersections,investing in building frontages can create gateways and special places that add to the character of the area. 2. Standard. Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along major and minor arterial streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on major and minor arterial streets. The site fronts only on SVG' Oak Street. SW Oak Street is a collector (minor arterial). Buildings B, C, and D occup; approximately 660'o of the frontage.This standard is met. B. Building setback. 1. Purpose. Buildings and investment in architecture is most conspicuous when it is visible from the street. The presence of buildings closely sited at the edge of the right-of-way creates an envelope for the street and a sense of permanence. 2. Standard. The minimum and maximum building setback from public street rights-of-way shall be in accordance with Table 18.520.2. (;P 121)14-(XMX12/P1)R2014-(XXX)3,'SI)R2()14-(XXX)4,'ti1"114-(XXX)2—A+O APARIM NI-1 IIAG 1;29()F56 As addressed above under the Section 18.520,the front yard setbacks from SW Oak Street are met. C. Front yard setback design. 1. Purpose. The front yard is the most conspicuous face of a building and requires special attention. Places for people and pedestrian movement helps create an active and safer street. Higher level of landscape anticipates a more immediate visual result. 2. Standard. For setbacks greater than 0 feet, landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or aceessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to the applicable standard in subsection E of this section. Hard- surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.B and Table 18.520.2. The front yard area between the sidewalk along SDG Oak Street and the fronts of proposed buildings B, C and D and parking areas to the sides of buildings will be landscaped with a combination of lawn, planter beds, and trees which will enhance the pedestrian environment along SDS'Oak Street.This standard is met. D.Walkway connection to building entrances. 1. Purpose. As density increases and employee and resident populations increase, it is expected that more people will move between businesses within the WSRC. Provisions should be made to encourage people to walk from business to business, and housing to business rather than use automobiles. 2. Standard. A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner adjacent to a public street intersection are required. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per 18.520.040.13 and Table 18.520.2. According to the applicant's narrative and plans, all building entrances will be connected to the public sidewalk along SW Oak Street by a network of internal site sidewalks. All private sidewalks between the building entrances and SW Oak Street sidewalk will be at least six feet wide and constructed of concrete.This standard is met. E. P rking location and landscape design. 1. Purpose. The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas. 2. Standard. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary street(s) shall be identified by the city where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage. When abutting public streets, parking must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 parking lot screen standard. The minimum depth of the Ul landscaped area is eight feet or is equal to the adjacent building setback, whichever is greater. All other site landscaping shall be landscaped to an L-2 general landscaping standard. The L-1 and L-2 standards are more fully described in Section 18.630.090. (Ord. 12-09§ 1) According to the applicant's narrative and plan set, all parking areas on the project will be located to the sides or rear of proposed buildings, or within first level parking garages of buildings A and D. Parking areas to the sides of buildings are no further forward than even with the adjacent front building elevation. Parking areas adjacent to buildings along SW Oak Street are will be screened by landscaped areas which include lou.- level screening plant materials consistent with the L-1 parking area screening and planting size standards. All planting areas between parking areas and SDC Oak Street are at least 10-feet deep, except where reduced to accommodate required patios (,IIX201"XX)2,h'1)13114(NNKl3,'ti1)R2014-OLXX)4/�SI.R21)ta XN)O2—A+().'\YMMFX1, 11AGE3[)OF56 for ground level dwelling units. All other site landscaping will be provided at sizes consistent with the L-2 planting standard. However, the applicant states that"landscape materials in these areas will need to be kept trimmed to allow for clear vision areas at the intersections of these driveways with SW Oak Street." According to the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.2) Blue Oat Grass and Kinnikinnick are specified. Pursuant to 18.630.090, Landscaping and Screening,within these landscaped areas "L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31/2.-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years." Visual Clearance Areas require 3-8 foot clear and allow trees.This standard is not met The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the L-1 areas between Buildings B and C, and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.630.060 Building Design Standards All new buildings constructed in the MUC,MUE and MUR zones within the WSRC shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in 18.370.010.C.2, criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. A. Ground floor windows. 1. Purpose. Blank walls along the street frontage tend to be neglected, and are not pedestrian friendly. Windows help keep "eyes on the street" which promotes safety and security, and can help create a lively street frontage by displaying activities and products within the building. Lighting at night from ground floor windows also adds to the presence of activity and the sense that someone is home. 2. Standard. All street-facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as the entire requirement is located at a building corner. According to the applicant's narrative, only building D will have a portion of its front building face along SW Oak Street located within 10-feet of the street property line — and that is the stair tower which will be set back 6.5 feet. The front building elevations of buildings B, C,and D will all be located between 10 feet and 11.2 feet back of the street property line. Nevertheless, measured between three feet and nine feet above grade, buildings B and C will provide a minimum of 50%of their ground floor wall areas with windows and doorway openings at these distances which are just beyond 10-feet— so technicall; they are not subject to this standard. Buildings A and D are set back more than 10 feet;therefore, these building are not required to satisf}-this standard.This standard is met. B. Building fagades. 1. Purpose. Straight, continuous, unarticulated walls lack interest, character and personality. The standard provides minimum criteria for creating a diverse and interesting streetscape. 2. Standard. Fagades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least one foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building fagade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. According to the applicant's narrative,all facades that face a public street provide at least one of the variations listed in the standard at intervals of no less than every 50 feet along the facade. None of the proposed buildings will exceed a length of 205 feet;therefore,the pedestrian connection through a building standard is not applicable to any of the proposed buildings. This standard is met. (:PA'—)(114-(XNN12/I'I)R2014-(XXX)3/':DR2t114-(XXX)4.9.R3114-IXXX)2—N+O APARI II:Nri YALE 31 Ole 56 C. Weather protection. 1. Purpose. Weather protection is encouraged to create a better year-round pedestrian environment and to provide incentive for people to walk rather than drive. 2. Standard. Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Weather protection is provided at all entrances to the buildings through the use of overhangs or canopies as shown on the building elevations plans. This standard is met. D. Building materials. 1. Purpose. High quality construction and building materials suggest a level of permanence and stature appropriate to a regional center. 2. Standard. Plain concrete block,plain concrete, corrugated metal,plywood,sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than two feet. The project does not use materials listed above in the standard as prohibited exterior finish materials. Plain concrete is used as a foundation material, but the plain concrete will not be revealed for more than two feet. Proposed building materials will include Hardie board,Hardie panels,and vertical metal panels. Deck and patio railings will be constructed of acrylic or metal,as identified on Sheet A3.10. This standard is met. E. Roofs and roof lines. 1. Purpose. Roof line systems that blur the line between the roof and the walls of buildings should be avoided. This standard simply states that roofing materials should be used on the roof and that wall finish materials should be use on building walls. The premise is that future buildings in the WSRC should have a look of permanence and quality. 2. Standard. Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The materials of roofs and roof lines are different from the materials used on the building elevations so as to avoid blurring the distinction between the roof and walls as required by the standard. This standard is met. F. Roof-mounted equipment. 1. Purpose. Roof top equipment, if not screened properly, can detract from views of adjacent properties. Also roofs and roof mounted equipment can be the predominant view where buildings are down slope from public streets. 2. Standard. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. According to the applicant's narrative, all roof-mounted equipment is screened from the view of adjacent public streets. This standard is met. 18.630.070 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations. Residential only developments within the MUC, MUE and MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-40 zone, 18.780.130.B; nonresidential developments within the MUC zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.130.C; nonresidential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130.D and nonresidential development within the MUR zones shall meet the sign requirements of the C-N zone,18.780.130.E. (TA2U14-(Nx11Y),'PUR2014 XXX)3,'�1)R2014i XN)04,'SI.R2(ri44X)(Nt3-A+O APARTMI{ASIS P:1(,132 01'56 2. Sign area limits. The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted. 3. Height limits. The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted. 4. Sign location. Freestanding signs within the Washington Square regional center shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. According to the applicant's narrative, an integral wall sign is provided on the west elevation of building C at the building's comer near SW Oak Street. The area of the western building face is 2,388 square foot. The area of the proposed sign is 143 square feet, or less than 6 percent of the total wall face. The sign area does not exceed 15% of the area of the building face on which it is mounted and will not extend above the building's roofline. To verify these specifications meet the applicable sign standards a sign application will be required prior to installation of any signage.This standard is met. 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other subsections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. A. L-1 parking lot screen. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on public streets. The L-1 standard is in addition to other standards in other chapters of this title. The setback shall be a minimum of eight feet between the parking lot and a public street. L-1 trees shall be considered parking lot trees and spaced between 30 and 40 feet on center within the setback. All L-1 trees shall be a minimum of 31/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a three-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. B. L-2 general landscaping. The L-2 standard applies to all other trees and shrubs required by this chapter and Chapter 18.745 (except those required for the L-1 parking lot screen). For trees and shrubs required by Chapter 18.745, the L-2 standard is an additional standard. All L-2 trees shall be 21/2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. These landscape standards apply to the areas adjacent to SW Oak Street between Buildings B and C,and between C and D.As reviewed above,the applicant has not met the standard for L-1 and has been conditioned to meet it. FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Plan District standards are not all met but can be met with the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvements projects, such as the SW Lincoln Street extension,subject to rough proportionality,a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the 1,1 areas between Buildings B and C,and between C and D are consistent with L-1 standards. 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS,AND CIRCULATION 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions auyly. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. The proposal is for 215 multi-family units and associated access and parking, which is considered development; CY.kW14(NNx)2/PI)R.2014(KUN13;Sl)R2)14-(XXX9/',I,R3)144XXX)2—A40 ARMMFM1S PAGE 33 OF 56 therefore these standards apply. 18.705.030 General Provisions 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. As shown in the applicant's site plan, the three proposed driveways are directly connected to SW Oak St. This standard is met. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress.Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) walkways will connect from all primary (and secondary) multi- family building entrances to the parking areas and common open spaces and facilities planned to serve the project. Primary crossings of driveway aisles will be marked by paint or contrasting pavement.These standards are met. H.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). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a preliminary sight distance analysis concluding that, with certain improvements at the SW 90'h Street intersection, adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met, but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting l:YA2U14lRNN12/Pl)R2b14-(ANM)3/til)R2[(14-(lax)4/ti],R3(14-lXXXP_-A+OMARINi liN'11, PAG T"34UI,5G adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway.The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from city engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area any collector or arterial street. 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. 4.The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a minimum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet.The standard is met. I. 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. TABLE 18.705.2 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENTS: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE Dwelling Units Min. Number of Min. Access Min. Pavement Width Driveways Required Width 1-2 1 15' 10' 3-19 1 30' 24'if two-way, 15'if one-way curbs and 5'walkwa to uired 20-49 1 30' 24'if two-wa• or 2 30' 15'if one-way. curbs and 5'walkway required 50-100 2 30' 24'curbs and 5',xalkway required Standards for parking greater than 100 cars is not specified in Table 18.705.2. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width would provide a level of access similar to that required for the largest development size listed. The standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards are not all met but can be met through the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS: Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and A.ASHTO. (:P:13)14(XXXl2/PI)R2)14-(XXI)3/qDR3114-(l(XXW/SLR3114tXXXY2-A+0APAR-11"1I{N'15 PAG 35OF5G Upon completion of the improvements, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. 