03/17/2014 - PacketI:\Records\Forms-Instructions\Boards & Committee Procedures - 12/04/2014 Page 1
Completeness Review
for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
3/17/14
Date of Meeting
I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
Doreen Laughlin
Print Name
Signature
12/4/14
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – MARCH 17, 2014
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: March 17, 2014; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING – COSTCO GAS STATION
CUP2013-00002 7:05 p.m.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and Tigard Triangle Design Evaluation Team approval
for the construction of a members-only retail fuel station located at the existing Costco site. The station is
proposed at the northeast corner of the site currently used for parking. The facility consists of a 73 foot by
102 foot canopy with three fueling islands, nine fuel dispensers and four underground storage tanks. The
proposal also includes reconfiguration of the parking area surrounding the proposed fuel station and
landscaping.
6. PUBLIC HEARING – BONAVENTURE
PDR2013-00001; CUP2013-00005; VAR2013-00006; LLA2013-00006 8:05 p.m.
The applicant requests Conditional Use approval for a group living facility (Senior Housing); Planned
Development approval with Concurrent Conceptual and Detailed Plan Approva;) an Adjustment to minimum
parking standards, and a Property Line Adjustment to reconfigure two existing tax lots. The project will
provide a total of 152 group living units with 71 independent living, 57 assisted living and 24 units for
memory care with associated support facilities. As part of the application, the applicant has presented two
alternatives for the Planning Commission’s consideration. In alternative “1” the applicant proposes the
construction of a bicycle-pedestrian pathway to connect SW 83rd with SW Ross Street. In Alternative “2”,
SW 83rd Avenue would be extended to SW Ross Street. LOCATION: 8325 SW Ross Street
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:35 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 1 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Agenda Item: 6
Hearing Date: March 17, 2014 Time: 7:00PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = 06/05/2014
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: Bonaventure Senior Living
CASE NOS: Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2013-00001
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2013-00005
Adjustment to Parking Standards (VAR) VAR2013-00006
Lot Line Adjustment LLA2013-00006
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval for a group living facility (Senior
Housing); Planned Development approval with Concurrent Conceptual and Detailed
Plan Approval; an Adjustment to minimum parking standards, and a Property Line
Adjustment to reconfigure two existing tax lots. The project will provide a total of
152 group living units with 71 independent living, 57 assisted living and 24 units for
memory care, with associated support facilities. As part of the application, the
applicant has presented two alternatives for the Planning Commission’s consideration.
In alternative “1” the applicant proposes the construction of a bicycle-pedestrian
pathway to connect SW 83rd with SW Ross Street. In Alternative “2”, SW 83rd
Avenue would be extended to SW Ross Street.
OWNER: Schmidt Farm, LLC
25717 SW Labrousse Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
APPLICANT: Bonaventure Senior Living
Eric S. Rouse
3220 State Street, Suite 200
Salem, OR 97301
LOCATION: 8325 SW Ross Street;
WCTM 2S112CB, Lot 00900 & WCTM 2S112BC, Lot 10700
ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential
units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-
family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also
permitted conditionally.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.350, 18.370, 18.390, 18.410,
18.510, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 2 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planned Development Chapter requires the Planning Commission to make two separate motions to
approve a Planned Development, with approval of a concept plan preceding approval of a detailed
development plan. The applicant has applied for concurrent review, with identical concept and detailed
development plans, but two motions are still required by the Tigard Development Code.
The Planning Commission must first approve a concept plan before it may consider t he detailed
development plan and remainder of the approval criteria. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning
Commission find Alternative 2 of the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan meets the Approval
Standards for Concept Plans, as set forth in section 18.350.040 of the Tigard Development Code and
outlined on pages 14-20 of this report, if the commission finds the applicant has maximized opportunities
for design excellence through consideration of the concept plan approval criteria, including the following:
1. Satisfaction with the applicant's effort at site design, including the placement of the building, open
space, parking, and street layouts in a manner that preserves trees.
2. Satisfaction with how the project integrates with the existing neighborhood, including compatible
street layout, architectural style and massing, and that appropriate transitions have been provided.
3. Satisfaction that the project identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership.
4. Satisfaction that the exceptions requested in the proposed design (height exception, parking reduction,
direct access to Hall Boulevard) provide for a superior design solution than would otherwise be
permissible by code.