18,715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18.715.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. 18.715.020 Density Calculation A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s)from the total site acres: 1.All sensitive land areas: a.Land within the 100-year floodplain, b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%, c. Drainage ways,and d.Wetlands, e. Optional: Significant tree groves or habitat areas, as designated on the City of Tigard "Significant Tree Grove Map"or"Significant Habitat Areas Map"; 2.All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20%of gross acreage, b. Multifamily development: allocate 15% of gross acreage or deduct the actual private drive area; 4.All land proposed for private streets;and 5.A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. C. Calculafng minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in subsection B of this section by 80% (0.8). The project site is zoned with a combination of the NIUE-1 (7.88--acres) and MUR-1 (3.4 acres) zoning districts. Pursuant to Table 18.502.2, the minimum densir,, for both zones is 50 units per net site acre,and no maximum. Based on the following density calculation,a minimum of 205 units are required. Gross site area 11.17 acres -Public right-of--way dedication 0.32 acres Net site area 10.85 acres Initial net site area 10.85 acres -Remaining jurisdictional 6.20 acres wetlands/floodplain -Private drive area (drive aisles required for fire access only) .6�0 acres Net/Net site area 4.05 acres Minimum units required 50 units/acre x 4.05 acres =205 units proposed density 215 units/4.05 acres = 53.1 units/acre (:P,%3)14(XU(M)2'PI)R21)14-(XXX).3,'tiDR_2()14(xxx)4'sI,R2)14-(mxKY2—A+O APAWI'htINTS PAG E 30 01;56 FINDING: The proposal is for 215 units, or 53.1 dwelling units per net acre. This exceeds the minimum density required. This standard is met. 18,725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE STANDARDS These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise,visible emissions,vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation,the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions.Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340- 28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare,whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: The proposal is for multi-family development, which is permitted within the MUR-1 and MUE-1 zones. These Environmental Performance standards will apply to the apartments after construction and be sub)ect to compliance with the applicable code enforcement provisions. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 General Provisions A. Maintenance responsibility. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his or her agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all landscaping and screening used to meet the requirements of this chapter according to applicable industry standards. B. Installation re!jitiremenifi. The installation of all landscaping and screening required by this chapter shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping and screening shall be installed according to applicable industry standards; 2. All plants shall be of high grade,and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nursery Stock(ANSI Z60, 1-2004, and any future revisions); and 3. All landscaping and screening shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. C. Certificate of occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the requirements of this chapter have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the city such as the posting of a bond. 18.745.040 Street Trees (:PAZ)14-(KXX)2/rllR2014-49XX)3;SDR2()14 XXXY1/S].RZD14ittMNn-.1+n APAR1 MiTT1'S PAGE'37 01`56 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. 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 6 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 18.790.030JL2), 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 (3) years (per the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual) for each tree below the minimum required. As shown in the Landscape Plan (Sheets Ll.1/2) the applicant proposes planting of fifteen katsura trees along the site's SW Oak Street frontage within planter strips between the curb and sidewalk is in order to provide the required number of street trees and planting locations consistent with Section 18.745.040. This standard is met. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 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. E. Screening: snecial provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas (i.e., nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less (.1'A2014-(I(XKCi'PI)R2014(XXXI.l'SI)ILV14-(XXX)4,q R21144XXX 2-A+q APARIM}Nlti PAGIi 38 OF 50 conforming. Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), planned development (Type II1), and site development review(Type II) permits only. 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; 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. As indicated in Table 18.745.1, a Type D buffer is required for parking lots with 50+ spaces along the south perimeter of the property. According to Table 18.745.2, a 10-20 foot buffer with a 6 foot hedge, fence, or wall with trees and shrubs for screening is required.As shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheets L1.1/2), the applicant proposes an alternative to the buffer and screening standards to account for the retaining wall and limited space afforded the project's proximity to wetlands to the south.The applicant proposes that slats u-ill be added to the proposed 42 inch high chain link fence atop the retaining wall after a pathway is placed through the wetland (unlikely to occur in the near future) and before proposed screening trees planted at the base of the retaining wall become an effective screen on their own. Given the information provided, it is unclear whether the proposed alternative screening plan would sufficiently reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual pollution created by the elevated parking lot as seen from the south from other vantage points besides the potential trail. To ensure the alternative screening plan is sufficient, the applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates they will be effectively screened from view. 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. 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. The applicant states that the refuse containers within the project will be screened from views by 6-foot tall CMU block enclosures.This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Landscaping and Screening standards have not been fully met but can be met through the following condition of approval. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south. 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.010 Purpose and Applicability B. Applicabiliity. 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. (:PA2l14 XXXP-/PDR2U14)(XX).3/til)R21)14cXKK)4/SI ILL N)14(KXX)?—A+O APAR"1 M NTS PAGE.39 O 56 The applicant proposes using the "franchised hauler review method" method provided for by Code Section 18.755.040.F. The 215-unit multi-family project will be served by two roughly 200 square foot trash and recycling enclosures conveniently located for use by all residents. The outdoor trash enclosures will be constructed of split- faced CMU block, with wood and metal accents. The apartment management company will contract for twice a week trash and recycling pick-up by Pride Disposal—the franchised hauler serving the area of the site. This method and frequency of pickup was suggested by representatives of Pride Disposal because of the site constraints posed by the site's slope making the location of additional collection facilities impractical and difficult to access by Pride Disposal's collection vehicles. A comment letter from Pride Disposal regarding the plans for solid waste collection and recycling facilities is enclosed as Impact Assessment Report D. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed mixed solid waste and recycling plan meets the standard. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions E. 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. The applicant has requested parking space exemption of 9.1% (28 spaces) as allowed under the Planned Development chapter. Provided the exemption is granted, the proposed development will meet the minimum parking standard,including the visitor parking requirement of 40 spaces (15 x 266 minimum required spaces). G. 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. Disabled parking space are provided consistent with the state requirements. This standard is met. 18.765.040 General Design Standards B.Access drives.With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 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 for parking space orientation of 90 degrees. As permitted by that figure's allowance of up to 50% compact spaces, the proposed development plan provides for 115 of the total 278 on-site parking spaces to be compact spaces,or 48 percent of the spaces proposed.The general design standards are met. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 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 locate 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. B. Covered parking spaces. 1.When possible,bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. CPn�Ul4txx,tl�/PI)R2D141xxx,3jti1)K2Ut4,Nxxw/tib x iia txxxn_—A+O APAR•MIXIs I'Ac;I?40 OF 56 2. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case,the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 1. The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; 2. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground,wall or other structure; 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least two and one-half feet by six feet long, and,when covered,with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; 4. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; 5. Required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased.At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; 6.Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. D. Paving. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete, other pervious paving surfaces, or similar material. This surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. E. 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. Single-family residences and duplexes are excluded from the bicycle parking requirements. The director may reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces by means of an adjustment to be reviewed through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in 18.370.020.C.5.e. Pursuant to Table 18.7 65.2, one bicycle parking space is required for every two multi-family dwelling units, or a minimum of 108 bicycle parking spaces are required. As shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0), 108 covered bike parking spaces are provided.This standard is met. 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements H. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 requires a minimum of 1 parking space for each studio unit below 500 sq. ft. in size; 1.25 parking space for each 1-bedroom unit; 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom unit; and 1.75 parking spaces for each 3- bedroom unit for multi-family development projects. The proposed multi-family project will include 64 studios; 98 1-bedorrm units; and 53 2-bedroom units. There will be no 3-bedroom units. Therefore,a minimum of 266 parking spaces are required based solely upon the unit types and counts. In addition, an additional 15% on top of the required parking spaces based on unit sizes and numbers is required as visitor parking facilities. Therefore, a grand total of 306 parking spaces are required.The proposed development plan provides for a total of 278 on-site parking spaces to be provided including: a) 37 garage parking spaces and b)241 surface parking spaces. The proposed plan therefore will provide 28 fewer on-site parking spaces than would typically be required for the size and make-up of the proposed multi-family residential development. The applicant has requested an exception to the required number of on-site parking spaces as allowed under Code Section 18.350.070.C.5 for Planned Developments, above. Provided the exception is granted, the proposed development can meet the standard. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in subsection H of this section: 1. On-street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except;religious institutions may count on-street parking around the perimeter of the use. The applicant acknowledges that the on-street parking provided by the SW Oak Street improvement may not count toward the required minimum parking spaces. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above,the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements can be met. (:PA2114(XNX)2/I'1)R2(114 XX)L)3/ti1)RZ)144XXX4jS1dU114aNMMY2—A+OAPAX1VPNM', P\GI:4101'56 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements 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; The urban forestry plan for the A+O Apartments has been prepared by David Haynes, RLA — a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon.Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Sheets TC.lthrough TC.3 of the application plan set provide the required tree canopy plan and calculations. Soil volume specifications for trees to be planted are included on Sheet TC.3.This standard is met. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual (UFM); The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report of Appendix E of the applicant's submittal 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. An assessment of existing trees located within the area to be preserved as wetlands was not conducted. Sheet TC.1 is a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. Protective measures for trees to be retained are included on this plan. The required right-of- way/street improvements for Ste' Oak Street, as well as the applicant requested additional road width for on-street parking,will necessitate the removal of several existing mature trees. This standard is met. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and The proposed landscaping plan provides for anticipated tree canopy coverage of the parking area to cover 57,282 square feet of the 98.317 square foot total parking lot area, or 58 percent of the parking lot. The minimum parking lot tree canopy cover area required is 33 percent in both the MUE-1 and 11IUR-1 zoning districts applied to the site. In addition the proposed landscaping plan provides for total anticipated tree canopy coverage of 78,785 square feet of the total 180,774 square feet of development area, or 440% of the development area. Finally, the minimum 1,000 cubic feet of soil per tree standard for the Tree Canopy Site Plan has also been met. Therefore, the proposed Tree Canopy Plan satisfies the standards of Section 18.790.030.A.3.This standard is met. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Appendix E of the applicant's submittal includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report prepared by David Haynes,RIA,which includes the required information and analysis required for such a report. This standard is met. FINDING: Based on the analysis above,the urban forestry plan requirements are met. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation B. Tree Establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030 A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of the previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in Section 11,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. FINDING: The applicant's proposal does not address tree establishment. Therefore, a condition of approval is added for the applicant to provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Alanual Section 11, Part 2. D. Urban forest inventory, Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per Section 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per Section 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. (]'A2)14-(XXX)2/Pl)82014-(XKX)3/9)R2G14(KXX)4/M RZ(1144XXX)2-,1+O.\P.,\KIM1iNl� PAGE,42OF 56 Section 11, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city's cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan.This can be met through a condition of approval. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable urban forestry tree inventory and establishment standards have been met.To ensure compliance,the following conditions are applied: CONDITIONS: Prior to an;ground disturbance work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city the current Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond that meets the requirements of Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. FINDING: The Preliminary Landscaping Plan, Sheets L1.1 and L2.2, illustrates the applicable required clear vision triangles at these intersections. This standard 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. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed development has been designed to preserve as much of the existing wetlands and habitat area on the site as practical, while still providing with an intensive residential development as envisioned with the intensive standards and density allowances of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the underlying MITE-1 and NfUR-1 zoning districts. Residential development area has been limited to the northern portion of the site near SVG' Oak Street to tnin�e impacts on the wetlands and to reduce the area that needs to be committed to automobile circulation. The site slopes downward away from SW Oak Street, thereby necessitating filling the site in order to provide building and site access per ADA requirements and to provide cover/depth for the stormwater management system (water quality and detention) prior to outfall to the south into the wetland area, and to provide relatively level areas for the buildings to be located. This filling of the northern portion of the site along with the relatively dense development pattern necessitated removal of all of the existing (:i'AZ)14-IMNIU2'YllR201401xri73/S1]R2tH4-tXKX)4/S1,R2o14-(XXK)2—A+OAPAR` NII-N-IS PAG F43OF5G trees.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 According to the applicant's narrative, all of 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 Geotechnical Resources, Inc. That study is included as report C in the Impact Assessment portion of this report. The recommendations of the study will be utilized in developing the final grading plan for the project.The geotechnical report offers the following conclusion: "The site is mantled by 1.5 to 23.5 ft of silt, which is underlain by basalt which has decomposed to the consistency of sand. Beneath the decomposed basalt, the site is underlain by predominantly decomposed, extremely soft basalt to the maximum depth explored (26.5 ft). In our opinion, the structural loads of the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread footings established in structural fill or in the medium stiff silt or dense to very dense sand that mantles the site. The following sections of this report provide our conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation and earthwork, foundation support, lateral earth pressures, subdrainage and floor support, pavement design, and seismic design considerations. [Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geotechnical Resources, Inc., page 3)."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. The four multi-family residential buildings have been situated to maximize sunlight and air into as many dwelling units as practical. 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; The preserved open space area on the southern portion of the site will separate the proposed multi-family development project from detached single-family development to the south by over 400-feet. Trees to be planted to the south of and near the base of the retaining wall will help screen the proposed development from views from the south,as will screening materials at the top of the wall and parking area trees.Although the areas immediately to the west of the site are currently developed with detached single-family residences, that area is zoned MUE-1 and is anticipated to be redeveloped with intensive residential, institutional, and/or office development which should be similar in intensity as the proposed A+O Apartments. Nevertheless, landscaping is proposed to be provided on the western portion of the subject site to help provide a buffer between these neighboring uses.This criterion is met. b. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: i. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust,or to provide a visual barrier; ii. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; iii. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; iv.The required density of the buffering; and v. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Section 18.745.050.E.1 typically requires the screening of parking lots and loading areas from views from adjacent areas. Table 18.745.1 specifies that a Type D buffer of at least 10- feet to 20-feet of width and differing levels of plant materials and fences/walls or hedges between parking lots and areas of single-family development. These buffer standards would therefore apply along the southern and eastern edges of the proposed parking lot because the parking area might be visible from existing single-family development to the southeast and east, and Hwy 217 if not adequately buffered and screened. (:]lA2U14(XXX)2/PI)IM144XXX)3/SINU 14-)KXX34iS AZ)14(KXX)2-A+O APARTA{IMN PAG Ii440156 The applicant requests an exception to the parking area buffer and screening standards, as provided. The proposed landscape plans were prepared by David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect. The plans propose that an alternative buffer be allowed to the standards of Section 18.745.050.E.1 to screen the parking lots. The parking area will be well separated from the existing neighboring single-family uses to the south and southeast for which buffering and screening is required. The neighboring single-family uses will be located over 400 feet away from the proposed parking area. As such, views of the parking area would be distant and there would be little, if any, discernible noise or odor effects from use of the parking area upon those neighboring properties. In addition, the proposed wetland area plantings of ash trees and the proposed dense planting of western red cedar trees at the base of the proposed retaining wall will provide much more screening of views of the parking area than would a buffer on the actual edge of the parking lot,with such a buffer designed to the relatively narrow width and plant density standards of Table 18.745.1. The western red cedar trees especially will provide adequate evergreen screening of views of the parking area. In addition, to address concerns on the screening from the future pedestrian path near Ash Creek, it is proposed that fence fillers (slats,fabric,etc.) be provided along the southern edge of the proposed parking lot if the trail is constructed prior to tree growth providing the required landscape buffer/screening to the parking area from the trail. Fence fillers will be added to the chain-link fence on top of the retaining wall and adjacent to the southern edges of the parking area in order to supplement the screening provided by the cedar trees for up to five years,in order for tree growth to provide adequate screening. FINDING: The applicant submitted an alternative landscape plan to the required parking lot screening,prepared by a registered landscape architect,that arguably attains the same level of buffering and screening or better with alternate materials and methods. Staff finds that the applicant has not considered views from Hwy 217 or the effects of headlight at night and therefore recommends the applicant provide a site line analysis that demonstrates the alternative screening plan would effectively screen the parking lot as seen from the south,as conditioned above. c. 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. The proposed apartments will include two trash and recycling enclosures within the project's parking area. These enclosures %Aill be constructed of CMU walls with steel gates. Landscaping will be provided adjacent to these trash enclosures to provide near-view screening.Their locations relatively deep into the parking area and site will provide them with adequate screening from adjoining properties,as will the intervening landscaping outside of the parking area. Mechanical equipment on the rooftops of the buildings will be screened from views from neighboring properties by parapets included on the buildings.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; This is a residential development,therefore,this criterion does not apply. 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. CTA?114-(XKXWM3RJ)14(KXX)3/'U)R2014-(Kl(Kgj S1.R2l)144K"12-A+o.VAK1Wf1 N15 PAGI•:45 01`56 The exterior elevation articulation standards of this section are superseded b;- Section 18.630.060.B. The standards of that section are addressed below. 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. As illustrated on the floor plans, Sheets A2.10 through A2.40, all ground level dwelling units will be provided with patios or decks. Minimum sizes of these decks or patios will be 48 square feet Minimum dimensions of any of the decks or patios will be 6 feet of depth. As practical, decks are oriented to maximize solar exposure, but are designed to provide a reasonable degree of private.This criterion is met. 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. The proposed 215 residential units will all be studios, 1-bedroom, or 2-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed development would be required to provide 43,000 square feet of 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: Open area north and west of Building A: 4,247 sq. ft. Community gardens, plaza,and other areas south of Building B: 4,307 sq. ft. Pool, pool deck,plaza,and barbecue pavilion south of Building C: 6,769 sq. ft. Wetlands overlook plaza south of parking area: 1,478 sq. ft. Other usable open space and plaza area: 2.478 sq. ft. Total Usable Active Open Space provided 19,280 sq. ft. In addition, 2,196 square feet of indoor recreation space is provided within Building C, including the following an activity/media room (492 square feet); and exercise room (487 square feet); an activity/media room and kitchen (548 square feet):and a rooftop patio (669 square feco. Total Indoor Recreation Space 2,196 sq. ft. Passive recreation areas are provided including the upland areas adjacent to the wetlands and landscape beds throughout the site. Total outdoor passive recreation space 24,103 sq. &. Total required recreation space 45,579 sq. ft. As allowed by subsection 6.c.iv. above, the combined shared usable outdoor recreation areas, additional indoor recreation area, and passive use open space facilities totals 45,579 square feet of combined area, or 212 square feet per each dwelling unit. This exceeds the minimum standard of 200 square feet of shared outdoor recreation and open space facility per unit.This criterion is met. (,P.XZ)1a-(XXX)2/PI)R2014-(MXX)3/SI)R21) XXXK,st.RZ)14-(XXX)a—A40 APAK MIF?N IN, I'Ac;I.46 OF56 All of the proposed usable outdoor recreation areas will be located in fairly open areas and should be readily observable from a number of dwelling units, the parking area, and the sidewalks and drive aisles within the development site. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed development is consistent with the minimum number of access points required by Chapter 18.705 (minimum of two access points required; three access points provided). The site plan has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. The project development team met with a representative of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District during the development of the site plans. Modifications to the plans were made to accommodate the Fire District's concerns. The plans have also been provided to Pride Disposal, the trash and recycling service provider for the site area. The plans provide for the dedication of a 20-foot wide public pedestrian easement along Ash Creek for future development of a pathway or boardwalk, as called for by the City of Tigard Parks System Master Plan which discusses a Washington Square Regional Center Trail looping around Washington Square, and following Ash Creek as its primary route. An easement for a connecting trail to SVG' Oak Street is also proposed to be provided. This criterion is met. 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. This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for such landscape installation. The proposed development plans (Sheet P2.4, Overall Open Space Analysis Plan) call for 48,367 square feet of landscaped area on the site, or 25 percent of the 193,406 square foot development site area. This total landscaped area does not include the minimal use areas below the proposed retaining wall, which also includes the trees and shrubs which have been proposed to provide the required screening and buffering for the parking area. The landscape plan was prepared by and under the direction of David Haynes, PLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. This criterion is met. 9. Public transit: a. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a quarter mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: i. The location of other transit facilities in the area;and ii.The size and type of the proposed development. b. The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as: i.A waiting shelter; ii.A turn-out area for loading and unloading;and iii. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. c. If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the development and the requirement. The northeastern portion of the site is located within one-quarter mile of Triplet transit service bus stops at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Locust Street,and portions of the northwestern portion of the proposed development site are slightly more than one quarter mile of TriMet transit stops on NW Greenburg Road. There currently is no transit service on SW Oak Street adjacent to the project site. Tri-Met provided a letter dated (:PA2(14-(KXX)2/1'I)R1114(XXX)3jSDR2014(XXX9";L1U)14-(XXN)2PAO]:47(*56 December 4, 2014 at the City's request which outlines measures to improve access to transit from the subject site including improved sidewalk connectivity and lighting and obtaining an easement for placement of a transit shelter. The city shared TriMet's comments with the applicant who was amenable to considering the suggested improvements. As conditioned above, the applicant shall provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership within a quarter mile of the subject site, including but not limited to measures identified in TriMees comment letter dated December 4,2014.Therefore, this criterion is met. 10. Parking: a. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; b. Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. The proposed parking areas within the multi-family development project have been designed consistent with the applicable design standards of Chapter 18.765, as reviewed in the findings to that chapter, below. This criterion is met. 11. Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as green streets,porous concrete, or eco roofs. The proposed storm drainage system within the apartment project has been designed consistent with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.810,as reviewed in the findings to that chapter,below.This criterion is met. 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. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The project site includes a substantial area which is within the 100-year floodplain of.ash Creek. The applicant is proposing to preserve the floodplain area on the site within a private open space area for long-term preservation. The plans note that the applicant is willing to provide a public pedestrian easement to the City of Tigard for the future development of a pedestrian path near Ash Creek,plus an easement for a pedestrian connection between that path and SW Oak Street.This criterion is met. 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. The open space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following: a. Minimal use facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by reserving areas for minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes,wetlands, streams,or 100-year floodplain). b. Passive use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use. c. Active use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation,pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use. d. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat or covenants. CPA2014-U)M)02/1'DR2014 NXX)3.'til)IU)14-(K")4/SIY2)14)MHK)3-:1+0 APAKIIII-XIN PAGE 48O 56 The Detailed Planned Development Plan for the A+O Apartments planned development provides 318,849 square feet of the total site area, over 67 percent of the 472,688 square foot site area (after deduction of additional SW Oak Street right-of-way only) as shared open space areas, whereas a minimum of 20 percent of the site or only 94,538 square feet would be the minimum shared open space required to be prodded for this size planned development site. See Sheet P2.4, Overall Open Space Analysis Plan. The total open space areas to be provided will consist of the following: • 273,270 square feet as minimal use facilities or 289 percent of the minimum required area as shared open space use facilities • 24,103 square feet of passive use facilities or 25 percent of the minimum required open space area; • 21,476 square feet of active use facilities or 22.3 percent of the minimum required open space area. This criterion is met. 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 pan 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. Where considered desirable by the commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies,and where a development plan of the city does not indicate proposed public use areas, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods: a. Public ownership. Open space proposed for dedication to the city must be acceptable to it with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance limitations. A determination of city acceptance shall be made in writing by the parks & facilities division manager prior to final approval. Dedications of open space may be eligible for systems development charge credits, usable only for the proposed development. If deemed to be not acceptable, the open space shall be in private ownership as described below. b. Private ownership. By conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, home association or other legal entity, and granting a conservation easement to the city in a form acceptable by the city. The terms of the conservation easement must include provisions for the following: i.The continued use of such land for the intended purposes; ii. Continuity of property maintenance; iii.When appropriate,the availability of funds required for such maintenance; iv. Adequate insurance protection;and v. Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise. FINDING: The Washington Square Regional Center Implementation Plan (2001) includes the Greenbelt, Parks and Open Space System Concept Plan (Figure 7) which shows greenbelt co-terminus with the wetlands on the subject site. The Tigard Park System Master Plan (2009) Map 3: Park Concept Map shows the Washington Square Regional Trail in a general alignment across the subject property. The Tigard Greenways Trail System Master Plan shows two alternate routes across the subject property, through wetlands (2A) and along SW Oak Street (2B),which is shown as a low priority on the Prioritized Project List,Table 13. The applicant does not propose open space conveyance, but a ped/bike easement instead. The City Parks Director has determined that a dedication will not be acceptable and that a blanket pedestrian/bike easement over the entirety of Wetland A will be an acceptable reservation.As conditioned,this standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria are met or can be met,as conditioned. (;)AZ)14-(MNK)2'Pl)R2014-(XXX)3/S,I)It2()14-(XXX)4j SLR2n14-(XXX12—A+0APARTMENT, PAGE'49 01i 56 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown District, street right- of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.)These are presented in Table 18.810.1 The development is adjacent to SNX' Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630).The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street include a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path. No streets within the development are proposed.This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8, 2014, traffic impact study and a September 16, 2014, Left-turn Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation. The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`x' Avenue approach to SW Oak Street. The Left-turn Analysis concluded that a left-tum lane along Oak Street was unneeded. This standard may be met by condition. CI'A2014-(KKK)2t'PDR2u14-tKKKl3/tiDR2014-OOIKW/UJ R2D141KKKi2-A+O APAWINI1 NIN YAG F50Of1 56 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers,drainage,water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right- of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse. B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided. This standard may be met by condition. 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. B. Requirement of developers. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The Development Review engineer has determined there are no existing sidewalks on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction. This standard is met. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existin mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards r Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings will be extended to a public line in SW Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1.The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2.Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street;and 3.Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wedand buffer at the south side of the site. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to (..1)1%21141]UOlY2/YDR2014(KNR)3/SI)R2o141xxxM/S].]L)0141x1(Al2—A+O APAKI M EXIN PAG 1.51 OF 56 accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SSR' Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Swales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SW Oak Street.This standard may be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek.This standard may be met by condition. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.810.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek.An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2.The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer,shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets;and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the CPA3)14(NN1(Y2/131')R2014(NM)}3,1ti1)R2014(*XXX/SI R2)144XXX12-A+0APAKINWN S PAG,I-.52OF56 only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore, a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Fire and Life Safety The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (FVF&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System: Tualatin Valley Water District (IVWD) provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from TVWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District (IV`X'D) of the design of water service to the site. T't'X'D approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. Gig and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow all applicable requirements regarding erosion control, particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act, State of Oregon,Clean Water Services, and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuancc of the building permit. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings,one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a"2",etc. (:13A2)14lMMMlw"Yl)IU)14lMMM)3!SI)RZ)14aMM)t/S1.R3)141MMMYn_A+0 APAR'I'Ril NINS PAG I-.53 01•'56 SECTION VIII. IMPACT STUDY SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant include an impact study. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system,the sewer system,and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication of real property interest, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section VI of the applicant's submittal includes Impact Assessment Reports on transportation, wetlands, geotechnical,waste and recycling, and storm drainage. Item F. Impact Assessment Report by Otak, Inc. summarizes the effect of the proposed development on general compatibility, noise, odors, lighting, signage, transit availability, transportation,and utilities. The applicant has specifically concurred with and has proposed dedication of right-of-way and to make half-street improvements along SW Oak Street. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Development Tax (TDT)is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County implementation figures for 2014/2015,TDTs are expected to recapture approximately 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed and upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TDTs of approximately $1,098,111 ($5,257 x 215 = $1,130,255 new apartment units -$32,144 for four existing single family dwellings). Based on the estimate that total TDT fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide,a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $3,431,596 ($1,098,111 0.32). The difference between the TDT paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact. Estimated Mitigation Value Assessment: Full Impact ........................................................................................................................($1,098,111 +0.32) $3,431,596 LessTDT Assessment..................................................................................................... - 1,098,111 Less mitigated values for off-site improvements (Lincoln Street row + full improvements) -757,000 Estimate of unmitigated impacts $1,576,485 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvement of SW Oak Street, a collector street, as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet P2.0) and stated in the narrative. Any improvement to SW Lincoln Street, a collector may be TDT is creditable. Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications,assessments,and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION IX. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City Police Department was notified and did not comment on the project. The City Public Works Department was notified and commented that the wetland portion of the subject property should have a blanket public pedestrian/bike access easement for implementation of the Washington Square Loop Trail at some point in the future. The City Development Review Engineer (Contact Greg Berry, 503-718-2468) has reviewed the proposal and provided comment in a Memorandum dated November 26, 2014, which can be found in the land use file and as an f;P.\20144KKK)2,'PI)R2014-(XXX),iigl)R2u144XXX)4/S1.R3)14 XXK12-.1+O APARTMIWIS PAGE'54 OF 56 attachment to this decision. The findings and conclusions in the Memorandum have been incorporated into this land use decision. SECTION X AGENCY COMMENTS TriMet reviewed the proposal and provided a comment letter dated December4, 2014,including recommendations for sidewalk connectivity,lighting and transit station improvements on SW Greenburg. Metro Planner Gerry Uba reviewed the proposal and commented that "Metro is confident that Clean Water Services will assist the City to implement the amendments appropriately." Clean Water Services Jackie Sue Humphreys (503-681-3600) has reviewed this proposal and issued a letter dated November 18, 2014 stating conditions to be met in association with stormwater connection permit authorization, including compliance with the Service Provider Letter dated August 7,2014 (File No. 14-001441). Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue John Wolff(503-259-1504) has reviewed the proposal and offered comments in a letter dated December 3, 2014, that endorses the proposal subject to TVF & R access hydrant location requirements. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, State Historic Preservation Office commented in a letter dated November 18, 2014 that in the absence of sufficient knowledge to predict the location of cultural resources within the project area,extreme caution is recommended during project related ground disturbing activities. A condition of approval will require notification procedures if cultural objects and/or human remains are found during site grading. Oregon Division of State Lands provided a letter to the applicant dated June 13, 2014 concurring with the Pacific Habitat Services wetland and waterway boundaries for the subject site. Frontier John Cousineau (503-643-0371) commented that the project site is within the CenturyLink territory. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), ODOT (Region 1), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. SECTION XI STAFF ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION,AND RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS: Limiting conflicting uses in Goal 5 protected wetlands (CPA) The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss, of the resource. Staff agrees with the applicant that limiting conflicting uses to .42 acres of the site could balance adverse impacts to resources with achieving planning goals of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan District. Staff recommends limiting conflicting uses. Planned Development (PDR) Parking Exemption The applicant's request for a parking exemption of 9.1% may adversely affect on-street parking in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the applicant provide a walkability and ridership assessment that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership. Funding future transportation Developments are required to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. Staff recommends the applicant consider a range of improvements associated with SW Lincoln Street such as providing a full street dedication and improvements from Oak Street to Lincoln, full dedication of the right of way with a constructed bike/ped path, or a constructed bike/ped path within a bike/ped easement,and to construct improvements,subject to rough proportionality. (..PA31141NNx)2/1'DR_'Xri4(X)UU3-.q)R2U141RNriW/S],R 1114(xxX12-1+0.