And
Should the Planning Commission find the applicant has met the approval criteria for a concept plan, staff
recommends that Planning Commission find the proposed project for Detailed Development Plan approval
and planned development zone overlay, Conditional Use Permit, Parking Adjustment, and Lot Line
Adjustment will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval
Standards for a Conditional Use as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL,
subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE WORK OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
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: John Floyd, 503-718-2429. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in
the submittal the required information is found:
1. Plans submitted for site work and building permits shall conform to plan sheets marked as
Alternative 2, as revised by conditions of approval below.
2. Prior to issuance of site work and building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised site
plan to include pedestrian walkways across parking lot drive aisles to provide connections to
Hall Boulevard and SW 83rd Avenue. Walkways shall conform to the requirements of
subsections 18.705.030.F and 18.720.030.I of the Tigard Development Code.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 3 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
3. Prior to the issuance of site work and building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised
site plan to include wheel stops as required subsection 18.765.040.J of the Tigard
Development Code.
4. Prior to issuance of site work or building permits, the applicant shall submit plan details for
eight bicycle parking spaces, consistent with the dimensional requirements of chapter 18.765
and evenly distributed between the west and east building entrances.
5. Prior to issuance of site work or building permits, the applicant shall provide a cover for the
bicycle parking through relocation or the construction of shelter, or demonstrate to the
Director of community development or his designee why it is not possible to cover the bicycle
parking.
6. 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 project planner
within one week of the site inspection.
7. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall submit to the city the current
Inventory Data Collection fee for urban forestry plan implementation.
8. Prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond
for all trees to be planted per the approved urban forestry plan. The terms and amount of
the bond shall be in compliance with Section 11, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual.
9. 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.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: MIKE MCCARTHY 503-718-2462. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the
submittal the required information is found:
10. Prior to issuance of a site permit, 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. Five (5) 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.
11. Prior to issuance of a site permit the applicant shall provide a preliminary access report which
verifies that design of all site driveways and street connections are safe by meeting appropriate
standards such as roadway geometric standards and sight distance.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 4 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain city approval of site plans showing
dedication of public right-of-way (as shown on the Alternative 2 plans) to provide at least a 50-foot
half-width along the property frontage of Hall Blvd, at least a 29-foot half-width of Ross St, and at
least a 46-foot width plus transitions and tree area as shown on the application Alternative 2 plans
for 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St. The right-of-way dedication width along 83rd Ave may be
narrowed to 40 feet where development of the adjacent property would be expected (by the city
engineer) to provide the rest of the standard right-of-way width. The applicant must also obtain
city approval of the method by which this right-of-way will be dedicated.
13. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain city approval of site plans (as shown
on the Alternative 2 plans) to provide at least an 18 -foot paved half-width of Ross St and at least a
24-foot paved width plus transitions for 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St. The sidewalk may be
deleted along the east side of 83rd Ave along the property to the east at 8275 SW Ross St. Each of
these streets shall include at least a 5-foot sidewalk, 5-foot planter strip, curb, street trees, street
lights, underground utilities, storm drainage, and all other work necessary for a complete street in
accordance with City of Tigard and other applicable standards.
14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain city approval of site plans to provide
frontage improvements along Hall Blvd of a newly paved and curbed half-width of at least 24 feet
(including a bike lane) and an 8-foot sidewalk starting about 41 feet from centerline plus planter
strip between curb and sidewalk (the sidewalk shall be constr ucted in the ultimate location for the
planned five lane section). A 200-foot long concrete raised median traversable by emergency
vehicles shall be provided along the centerline of Hall at the proposed driveway. Street
construction shall include street trees, street lights, underground utilities, storm drainage, and all
other work necessary for a complete street in accordance with City of Tigard, ODOT, ADA, and
other applicable standards.
15. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain city approval of site plans showing a
minimum 10-foot wide pathway in a minimum 15-foot wide easement along an extension of
Matthew Park St from 83rd Ave to Hall Blvd. Construction of this pathway shall be complete
before usage of the proposed building.
16. Prior to issuance the site permit 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.
17. Prior to issuance the site permit 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.
18. Prior to issuance of the site permit the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for
the final design of the water system to serve the site and any offsite improvements necessary to
accommodate this service.
19. The applicant shall provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) for access and
hydrant location prior to issuance of the site permit.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 5 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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 Manual, February 2003 edition (and any subsequent versions or updates).”
21. Prior to issuance of the site permit the applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the
City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act and comply with all other
applicable erosion control requirements.
22. Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall obtain and present to the City an ODOT approach
Permit for access to the state highway, and an ODOT Miscellaneous Permit for all work within the
highway right of way, and an ODOT Drainage Permit to connection to state highway drainage
facilities.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION:
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
and/or plans that address the following requirements to the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT ATTN: John Floyd 503-718-2429. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in
the submittal the required information is found:
23. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment (as shown
on the Alternative 2 plans) with Washington County and submit a recorded survey map to the
City, to be incorporated into the record. The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded
lot line adjustment to the City within 15 days of recording.
24. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall contact the Staff Planner, John Floyd,
503-718-2429 for final walk-through. All site and building improvements must be completed
per approved plans.
The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents
and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: MIKE MCCARTHY 503-718-2462. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the
submittal the required information is found:
25. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility all elements of the proposed
infrastructure (such as transportation, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water, et c.) shall be in place
and operational with accepted maintenance plans.
26. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility, the applicant’s engineer shall obtain
city approval of a final access report which verifies design of driveways and st reet connections to
be used by site traffic are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance, deceleration, and
other standards as set by the City, ODOT, and AASHTO.
27. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility, the applica nt shall complete
dedication of public right-of-way (as shown on the Alternative 2 plans) using a method approved
by the city engineer to provide at least a 50-foot half-width along the property frontage of Hall
Blvd, at least a 29-foot half-width of Ross St, and at least a 46-foot width plus transitions and tree
area as shown on the application Alternative 2 plans for 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St. The right -
of-way dedication width along 83rd Ave may be narrowed to 40 feet or more where development
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 6 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
of the adjacent property would be expected (by the city engineer) to provide the rest of the
standard right-of-way width. Right of way dedication along Hall Boulevard shall be provided
through Deed to the Oregon Department of Transportation. The donation must be to the State of
Oregon, Oregon Department of Transportation. The ODOT District contact will assist in
coordinating the donation. ODOT should provide verification to the local jurisdiction that the
donation requirement has been fulfilled. The property owner must be the signatory for the
donation and will be responsible for a certified environmental assessment of the site prior to
transfer of property to the Department.
28. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility, the applicant shall co mplete
construction (as shown on the Alternative 2 plans) to provide at least an 18 -foot paved half-width
of Ross St and at least a 24-foot paved width plus transitions as shown on the application
Alternative 2 plans for 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St. The sidewalk may be deleted along the east
side of 83rd Ave along the property to the east at 8275 SW Ross St. Each of these streets shall
include at least a 5-foot sidewalk, 5-foot planter strip, pavement tapers, curb, street trees, street
lights, underground utilities, storm drainage, and all other work necessary for a complete street in
accordance with City of Tigard and other applicable standards.
29. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility, the applicant shall complete
construction of frontage improvements along Hall Blvd of a newly paved and curbed half -width of
at least 24 feet (including a bike lane) and an 8-foot sidewalk starting about 41 feet from centerline
plus planter strip between curb and sidewalk. A 200-foot long concrete raised median traversable
by emergency vehicles shall be provided along the centerline of Hall at the proposed driveway.
Street construction shall include pavement tapers, street trees, street lights, underground utilities,
storm drainage, and all other work necessary for a complete street in accordance with City of
Tigard, ODOT, and other applicable standards.
30. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility, the applicant shall construct a
minimum 10-foot wide pathway in a minimum 15-foot wide easement along an extension of
Matthew Park St from 83rd Ave to Hall Blvd.
31. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility 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.
32. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility the applicant shall obtain approval
from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of the construction of the storm drainage
system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts.
33. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility the applicant shall obtain approval
from the City Engineer of the construction of the water system to serve the site and any offsite
improvements necessary to accommodate this service.
34. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility all existing overhead utilities serving
or along the frontage of the subject property shall be relocated underground in accordance with
TMC 18.810.120. Any new utilities serving the subject property shall be placed under ground.
Applicant shall coordinate with all existing providers utilizing overhead utilities during the
undergrounding work.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 7 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE ONGOING
35. Deliveries of food, furniture, medical supplies, and similar items shall only occur between the hours
of 8am and 6pm. U.S. Mail and courier services are not subject to this restriction.