%11AR'TAti?N1ti PAC1?5501-'56 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands Reviews,and Planned Development are consistent or are conditioned to be consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code Chapters:18.350 Planned Development Review; 18.390.050 060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Plan District; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.715 Density Computations; 18.720 Design Compatibility; 18.725 Environmental Performance; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling; 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; 18.775 Sensitive Lands; 18.780 Signs; 18.790 Urban ForestrS, 18.795 Visual Clearance; 18.810 Street and Utility Improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, sensitive lands reviews, and planned development to City Council subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the result of any deliberations by the Planning Commission. Exhibits: Exhibit A The City of Tigard Development Review Engineer Memo dated December 4,2014 Exhibit B TVF&R Letter dated December 3,2014 Exhibit C TtiMet letter dated December 4,2014 Exhibit D Planned Development Concept Plan (Sheet P2.2) Exhibit E General Detailed Planned Development Plan (Sheet P2.3) I PREPARED BY: kGP—agenstecher DATE Associate Planner �� leis DATE hy APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director CPA2014-MM/MRM140W03/Q7R2014-00(XYi/SIJU)14-OOU(2-A+O APAR'IM04-P5 PAGH 56 OFF 57 EXHIBITA ■ " °moi ndum To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner From: Greg Berry,Project Engineer Re: SDR 2014-04;A+O Apartments Date: November 26, 2014 Access Management(Section 18.7051 Section 18.705.030.B requires site plans be presented for approval showing how access requirements are to be fulfilled in accordance with this chapter. The application includes a site and utility plan for a proposed 215 unit apartment complex. Section 18.705.030.D states that all vehicular access and egress ... 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. A driveway directly connected to SAX'Oak St. will provide access to the site. This standard is met. Section 18.705.F Required walkways PL<ILNNIN'G Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County,the City and/or AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Three driveways along Oak Street will provide access to the site. The application includes a prelimina.vi sight distance analysis concluding that,with certain improvements at the SW 90`h Street intersection,adequate sight distance is available at the site accesses. It appears that this standard can be met,but sight distance will need to be verified at final design and after construction to verify that no changes have been made or objects added that would obscure visibility. Prior to any work on site, the applicant's engineer shall submit a preliminary access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Upon completion of the improvements,the applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs,sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. The applicant shall obtain approval of this report prior to final inspection. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area,as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical,the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The driveways are more than 150 feet from and outside the influence area any collector or arterial street. This standard is met. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW Oak Street is a collector requiring a minimum spacing of 200 feet. Two of the proposed driveways are separated by 200 feet and the other driveway spacing is 290 feet. The standard is met. Section 18.705.030.I includes minimum access requirements for residential use. For multifamily use developments with 50 to 100 units,two accesses are required with a minimum paved width of 24 feet with curbs and a 5-foot sidewalk within a 30-foot width. Standards for the proposed 215 units are not provided. The proposed three accesses with a 24-foot paved width and would provide a level of access similar to that required for the development sizes listed.. The standard is met. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.8!U- Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E requires minimum rights-of- way and street widths for streets adjacent to or within a development. The development is adjacent to SW Oak Street, a collector within the Washington Square Regional Center Planning District(Chapter 18.630). The Tigard Transportation System Plan requires a bike path. Required improvements to SW Oak Street includes a 20-foot paved width, planter and a 12-foot wide separated bike path No streets within the development are proposed. This standard is expected to be met. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.630.040 and 18.810.030.H.1 state that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required. Exceptions can be made where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. Additional street connections in this area are precluded by surrounding existing development. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 121/6 on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The existing grades along the Oak Street frontage are minimal. No grade changes are proposed. This standard is met. Traffic Study: Section 18.810.030.CC Requires a traffic study for development proposals meeting certain criteria. The application includes a May 8,2014,traffic impact study and a September 16,2014,Left-turn Analysis prepared by Kittelson&Associates, Inc. assessing the traffic impact on the surrounding streets and recommending any required mitigation.The study recommended specific reconfiguration improvements at the SW 90`s Avenue approach to SW Oak Street. The Left-turn Analysis concluded that a left-turn lane along Oak Street was unneeded. This standard may be met by condition. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access,circulation,control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other bodies of water or,pre-existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Additional connections in this area are precluded by surrounding wetlands and existing development. Easements: Section 18.810.050 states that easements for sewers, drainage,water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway,there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of the watercourse. Section 18.810.050.B states that a property owner proposing a development shall make arrangements with the city,the applicable district,and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city's standard width for mainline easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company,applicable district,or city engineer. The site is fully served by existing utilities. Applicant has stated that any required easements for utilities will be provided. This standard may be met by condition. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards along at least one side of private and industrial streets. No streets are proposed. This standard is met. Section 18.810.070.B states that if there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet in either direction,the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk,subject to rough proportionality. No additional sidewalks are required. Bike lanes: Subsection 18.819.110A requires bike lanes where identified in the Tigard TSP. The TSP identifies a multiple use path along Ash Creek. An easement for the path is required. Easement documents must be approved prior to construction,and final documents must be approved and recorded prior to occupancy. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Sewer Plan approval• Section 18.810.090.B requires that the applicant obtain City Engineer approval of all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Private sewer lines from the buildings will be extended to a public line in SVi'Oak Street. No public sewers are proposed or required. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. The site will drain to catch basins in the parking lots and will be directed to private outfalls along the wetland buffer at the south side of the site. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area,whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). A culvert crossing SW Oak Street currently conveys offsite runoff from the north. The culvert will be replaced and extended as a public storm drain to the wetlands south of the site. An easement will be provided. These standards may be met by condition. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility,the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management(as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2007 and including any future revisions or amendments). Site runoff will be directed to Ash Creek. This standard may be met by condition. Storm WaterQuality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 07-20)which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed in accordance with the CWS Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management and shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. An underground water quality facility is proposed to treat onsite runoff. Sw ales in a planter will be used to treat runoff from SW Oak Street. This standard may be met by condition. In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces of more than 1,000 square feet provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek,the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention,but a fee-in-lieu would be required. The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary detention calculations for an underground system. This standard may be met by condition. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines,but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers,surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground,temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above,and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only,such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles,rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along SW Oak Street across the street from the development. Therefore,a fee in-lieu of$35 per frontage front is required and must be paid prior to final inspection. Submit a determination of the frontage length for approval before issuance of building permits Fire and Life Safety: The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue M'F&R) for access and hydrant location prior to any work on site. Public Water System Tualatin Valley Water District(1'\ WD)provides service in this area. The application includes a service provider letter from TVWD stating that adequate capacity is available to provide service to the proposed development. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD) of the design of water service to the site. TVWD approval of construction shall be obtained prior to final inspection. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction,grading,excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permits that may be needed for this project. The applicant shall follow all applicable requirements regarding erosion control,particularly those of the Federal Clean Water Act,State of Oregon,Clean Water Services, and City of Tigard including obtaining and abiding by the conditions of NPDES 1200-C or 1200-C-N permits as applicable. . Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water,sewer,storm,etc.) and driveway construction. This permit shall be obtained prior to any work on site and prior to issuance of the building permit. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of$50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. For multi-tenant buildings,one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1",second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2",etc. Sensitive Lands (Section 18.775.070) Section 18.775.070.B.2 requires that land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill,new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge. The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.3 requires that land form alterations or developments within the 100- year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map. Proposed land form alterations are confined to portions of the site designated as MUE-1. Section 18.775.070.B.4 requires that where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; The applicant has submitted a zero-rise analysis showing that the proposed development will not cause an increase in the 100-year water surface elevation of Ash Creek. This requirement is met. Section 18.775.070.B.5 requires that land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Dedication of a public pedestrian easement is proposed. Since there are no current plans for a pathway, an easement will be required over the entirety of the floodplain. An approved easement agreement is required before beginning work and must be recorded before final inspection. Section 18.775.070.B.7 requires that the necessary U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained, The applicant has submitted applications for these permits. Approved permits will be required before beginning any work Section 18.775.070.B.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Section 18.775.070.D.2 requires that the extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development in a drainageway will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use. The disturbance will be limited to that required to replace the portion of the drainageway along the western side of the site with a public with a public storm drain. This requirement is expected to be met. Section 18.775.070.D.3 requires that he proposed land form alteration or development within the drainageway will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation,ground instability,or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Relocating the drainageway to a storm drain and providing an adequate outfall is expected to prevent these adverse effects. Section 18.775.070.D.4 requires that the water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The storm drain receiving the flow from the drainageway will have adequate capacity. This requirement will be met. Section 18.775.070.D.5 where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Restoration will be required at the southern end of the drainageway. This work is expected to be required by the permits of other agencies. Section 18.775.070.D.6 requires that the drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The public storm drain replacing the drainageway will be sized to have the required capacity. Section 18.775.070.D.7 requires that the necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands and CWS approvals shall be obtained for work within a drainageway. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and CWS permit applications have been submitted. Approved permits will be required before any work begins. Section 18.775.070.D.8 requires that where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A public pedestrian easement for the Washington Square Regional Central Trail is proposed. . Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITE: Submit to the Engineering Department(Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to any work on site, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover street improvements, public utility issues, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County,Clean Water Sm-ices,and the Oregon Division of State Lands) for all work to be done on site. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for the street design which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40-foot right-of-way half width. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer of an design access report. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for the final design of the storm drainage system to serve the site and any downstream impacts. Prior to any work on site the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of the complete design of the stormwater detention facilities and maintenance plans for them,including maintenance requirements and provisions for any treatments used. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies for an easement over the entirety of the undeveloped area along Ash Creek for the construction,operation and maintenance of a multiple use path. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide documented approval from the Tualatin Valley Fater District M`WD) of the design of water service to the site. Prior to any work on site,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin`'alley Fire& Rescue ( VF&R) for the planned access and hydrant location. Prior to any ground disturbance on the site,the applicant shall obtain an erosion control permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual,February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates)." Prior to any work on site, the applicant shall provide an approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall obtain all permits and service provider letters necessary from all appropriate agencies (such as Washington County, Tualatin Valley Water Department and Clean Water Services) for all work to be done on site. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and CWS approval of plans for the construction of the stormwater treatment facilities. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Greg Berry,503-718-2468 or greg@tigard-or.gov) for review and approval: Prior to final inspection,all elements of the proposed infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer,storm drainage,water,etc.) shall be in place and operational with accepted maintenance plans. The developer's engineer shall provide written certification that all improvements,workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices,and are of high grade,prior to city acceptance of the development's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain city approval of complete construction of the transportation infrastructure,which is anticipated to include a 20-foot paved half width plus an 8-foot planter with trees,lights,underground utilities and 12-foot sidewalk in a 40- foot right-of-way half width. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the sanitary sewer system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain cit;and CWS approval of the complete construction of the stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance plans. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall obtain city approval of the complete construction of the proposed driveways. The applicant's engineer shall submit a final access report to City engineering staff which verifies design of driveways and streets to be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by the City and AASHTO. Prior to final inspection,the applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue (I'VF&R) for access and hydrant location and any necessary construction prior to final inspection. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record the approved easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a public path across the entirety of the site floodplain. 1:\I;NG\Dcvclorm=t Engineering\Oak\tiDR 14-M04 Commaxs.l+O t%pts r12-N-Adom EXHIBIT B a www.tvfr.mm Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue December 3, 2014 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Re: A+ O Apartments Planned Development Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking` signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read"NO PARKING-FIRE LANE"and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 2) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load(wheel load)and 60,000 pounds live load(gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (OFC D102.1) 3) PAINTED CURBS: Where required,fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. (OFC 503.3) 4) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS-REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute(GPM)or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC,Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (OFC B105.3) Please provide a current fire flow test of the nearest fire hydrant demonstrating available flow at 20 psi residual pressure as well as fire flow calculation worksheets. Please forward copies to both TVF&R as well as your water purveyor. Fire How calculation worksheets as well as instructions are available on our web site at www.tvfr.com. 5) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C, Table C 105.1.Determine number of hydrants required from fire flow calculations and distribute to meet minimum distance and spacing requirements.An additional hydrant may need to be installed on SW 9e to meet this requirement. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: North Operating Center Command&Business Operations Center South Operating Center Training Center 70665 SW Blanton Street and Central Operating Center 7401 SW Washo Court 12400 SW Tonquin Road Aloha,Oregon 97007-1042 11945 SW 70 Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062-8350 Sherwood,Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-1400 1 lga rd,Oregon 97223-9196 S03-259-1500 503-259-1600 503-649-x577 TWO* www.Nfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject budding that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. 6) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS: To distinguish private fire hydrants from public fire hydrants, private fire hydrants shall be painted red (OFC 507.2.1, NFPA 24&291) 7) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 510.1) 8) PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6) 9) CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants (OFC 507.5.5) 10) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site (OFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 11) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506 1) 12) PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet numbers Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a t/z inch stroke. (OFC 505.1) 13) FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for HVAC, fire sprinklers risers and valves or other fire detection, suppression or control features shall be identified with approved signs. (OFC 509.1) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The above listed criteria are preliminary potential applicable conditions that MAY apply to this project. If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, d X-7 &UV w John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal Copy TVF&R Flle Page 1 2 EXHIBIT C 1 December 4,2014 Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Case File Number,CPA 2014-2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development on SW Oak St. TriMet Bus Lines 76 & 78 serve the area with a bus stops located on SW Greenburg Rd at Washington Square Rd. These stops see an average of 80 people boarding and alighting on weekdays. In addition 4 lifts of riders'in mobility devices occur on an average month at this location. Activity lnay increase with deveopment. TdMet is interested in maintaining this stop and hopes to safely encourage ridership through supportive development. The purpose of our recommendation.-. is to minimize traffic impacts of new development and maximize ridership by encouraging patterns that arc transit, bicycle, and pedestrian supportive. TRIMET STAFF RECOMMF,NDATIONS Ensure sidewalk connectivity: Presently the south side of Oak Strcet has gaps in the sidewalk infrastructure. Developer should ensure that there is a safe and comfortable pathway to walk to Greenburg Rd from the new development. Consider sidewalk lighting: The nature of the streetscape is conducive to shadows. Proper lighting will ensure new residents feel comfortable walking to and from the bus. Consider negotiating an easement with the owner of the property at 10250 SW Greenburg Rd for the purpose of a shelter: Shelter from the elements can make taking transit much more palatable. There is not sufficient public right-of-way for a shelter. This is the property adjacent to the bus stop where residents of this development would most likely board. If an easement were to be obtained and a 5' deep by 20' wide concrete pad were placed behind the right-of-way, TriMet could place and maintain a shelter for residents wishing to take the bus. Again,thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at 503-962-6478. _ Si=ely. �H Grant O'Connell, Planner 11 Transit Development Capital Projects i rt-Cuun:y Metropolitan rransportation District of oregan 1800 5VV 1st Aveiate.x ' ;In..rortland.Oreyvrr 97201 • 501-238-RIDES.pi<) e -- I, : . idivvie t my Exhibit D MP Oak Street ftntW i To SW Greenburg Rd, wrlporArrtettt To a HWY 217 and Fhll Washington Square Ntrd 1}}1 .............AAA.. ... dedicated ��/f. ? ,•` trail s .. frau [� � easement-- -- '� ,,r- parking y... aAAA.I.l�! o ' wetland buffer boundary o • parking wetdand/buffer fill o a 8 ' ^ + parking extent of grading IandKape[hrf(et " ......, ..........- }I' -. ..... , wetland overlook Odginal site area 11.17 apes Right of way dedkation 0.3Z ares Net site 10.85 acres s native crcex��ttalw+�r�fuuaru•n � open meadow � Existing wetlands 6.62 acres s i j J,)l j f _ Proposed wetlands fill 0.42 acres Preserved wetlands 6.20 acres a • ` m Planned Development Concept Plan • 11.17 acre property • APProxlmately 4.44 acre development site �••� • Appraxirnatety 0.50 acre wetland fill Ash Creek e"„ Approximllybu6 80 acre wetlastory ds/open space • Muhl-family buildings,4 story 21 D•225 dwelling units total I Dertsltytarget 50-55dwelling units/acre n..raraww+. i Pool and other recreation opporturdties as Riture Wow 1 w� ndmead • Fttture trail easement to Ash Creek trail or boardwalk � a►� • Oak Street frontage Impmverrrent I r�P2.2 — Exhibit E Mom- �Vaf.Y lIZ aeric clad I\I �� I ' i 1 ! dulw.r c+mdt�. j I I ! :• 1 ,I-I •�ewd NR�Ort\ I - _ -- - ! O R ... F J _ a ':� :: =: 1-- .emerwteeT:�. 1 11I0�• W I'.t Z .�SY...�-.•n'.-. .: fJ.I.Y' .MYR AAM..1e1L:•:!.:':: W..,.... [. . . Z `r'~�'ti :T'°'�'' .;,;•:'.w.-'-�,;:.- ::::_ r'!i;' :�..^r .:µ.' •'�•:r.•: : ".::.:• - j..:::ti•:•:•::: a �ti'�av:-:•::•::• c4a .�•�.,� .:.��'4�°.x�y(.:.-.ti=�.�Ls�t_�''K:.�:M.• �. } eC71[ M/ar ..r �j O DEVELOP)[BNT AREA: NET DEVEWPMW SM ¢us ne0.set7 cwcutAXW FMOSM STYE INFO1tNATlON "_ + e ACIIIAI OFOADPYFHT SUL 4."M TOTAL SITE MFA 11.17 M VIAL SIE MFA 11-17 AC ty.pyypar ROY VEXATION:0.]2.,C SOUTH OF IETIiMNG WALL 6.41 M REW":C MEIVRO.620 M FYKIIN6 MEIL'Ie15 Bel AC HE'DE STRFFI:(MAIN OINC 5 AC 0.60 M PRa93D WETUIO eaM1 ARFA 0.•z M �w�eiir ti Ne xvaoPuoFr elv,-e.tn M I ,• ]� RLMM 16 WrnA4D ARF' 6.70 M 111 11�r111Y Mr tNt M r s. CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 15, 2014 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers 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 Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Feeney Alt. Commissioner Goodhouse Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Ouellette Commissioner Schmidt Absent: None Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner;John Floyd,Associate Planner;Lloyd Purdy, Economic Dev. Manager; Greg Berry, Development Engineer; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSIDER MINUTES November 17 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions,deletions, or corrections to the November 17 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as submitted. UPDATE ON FIELDS INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY Lloyd Purdy introduced himself as the City of Tigard's Economic Development Manager. He gave an update on the public/private partnership for mixed use development on the Fields property - a project that he'd talked to the commission about ten months ago relating to the Field's Industrial site. This site is a portion of the Field's property along Wall Street in what's called the Hunziker Industrial Core. He went over a memo with the commission regarding that site Exbibit A)_ OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers opened the public hearing. A + O APARTMENTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT;-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2014-00002; Planned Development Review; (PDR)2014-00003; Site Development Review; (SDR)2014-00004; Sensitive Lands Review(SLR)2014-00002 Page 1 of 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval is requested to remove, or allow conflicting uses on, 0.42 acres of significant wetlands, designated on the Comprehensive Plan's "Wetlands and Stream Corridor Map" as Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. The remaining 6.20-acres of significant wetlands on the site would continue to prohibit conflicting uses and be protected under Goal 5 Safe Harbor/Significant Wetlands. Sensitive Lands Review approval is requested to allow modification to the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek on the site to include reshaping the existing ground surface to decrease the areal extent of the floodplain on the site without modifying the flood storage capacity or floodwater transmission capacity of the floodplain on the site. Planned Development Concurrent Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan approval is requested for the plans for development of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units in four buildings on an 11.17-acre site on the south side of SW Oak Street within the Washington Square Regional Center Plan Area. The proposed planned development would preserve over 6-acres of the site as permanent open space including wetlands and riparian area adjacent to Ash Creek, and would include the provision of pedestrian trail easements to the City for development of future pedestrian trails in this area. LOCATION: 8900, 8950, 8960, 8980, and 9000 SW Oak Street, south of SW Oak Street Opposite SW 90th. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Rogers 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 Brian Feeney stated that he is working with a couple of the applicant's consultants. He said his company does work with Kittelson &Pacific Habitat Services and that he believes he can be completely unbiased. Site visitations: Commissioners Feeney,Muldoon, Goodhouse, Fitzgerald and Ouellette had visited the site. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission;no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher introduced himself. He noted that additional testimony and comments had been forwarded to the commissioners and entered into the record— including the ESEE Analysis. Using boards,he explained to the commissioners the order of the separate recommendations that would be going to Council. QUESTIONS "Could you explain the floodplain issue a little more?" The floodplain is identified as elevation 163. The retaining wall (southern boundary of the property) — 163 is out of it on the east side—it's lower than the wall—but on the west side of the development—they plan to fill in the relatively small area (35 acres) that is in the wetland. 