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & PROJECT SUMMARY
Site Description and History:
The project site is approximately 5.83 acres in size and relatively flat according to the applicant’s survey, with
frontage along SW Hall Boulevard and SW Ross Street. The assigned street address is 8325 SW Ross Street,
and is commonly known as the Schmidt Farm. The nearest major intersections include Hall Boulevard and
Bonita road approximately 1,000 feet to the north, and Hall Boulevard and Durham Road approximately
2,300 feet to the south.
The project site is comprised of two tax lots, measuring 252,938 square feet (TL 900) and 1,028 square feet
(TL 10700) respectively. Tax Lot 900 was last modified by MIS2001-00016 (Matrix Lot Line Adjustment).
Tax lot 10700 constitutes Tract “D” of the Matthew Park Subdivision (SUB91-0017). There is an existing
farmhouse with a pool and multiple outbuildings on TL 900, all of which are proposed for removal as part of
the project. Vegetation on the site is minimal, consisting of eleven scattered trees and an open grassy field.
Staff conducted a search of City land use records for the subject property, which revealed the following
information:
Washington County Assessor’s records place the construction date of the farmhouse around 1900.
Aerial photographs from 1940, 1950, and 1960 indicate the project site was utilized for an orchard
and pasture/hay production in the early to mid-20th century.
Ordinances 83-17 & 83-24 adopted zoning maps that placed the project site within the R-4.5 Zone.
No subsequent changes to the zoning map were discovered for the project site, and the R-4.5 Zone
remains applicable to this day.
Two Site Development Review permits were issued in 1989 and 1990 (SDR89 -22 & SRD90-23) for
the expansion and modification of a nonconforming sanitary service business known as Schmidt’s
Sanitary Service. According to a letter from Larry and John Schmidt, contained in file SDR89-22,
Schmidt’s Sanitary Service began operation on the project site in 1949.
Commercial use of the property ceased in 1999 with the sale of Schmidt’s Sanitary Service and
transfer of the city franchise to Pride Disposal (Ordinance No. 99-18). Subsequent use of the
property appears to be residential and hay production based upon documentation from DEQ, aerial
photographs, and no subsequent land use applications.
In 2007 groundwater contamination was discovered on the project site. The source of the
contamination was decommissioned underground storage tanks associated with the waste-hauling
business. As a result this property was subject to a clean-up action and received a No Further Action
letter from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in June 2012, and the
applicant has entered into a Prospective Purchasers Agreement with DEQ to govern redevelopment
of the site
Site Vicinity Information:
The site adjoins Hall Boulevard along the western boundary. Hall Boulevard is classified as an Arterial in the
City's Transportation System Plan and is currently under Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
control. Ross Street borders the property to the south and is classified as a Neighborhood Route. In
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 8 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
addition, two local streets stub at the northeast corner of the property, 83rd Ave and Matthew Park Street
respectively, terminated with temporary barriers.
Public transit service is provided by TriMet Bus Route 76 (Beaverton-Tualatin) which passes by the project
site with four stops within close proximity (two northbound, two southbound). The closest stops are at Hall
Boulevard and Ross Street approximately 30 feet south of the project site, and Hall and Murdock Street
approximately 300 feet to the north of the project site.
Adjacent properties to the north, northeast, south and west are fully developed with single-family residential,
to the east is underdeveloped residential property at 8275 SW Ross Street with a pending land use application
to subdivide the property into 7 lots (SUB2013-00003). Zoning on the site and the surrounding property is
residential. Properties to the North, east, and across Hall Boulevard to the West are in the R-4.5 Low-Density
Residential district, same as the project site. Properties to the south are located in the R-7 Medium-Density
Residential District.
No inventoried sensitive land areas such as drainageways, wetlands, steep slopes, or floodplains are
documented on or near the project site.
Proposal:
The project is for a senior housing development that will allow seniors to ‘age in place’ in a community that
provides a wide variety of activities and services. As proposed, the project will provide a total of 152
group living units comprised of 71 independent living, 57 assisted living and 24 units for memory care with
associated support facilities. The independent living units will be similar in appearance to multi -family
residential but will include the onsite amenities of dining, entertainment, housekeeping and transportation
services as a part of the unit rental. The assisted living units offer 24-hour assistance with activities of daily
living such as bathing, dressing, housekeeping and eating. The memory care units provide a safe and secure
environment with specially trained staff and programs specific to the needs of residents with dementia and
memory loss.
In order to develop the property, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use approval for a group living
facility (Senior Housing); Planned Development approval; an Adjustment to minimum parking standards,
and a Property Line Adjustment to reconfigure two existing tax lots.
Planned Development Approval
The applicant has requested a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone change for the subject property.
The Planned Development chapter provides for flexibility in development design and allows deviation
from certain standards of the base zone. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan
through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts
to the city; and
2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative
building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic
appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence
to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and
3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use
of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits,
while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 9 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
lot size transitioning; and
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landsc ape features and amenities (trees,
water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis,
presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and
design of a development to a particular site; and
5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which
will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the city; and
6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through
sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials.
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider this application because Planned Developments are
processed as a Type III-PC (Planning Commission) decision. Combined with the requested parking
adjustment, the applicant is requesting the following exceptions be granted by the Planning Commission.
Exception to block length standards to allow the construction of a bicycle-pedestrian pathway in
lieu of the extension of SW 83rd Avenue across the project site (proposed as Alternative “1” within
the application).
Allow a limited increase in the maximum building height from 30 feet to 48 feet in the core of the
facility, and from 30 feet to 37 feet for a portion of the residential wings, for the purpose of
concentrating development at the center of the property and away from adjoining single-family
homes.
Exception to minimum access/street spacing standards along an arterial from 600 feet to 330 feet
to allow a right-in/right-out vehicular entrance onto Hall Boulevard.
Reduction of minimum parking requirements from 120 to 102 parking spaces (15% reduction).
Increase in the size of the allowed wall sign (4 square feet to 4.4 square feet).
Section 18.350.030 states that there are three elements to the planned development approval process, as
follows:
A. The approval of the planned development concept plan;
B. The approval of the detailed development plan; and
C. The approval of the planned development overlay zone (adopted concurrently with detailed
development plan).
This application is for all three elements of the planned development process, overlay zone, concept plan,
and detailed plan. Planning Commission must first approve the concept plan, and then approve the
detailed development plan and overlay zone. The applicant has submitted a “Concept Plan Development”
plan set and a “Detailed Plan Development” in a single, unified plan set. The applicant has requested
concurrent review, but the Planning Commission must take separate actions on the concept plan and
detailed development plan and may choose to approve the plan as meeting approval criteria for the concept
plan (Tigard Development Code Section 18.350.040), as found on pages 14 to 20 of this report, but require
additional changes to comply with approval standards for detailed development plans.
Excluding the four exceptions requested above, staff finds the project (as conditioned) to be in
conformance with standard requirements of the Tigard Development Code. However, the planning
commission must decide if the exceptions granted by the planned development approval will provide for a
superior design solution than otherwise allowed by code, and staff recommends the Planning Commission
consider the follow questions in its deliberations:
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 10 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Satisfaction with the applicant's effort at site design, including the placement of the building, open
space, parking, and street layouts in a manner that preserves trees.
2. Satisfaction with how the project integrates with the existing neighborhood, including compatible
street layout, architectural style and massing, and that appropriate transitions have been provided.
3. Satisfaction that the project identifies methods for promoting walkability in the neighborhood and
broader community, or enhances or enables transit ridership.
4. Satisfaction that the exceptions requested in the proposed design (height exception, parking reduction,
direct access to Hall Boulevard) provide for a superior design solution than would otherwise be
permissible by code.
Project Alternatives 1 & 2: Staff Recommendation
As part of the application, the applicant has presented two alternatives for the Planning Commission’s
consideration. In alternative “1” the applicant proposes the construction of a bicycle-pedestrian pathway to
connect SW 83rd with SW Ross Street in lieu of a full street connection. In Alternative “2”, SW 83rd
Avenue would be extended to SW Ross Street through the use of a “skinny-street” design.
Staff finds the connection of 83rd Ave to Ross St is necessary to meet Tigard Development Code sections
18.810.030D and H (connectivity) and Q (access), and 18.810.040 A and B (block length), Tigard’s
Transportation System Plan, and Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan. Alternative 1 is also inconsistent
with the access location requirements of 18.705.030 G and H, the Oregon Highway Plan, and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Tigard Development Code subsection 18.350.070.A.3.h states “Deviations from street standards shall be
made on a limited basis, and nothing in this exception 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 has not found
adequate basis to justify this exception request, and therefore does not sanction it.
For these reasons staff recommends approval of Alternative 2 over Alternative 1. The recommended
findings and conditions below focus primarily on Alternative 2, which staff believes can be approved with
conditions. Differences between the alternatives are addressed in the appropriate code section.