163 goes at a shallow angle from outside the retaining wall to inside the retaining wall. They need approval for filling in a wetland. They need to determine through their analysis that they are not going to increase the level of the flood by displacement in that regard. The conclusion of the study is no net rise in the floodplain as a result of this fill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Sensitive Lands Review,and Planned Development Review will not adversely Page 2of13 affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in Section VI of this report. Therefore,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council APPROVAL, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval and any modifications that result from the Commission's deliberations. APPLICANTS TESTIMONY Jerry Offer, Senior Planner with OTAK Incorporated said he would be acting as the team coordinator. He said Joe Tucker of Ankrom Moisen Architects would describe the architecture and basic site plan. John Van Stavern, a biologist for Pacific Habitat Services would deal with the ESEE Analysis and Comp Plan Amendment as well as the Sensitive Lands application for modification to the wetlands. Mike Peebles, of OTAK,would come up and discuss the floodplain modification. Mike,being the project engineer,would also be available for any questions regarding road improvements, utilities, etc. Mr. Offer said he, then,would talk about the requested parking exception and try to fill in for whatever is important and may have been missed; then Kelly Lawston, a traffic engineer with Kittelson and Associates,would summarize the traffic study. Mr. Offer said they appreciate the staff recommendation for approval of all four of the applications. He said they accept the conditions of approval that are in the staff report and noted that they hope to be able to address a couple of them before the City Council hearing so they can make those conditions of approval disappear -because they will have addressed them in advance of that. Joe Tucker, a senior associate of Ankrom Moisen Architects and the project manager for the architectural component of the project thanked the commission for their time. He went over a PowerPoint bibit B giving the elevations and describing the project. Among other things, he noted that the plan is to keep them at no more than four stories in height to keep it at a lesser impact and more relative to the neighborhood. John VanStavern of Pacific Habitat—a biologist, talked about the wetland. He said the wetland had actually expanded in size due to stormwater coming from the adjacent development across the road. There was some lack of maintenance on the road causing the expansion. He said the expansion area was the largest area they're impacting with the significant wetland area. He noted that they've received approval from the National Marine Fisheries Service, making sure that their stormwater plan complies with the Endangered Species Act. They minimized the impact of wetland but because of the impact they have to mitigate for it. They looked at opportunities within the area to mitigate. With the 6.2 acres of remaining wetland they're planting 15,000 native plants within that area; 8,300 native trees and shrubs;and the rest sages and rushes. He said that's actually above and beyond what they need to do. Their proposal is to limit conflicting uses—what that means is that hopefully they will allow the .42 acres of impact;they would then enhance the remaining resources on site so they'll have better wildlife habitat,water quality, and flood control. ,i Mike Peebles, Sr. Project Engineer of OTAK talked about the floodplain modifications. He noted that the small encroachment area is on the west end in tht MUE area—there are no encroachments in the MUR zone. He said there's a no rise change in the floodplain. Jerry Offer talked about the density requirements. He spoke about the parking exception— pages 23—25 of staff report—called out the criteria. He said that if they don't have a Page 3 of 13 reduction in the parking standard or the modification of the wetland, they're going to be pushed upward with the buildings and they don't think that is the best thing to do with regard to being the first development in the door. He passed out a report to compare parking requirements that would be required for the same project in neighboring jurisdictions Exhibit 9.-Tigard's onsite parking requirement would be 306 spaces for this mix of units,in Washington County with the same mix—they would require 242 spaces;in Tualatin,266;Lake Oswego, 266; and Beaverton 215 spaces. He said he's pointing this out because he believes they're requiring a reasonable amount of parking for this sort of suburban project. Kelly Lawston, of Kittelson addressed the scope of the traffic study. She noted that they developed the scope of the study in a collaborative process with Washington County, ODOT, and the City of Tigard. They added a couple of intersections based on some comments from ODOT and worked together with those jurisdictions to get a study scope they're comfortable with. The results show that all intersections operate acceptably today and continue to do so with the development in 2015—the build-out year;no considerations or concerns arose from the traffic study. Jerry Offer said he appreciates the recommended conditions of approval and that there are two that he wants to call out;conditions 7 & 8 on page 3 of the staff report. The recommendation is that they "provide a walkability and ridership audit that ensures the plan maximizes methods to promote walkability and transit ridership"... it refers to a letter from TriMet (TriMet had suggested that they work with the Lincoln Center to provide a transit shelter on Greenburg Road—an existing transit stop.) He said he's been in contact with the property managers at Lincoln Center and that they've not heard back from them yet—but that they hope to get that worked out before they get to the City Council meeting. He believes it would serve both their use, as well as ours, to have a transit shelter there. With regard to condition 8 - "The applicant shall submit a revised development plan to meet required participation in funding future transportation and public improvement projects such as the SW Lincoln Street extension, subject to rough proportionality." We're willing to discuss that further in discussions with the Planning Commission. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS "How affordable would these units be? Could someone working for Washington Square be able to afford living in this complex?" I've not had any discussions with the developer about actual money for the units but I know that their target is looking at employees of Washington Square and Lincoln Center,primarily,and having a range of units but I think they wouldn't be characterized as being a high-end apartment project but a market rate mid-range apartment. Skip Grodahl,with DBG Properties, (the developer) said that the rent would be in the $900.00 range to $2000.00/month. You'd need to be making about$3000/mth to pay $900.00. Our two bedrooms are like twin masters which allows affordability to come down further. To build this type of density is quite expensive so the kind of rents that you need tend to be higher. A question about the access now- are people using the property now for recreation? Trails? I would say not much—it's very overgrown Page 4 of 13 Why not stick with alternative A which was a higher density building to minimize impact on wetlands? Our primary reason is that we knew we'd have difficulties with the neighborhood no matter what we did—whether it was a taller building or a four-story building like we're proposing. We think that the four-story buildings would be more compatible and acceptable to the neighborhood and to the City.As we looked at the wetlands—in the area we're proposing to do some modifications—they are in no way high-quality wetlands. They're choked with blackberries and other invasive species. We decided it makes more sense to develop a more regularly shaped site so that we could develop a more neighborhood compatible development. In addition,it's less expensive construction. Was there any thought on whether you could improve the quality of the remaining wetland? John VanStavern explained that they are proposing a significant on-site mitigation program. He said they are impacting only 6% and preserving 94% of the wetland. The agencies would actually allow them to go all to the mitigation bank and do nothing on site—but what the applicant/developer decided to do was say okay—well let's enhance the remaining area. So we are putting over 15,000 native plants in that area, 8,300 native trees and shrubs—and then the rest sages and rushes. We are keeping some areas unplanted—which is the request of the Department of Fish and Wildlife—so we've got a mosaic of habitats on the site. Ash Creek right now is not shaded at all and so with these trees now being planted within the riparian area and the wedand—that's going to shade the water—that's going to benefit the fish in the creek —and also downstream - keep water temperatures down. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - Ryan O'Brien,Planning Consultant at Emerio Design at 8285 SW Nimbus Ave. Suite 180, Beaverton, OR 97008—He represents Dr. Gene Davis, the owner of the developable property on the south and north side of Oak Street adjacent to the A+O Apartment property. He summarized his testimony and submitted it in writing Exhibit D). TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Tim Harless—10435 SW 901h,Tigard—he said he's disabled - and is very concerned about having to clean the leaves out of the storm-drain from the front of his house every time it floods down 90th. He said his property is getting flooded by 90th—which becomes a big river whenever it rains—which happens a lot. The topography of the area causes everything to go underneath the ground and out into the wetlands. Because he has a three-wheeled bicycle - and a pair of dogs that pull him because he can't peddle it—he uses a bike lane. Right across the street where there are new apartments—people are parking in the bike lane. He said, "I complained to the city and they haven't done anything about it. That's dangerous! If you do not do the proper parking for this project,people will be parking in the bike lane. If I get hit by a car, I'm going to sue the City too; seriously - because you're not taking care of the proper parking. It's got to be safe and you've got to consider the people who live here." Jill Warren—9280 SW 80th Ave.,Metzger area—went over her written testimony Exbibit E). She's concerned about flood insurance. Believes people would be in harm's way and, once flooded,would have no recourse. Page 5of13 Steve Bintliff—member of Tigard First—read his written testimony on behalf of that group Exhibit F). Nancy Tracy—7310 SW Pine St,Portland, OR 97223 —distributed her testimony in writing Exhibit G). She is concerned about water runoff. Jim Long— 10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Tigard 97223 submitted written testimony and read it on behalf of CPO-4M. hibit H Noreen Gibbons 10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Metzger area—believes wetlands are not for people and is concerned about the wildlife. She's also concerned about the quality of life because of the traffic. She believes trying to get onto Greenburg Rd from Oak will be terrible with the traffic. Margaret Linn 10455 SW 87th,Tigard 97223—submitted her written testimony Exbibit I and briefly went over it. She's concerned with the displacement of water and its impact on the wildlife. Trudy Knowles—10430 SW 82nd,Tigard 97223—showed a sign "Keep Metzger Livable" —a sign on the side of her house for two years. David Fallman 9055 SW Oak St.,Tigard. Lives across the street from the development. He's concerned about the traffic issues. He said there will be 400 or 500 more cars on the road. The parking issue should not be exempt. Steve Nyes 10250 SW 87th,Tigard, OR opposes the application because of the parking requirements. He says it's not fair for the neighborhood to have to absorb this. There isn't public transit nearby. They should not be granted a parking exemption. Kristen Prince 10455 SW 90th Ave.,—is concerned about the parking and the traffic. She's concerned about the schools being overcrowded and also about the floodplain. REBUTTAL FOR APPLICANT Mike Peebles from OTAK came up to address some of the comments concerning floodplain and stormwater concerns. He put a slide up of the composite utility plan. He referred to their preliminary stormwater report that's in their narrative that addresses how they are meeting the City of Tigard, Clean Water Services stormwater requirements. As for the floodplain—the no rise analysis that they performed shows that they had minimal encroachment to the floodplain. The encroachment is on the perimeter on the fringe of the floodplain where it has very low velocity so the impacts are very minor as shown by the hydraulic analysis that shows there's no rise. As for flood insurance requirements—they will comply with those requirements. Jerry Offer continued, "The City of Tigard's sensitive lands requirements for drainage ways and floodplains have gone through the State Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) process.They have been reviewed and approved by the state floodplain office;that also goes through Federal review. It does provide an opportunity for modifications to floodplains within Page 6of13 commercial and industrially zoned areas—that's the process we are using. The entire building will be outside of what will be the future 100 year floodplain when the modification is made. As for the storm drain on the western edge of the property that had been plugged—the wetlands on this property grew substantially because of a plugged storm sewer culvert. Our proposal is to pull that culvert and replace it with a storm sewer to get the water off of SW 90,h and down into the drainage way. We're also proposing to do street improvements to provide storm sewers along the street. Mr. Harliss talked about blocked bike lanes—the City of Tigard has modified their standards and have requested they,instead of providing an on-street bike-lane—like we had proposes— they asked us to instead increase the width of the sidewalk along Oak Street from the typical 8 feet to 12 feet to make a better multi-modal ped/bike way that doesn't get blocked. There were some comments about the Washington Square Regional Center plan and returning the zoning... that's not before the commission now. It's something that's been adopted by the Council some time ago. We're bound by the standards that are in effect at the time we made our application and that is the current MUE1 and MUR1 zones. So that's what you have to review it upon. There's not a zone change to the land use designations in front of you. Jim Long requested the applications be considered separately by the neighbors. Again,you have to review the application as we have submitted it. I don't think you would have the opportunity to cause them to be separated—in fact, state law provides for them to be able to be combined. We believe it makes sense to address them together. We are requesting approval of a plan that involves a substantial amount of on-site mitigation to the wetlands that isn't required. What is required is the off-site mitigation at the wetland bank in the Bethany area of Washington County. We don't think that's enough. We think that we can greatly improve the wetlands on this site despite the proposal to fill a small portion of the wetlands. We're going to have approximately 95% of the wetlands left—they are going to be enhanced in exchange for the 5% that we're looking to modify." Mike Peebles from ODOT came back up and noted that the 278 on-site parking numbers does not include the 16 on-street parking spaces that will be provided along the Oak Street frontage. Kelly Lawston of Kittelson briefly addressed the traffic issue comments;regarding operations along 90th and SW Oak Street with this development. She said "This is a 250 unit development and whenever we are doing our study we use the conservative rates in the ITE that assume all vehicle trips so even though we're in an area that is shown in the Washington Square studies, we were conservative in our assessment and assumed all vehicle trips;when we were looking at the AM/PM Peak Hour- that amounts to about 110 or 135 trips. There was some concern that we'd actually have 4 times the number of trips so I wanted to be sure to hearken back to those numbers. Jerry Offer