Neighborhood Meeting and Notices of Public Hearing:
The applicant held a formal neighborhood meeting on August 6, 2013 with twenty-seven neighbors in
attendance per the sign-in sheet. Neighborhood concerns focused primarily on issues of parking, traffic,
street extensions, and construction impacts.
Public notices for the public hearing were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site
and the interested parties list, posted at multiple locations on the project site, and advertised in the Tigard
Times and the City website. The City has received one comment from a neighboring resident, attached as
Exhibit “E”. In this comment Mr. Thompson expresses concern about possible traffic impacts resulting
from extension of southwest 83rd. As discussed in findings pertaining to 18.530 and 18.810 below,
extension of SW 83rd is necessary to meet the city’s connectivity standards, provide for adequate emergency
response to his neighborhood as well as the project site, and that a traffic study has been submitted
showing that expected new traffic as a result of this project will not negatively impact nearby intersections.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 11 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Staff has reviewed the proposal for consistency with the following code sections. Findings for these code
sections are in Section VI of this report.
Applicable Development Code Standards
18.330 - Conditional Use
18.350 - Planned Development
18.370 - Variances and Adjustments
18.390 - Decision-Making Procedures
18.410 – Lot Line Adjustments
18.510 – Residential Zoning Districts
18.705 - Access Egress and Circulation
18.720 – Design Compatibility Standards
18.725 - Environmental Performance Standards
18.745 - Landscaping and Screening
18.755 – Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage
18.765 - Off-Street Parking and Loading
18.790 - Urban Forestry Plan
18.795 – Visual Clearance Areas
18.810 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards
SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL CRITERIA
Conditional Use (Chapter 18.330)
18.330.010 Purpose
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a
conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other
appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature
of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and
analysis.
Response: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval of a group living use on the subject site.
The following standards in this chapter ensure the proposed development will not adversely impact
surrounding uses and public facilities. This standard is met.
8.330.020 Approval Process
A. Initial applications. A request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a
Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained
in Section 18.330.030.A and subject to other requirements in this chapter.
Response: The Conditional Use request is normally processed as a Type III-HO (Hearings Officer)
procedure. As this application is being submitted concurrently with a Planned Development application, a
Type III-PC (Planning Commission) procedure, subparagraph 18.390.080.D.2.a of the Tigard Development
Code requires that both be reviewed by Planning Commission. This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 12 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval
A. The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a
conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to
each of the following criteria:
1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use;
Response: The site is almost 6 acres in size and is dimensionally adequate for the proposed use as it allows
a community large enough to provide ample amenities to residents and accommodate adequate parking for
residents, visitors and employees as well as service areas and landscaping/open areas. This standard is met.
2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape,
location, topography, and natural features;
Response: The location of the site can accommodate senior housing with minimal neighborhood impacts
given the residential zoning, level topography, location with frontage along an arterial and availability of
public transit. The building is located towards the center of the property away from adjacent uses to
provide more separation and buffering than would occur with single family residential development.
Moreover, the design of the building concentrates the massing within a central core, with wings that “step -
down” in height to increase compatibility with neighboring development. The transportation and ut ility
impacts are also similar to a single family residential development. A traffic report has been prepared and is
included in the application. This standard is met.
3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal;
Response: As described in the applicant's impact study, all public facilities are available to the site and
adequate to serve the community. This standard is met.
4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this
chapter;
Response: The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met, except as allowed by this chapter
and the Planned Development chapter, as discussed below in findings pertaining to Planned Developments.
This standard is met.
5. The applicable requirements of Section 18.330.050; and
Response: As detailed in this staff report, the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section
18.330.050, except as modified by the Planned Development chapter. This standard is met.
6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapter of this code, including, but not
limited to, Chapter 18.780, Signs; Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; Chapter
18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable,
are met.
Response: These supplementary requirements have been met and are further discussed within the
applicable chapters/sections of this document. This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 13 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
18.330.040 Additional Submission Requirements
In addition to the submission requirements in Chapter 18.390, Decision Making Procedures, an
application for conditional use approval must include the following additional information in
graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The director shall provide a list of the specific
information to be included in each of the following:
A. Existing site conditions;
B. A site plan;
C. A grading plan;
D. A landscape plan;
E. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790;
F. Architectural elevations of all structures; and
G. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants.