added with regard to parking—some people said they were asking for a variance to the parking standard—we are not. We are asking for an exception. The code provides for an exception of up to 10% from what the typical parking standard is. We are requesting a 9.1% reduction of on-site parking. Again,we're providing some on-street parking as well and we Page 7of13 believe that we have adequately addressed the criteria that are already set out in the code that the commission and the council need to consider for approval of an exception. We think we meet the standard. Lastly, regarding Ryan O'Brien's request that the commission consider requiring right-of-way for SW Lincoln St. to be dedicated even possibly be required to improve it—but then he went on to say that he doesn't know that the City can require it. We don't think it meets the Nexus requirement of the impacts of this development are such that an off-site improvement like that would be required based upon the anticipated traffic impacts. Nevertheless,we're willing to consider some off-site improvements, as I mentioned earlier. We're talking to the management of the Lincoln Center if we can do some transit improvements. We're willing to look at what can be done with regard to SW 901h. In his letter he said that the Orland Company was not interested in giving up SW Lincoln because they're trying to block development and that's not the case. They're looking to share responsibilities for Lincoln and we have talked to Dr. Davis in the past about selling that property or somehow partnering with him for the improvement of SW Lincoln Street but, no,we don't think the City can require improvement of SW Lincoln Street as it relates to this project because we meet the acceptable traffic standards. PUBLIC HEARING— CLOSED DELIBERATION Commissioner Muldoon noted that there appears to be two main issues—the wetlands and quality of life or parking. Commissioner Doherty asked whether the police could ticket people on 90th—whether that's part of Tigard. "Yes,it's Tigard's jurisdiction." "So my suggestion would be to inform the Tigard PD to maybe do a little extra. If people are parked illegally - to go out and ticket those people who are parked in the bike lane or in front of mailboxes." "My second comment is more of an observation as opposed to a question.... This area is going to be developed—there's no doubt about it;eventually;by somebody. My concern is if another developer comes in down the road—are they going to do improvements to the wetlands that are there now?This developer has gone through and said `we're going to plant 8,000 trees and shrubs.'The next developer may do nothing. So, there will be something there —and will it be something that will have no improvements whatsoever. It seems like now it's not something that's real accessible to the neighborhood—possibly it looks like this IS going to be accessible for the neighbors to be able to look on.The next developer may just come along and say `heck—let's just leave it as blackberries."' Commissioner Feeney agreed with Commissioner Doherty and said they definitely are going above and beyond what they are required to do. He spoke about the fact that there are codes that everyone has to follow. He said, `eve commissioners are here to follow the code in front of us. I understand the concerns of the neighbors—traffic's an issue but that is more of a higher city code concern. We have to address what's in front of us - and what's in front of us is permitted under those certain things. Commissioner Fitzgerald thanked everyone for coming in and complimented the very thorough amount of work the project team put together. She complimented Mr. Tucker on the Page 8of13 design of the floor plans. She said it wasn't anything they'd talked about but she noted that there are many nice amenities in the project,including the community gardens and pool. Her main concerns about the project are: • As this is the first major project in Washington Square I do not want to set precedent with this project. • This planned development should have come in separate from the detailed plan. • The project could have been laid out minimizing building footprints and going vertical. This would have reflected the zonings intent for high density and respected the wetlands. • She has concerns about the impact to the wetlands and doesn't want to set precedence by changing Goal 5 for this. • Parking. concerns about parking reduction. She believes it's important to have the parking counts met. o Families in the area have 5-6 people in a one bedroom. 2 driving adults and a driving teen. She asked for some clarification from staff on Lincoln Street—her concern is about the improvements of the traffic patterns in this area. She wondered if staff could share any information about city plans for that so the commission is aware. Not just Lincoln Street but the other streets in that area. Gary Pagenstecher said as far as he knows the TSP expects to develop that area. The city isn't planning on having a Capital Improvement Project in that area—all on its own. It's expecting development will pay the way. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked what the trigger was for that. Gary said it's not warranted at this time. We wouldn't be able to require it so we haven't alluded to that in the staff report. In reference to TriMet or bus routing—or mass transit- Commissioner Ouellette is hesitant because right now there are service routes but later TriMet could adjust those. How can we use that as a factor in our decision making process This bus stop is just over a quarter mile away but it may not exist due to budgetary cuts. President Rogers said he believes that we have to work with the current conditions. Anything could happen down the road that would change things; however,we work in the "now" and I think that's what they've done. Commissioner Muldoon had two questions that he wanted to ask staff and wanted the public hearing to be reopened. Commissioner Feeney offered to help answer the questions regarding stormwater;however, Commissioner Muldoon still wanted to hear from staff. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED FOR FOLLOWING QUESTIONS 1. Do you feel that there's a substantial improvement with the storm sewer drain idea as opposed to where the water's at right now with an ineffective ditch that can get clogged with leaves and such; 2. The second question is whether you feel the proposed canopy or shading was going to achieve some substantial improvement for the wetlands for water temperature. Page 9of13 Gary Pagenstecher addressed the second question. "That's why we require canopy coverage— which we would in this case for both the parking lot and the overall site according to the new tree code. The planting adjacent to Ash Creek would directly shade the creek and lower the temperature there so,in both cases,it's beneficial to the temperature. Development Engineer Greg Berry answered the first question. "As Mr. Peebles described, the proposed storm drainage improvement should result in improved drainage out there. Right now there's just ditches and an ineffective culvert— so at least on the south side they'll be putting in curbs and full drainage and they'll have an effective drain to collect it and dispose of it. The north side of the street will remain unimproved and you could still have problems with debris collection on the north side but overall it would be expected to be a much better system." PUBLIC HEARING RECLOSED DELIBERATION Commissioner Schmidt said he agrees with Commissioner Fitzgerald and her comments about parking and the flood zone impediments. He doesn't think this project warrants those kinds of exceptions—there's plenty of variety of ways to improve the capacity of the site and not impact those areas. President Rogers said he understands that sooner or later something will be built there. The question in his mind is striking a balance. Has enough been done to maintain balance within the neighborhood to preserve the eco-system, to deal with the flood issues, to deal with parking —and he thinks yes. Commissioner Doherty said it looks to her that when you're talking about balance... you've got 6 acres of wetlands versus .42 acres that they would take from the Goal 5 change. Again, I'm going to reiterate—that area IS going to be built up—it's Washington Square area—there's a density issue—the direction from Metro—there will be density in all the Portland Metro area in the next 25 years. I'm just thinking—do we want to keep those wetlands as they are or have another developer come in that's going to ignore them?That's the dilemma I'm in. The ESEE Analysis follows standards—and that's what we have to follow. Sometimes the Planning Commission doesn't do things that we necessarily agree with but it follows what has been brought and put in front of us and what we have to deal with when it comes to the legal aspect. MOTIONS Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of(CPA)2014-00002 and adoption of the finding and conditions of approval without change contained in the staff report and based on the testimony tonight." Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. A verbal vote was taken: Those in favor— Commissioners Feeney, Muldoon, Rogers, and Doherty Those opposed— Commissioners Schmidt, Ouellette, and Fitzgerald Abstentions — none Motion passes with a count of 4 to 3. Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Muldoon again moved: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of(PDR)2014-00003 and adoption of the finding and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the hearing tonight." A verbal vote was taken: Those in favor— Commissioners Feeney, Muldoon, Rogers, and Doherty Those opposed— Commissioners Schmidt, Ouellette, and Fitzgerald Abstentions—none Motion passes with a count of 4 to 3. Commissioner Muldoon again moved: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of(SDR)2014-00004 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the hearing tonight." Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. A verbal vote was taken: Those in favor— Commissioners Feeney, Muldoon, Rogers, and Doherty Those opposed— Commissioners Schmidt, Ouellette, and Fitzgerald Abstentions—none Motion passes with a count of 4 to 3. Commissioner Muldoon again moved: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of(SLR)2014-00002 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony heard tonight." Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. A verbal vote was taken: Those in favor— Commissioners Feeney, Muldoon, Rogers, and Doherty Those opposed— Commissioners Schmidt, Ouellette, and Fitzgerald Abstentions—none Motion passes with a count of 4 to 3. President Rogers declared that all motions had passed and stated that the next step in the process is the A+O Apartment Complex hearing at the City Council that will occur on January 13, 2015. He encouraged those who testified to attend that meeting and to please bring their passionate public input. He thanked everyone who had come. WORKSHOP— Medical Marijuana Associate Planner John Floyd came up and said due to the lateness of the hour that he would try to be brief and high level. He reminded the commission that Measure 91 and the legalization of recreational marijuana had passed in November. He noted that Tigard generally Page 11 of 13 voted with the rest of the state in terms of percentages. Tigard was 56%Yes / 44%No— which is within 1/2 a percentage point of the rest of the state. ➢ Strongest support in northern&eastern precincts ➢ Weakest support came from the south near the high school and around the Bull Mountain area. ➢ Our regulatory ability is relatively unchanged o The measure authorizes local governments to adopt time/place/manner restrictions o Any restriction;however,must be tied to a very specific community impact ➢ There's a Two-Track Regulatory System o Doesn't affect how the state regulates Medical Marijuana—so Medical Marijuana rules remain unchanged. o Recreational marijuana has different rules/timelines o Council direction to staff was for a single,adaptable set of rules that addresses the full spectrum of activity. The results of public outreach efforts regarding the development and adoption of marijuana facility regulations: ➢ Summarized in Packet ➢ Some feedback was given,but not at levels desired ➢ The City tried a variety of outreach methods o Cityscape o Website o Online Forum—this wasn't used much because some people felt intimidated by those who were pro. Most people were civil but some people were rather concerned about that and didn't participate because of that. o Targeted Survey to 225 Business owners / executives o Informal Conversations ➢ "Wait and See"approach seemed to be common / Show them the proposal ➢ LOTS of interest based on conversation with realtors / property owners / operators o Portland Market getting saturated o Pacific Highway is seen as the most desirable location o People have said they are signing leases—even when warned that they are advised not to do so until we actually have regulations. Presently the City cannot issue any authorization whatsoever but people want to position themselves to be ready to go. o Not just locals—Bend,Ashland,Eugene,and California investors are interested ➢ Thirty five business owners and leaders did respond after Measure 91 passed did respond 0 65%did not see an impact to their businesses o Only 13%expected to participate directly or indirectly o That said—about 60%of respondents supported some form of local regulation/ 25% were against local regulations—the rest were unsure o When asked about specific types of regulations ■ 63% supported odor controls and limits on hours of operation ■ 71% supported minimum distance buffers On August 4,2014 the commissioners had asked for some hard data on this topic. Unfortunately hard local data simply does not yet exist—it's too soon o Spoke to staff at the City of Portland and they promised to pull something together and for whatever reason—it just wasn't delivered.They may not have it. o Spoke to Tigard PD and they don't code data in easily searchable form for marijuana ■ PD did say that the current local medical co-ops have had some property crime associated with them Page 12 of 13 ■ PD believes there's lots of under-reporting ➢ Only two peer reviewed studies of impacts of dispensaries on local communities o Rand Corporation supported a study in LA,then rescinded the study after the data proved to be flawed o A Sacramento Study found no correlation between a dispensary and local crime rates, but authors conceded other factors may be at play ➢ Washington County and Beaverton Overview of draft regulations to be proposed by staff on January 12, 2015: ➢ January 15—First Hearing ➢ Time/Place/Manner Restrictions ➢ Seed to Sale ➢ Based on Tigard adult entertainment regulations / Similar ordinances ➢ Impacts to be avoided/mitigated o Diversion of Marijuana to Minors o Unpleasant odors from growing/ processing/ consumption o Noise o Crime related to cash/ saleable product o Threats to health,life,and property ➢ Basic Structure o New chapter to generally regulate"marijuana facilities" o Intended to be flexible ■ Adapt to new state regs ■ Duel Track o Limited hours of operation—based on average liquor store hours as a reasonable basis 0 500'Distance buffers from residences / schools o No detectable marijuana odor at property line o Security standards ■ Orientation of primary entry ■ Exterior Lighting OTHER BUSINESS—The incoming commissioners were present (in the audience) so President Rogers asked each of them to come up and introduce themselves and tell a little about themselves—which they did.The other commissioners introduced themselves as well— and welcomed the incoming commissioners. ADJOURNMENT President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Jason Rogers Page 13 of 13