Response: The required items are included with the application package. There are no existing or
proposed restrictions or covenants for this project. This standard is met.
18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types
B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval
standards for conditional use are as follows:
15. Group Living:
a. Minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet;
Response: The lot proposed for the group living use will be greater than 200,000 square feet under both
alternatives. The adjusted lot adjacent to Matthew Park will be used as a storm water facility or developed
as a single family residence and is also greater than 9,600 square feet. This standard is met.
b. Minimum setbacks shall be those in the applicable zone;
Response: No reductions to the base zone setback standards are proposed. This standard is met.
c. Height limitation shall be that in the applicable zone;
Response: Increased building height is requested, consistent with the Planned Development provisions.
The design of the building steps down as it gets closer to the perimeter of the site in keeping with a
residential appearance. In general, the portion of the building applicable to the increased height request is
located in the center of the property, at least 60 feet from adjoining property lines to the north and south,
and over 120 feet from adjoining properties to the east. This standard can be met through the Planned
Development standards.
d. Compliance with all state requirements shall be required; and
Response: The community will comply with all state requirements for assisted living. The applicant
presently operates multiple senior housing communities across the state and in compliance with Oregon
state laws, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest they cannot do the same on this site. This
standard is met.
e. Off-street parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.765.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 14 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Response: An adjustment to the off-street parking standards is requested, consistent with Bonaventure’s
experience with Senior Housing and Chapters 18.765 and 18.370. Findings for the adjustment request are
provided herein. This standard can be met through the adjustment process.
FINDING: As discussed above, the conditional use standards have been met or will be met under
the provisions of the Planned Development and Variances chapters, as discussed below.
Planned Development (Chapter 18.350)
18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of
the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.050 and the additional information required by Section 18.350.040.B. In addition, the
applicant shall submit the following:
1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the
particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include:
a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind
the assumptions and choices made by the applicant.
Response: The applicant describes Bonaventure communities as residential facilities with amenities,
activities, services, and staffing to meet the need of its senior residents. The applicant describes the
amenities to include community garden areas, walking paths, a restaurant, active common areas (lounges,
fitness center, library, hobby room, movie theater, game room, and so forth), services such as a beauty
salon/barber shop, private dining room for family and special events, and complimentary laundry facilities.
Dependence on personal transportation is reduced through Bonaventure-owned vans and mini-busses
which provide chauffeured transportation for recreational and non-recreational needs of the residents.
Resident security and safety is provided through a combination of alarm systems and round -the clock
staffing.
As stated by the applicant, planning objectives for this project include:
1. Residential style architecture for neighborhood compatibility.
2. Clustered building design to maximize open spaces and perimeter setbacks.
3. Stepped building heights to reduce scale and building mass near adjacent properties.
4. Stepped building facades for individual unit privacy and to break up building mass.
5. Significant pedestrian walkways including through connections to adjacent streets.
6. Significant landscaping and open spaces.
7. Adequate site access, site circulation and parking.
During the pre-application conference, staff requested the site plan be modified to include the extension of
83rd Avenue to Ross Street and the connection of Matthew Park Street to 83rd Avenue. After completion
of the traffic study and input from the neighborhood meeting, the applicant believes extension of 83rd
Avenue to Ross Street is not necessary from a traffic safety or engineering perspective nor is it desired by
the neighborhood. The Planned Development code sections 18.350.070.3(b) and 3(h) allow the Planning
Commission to grant exceptions if approved by the City Engineer. As discussed in findings below, the City
Engineer is not willing to grant the exception proposed in Alternative 1, but does endorse (with conditions)
the approval of Alternative “2” which includes for the extension of 83rd Avenue to Ross Street. This
standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 15 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles
are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed.
Response: The architectural style of the project evokes a residential craftsman style. The shape allows for
varied rooflines and features which break up the mass of the building and provide for an appropriate
pedestrian scale. The design provides visual interest by including elements such as gables, hipped roofs and
balconies which further break up building mass adding visual appeal. The color palette will use deep earth
tones and enhancements such as stone columns and accents. Varied siding materials serve to break-up
building mass and add visual interest. This standard is met.
Response: As stated in 18.350.010, the purposes of the Planned Development chapter include:
1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard’s
Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider
and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City.
Response: The proposed development is consistent with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan in that it is
providing residential uses on property designated as residential land. This includes, but is not limited to,
Goals 10.1 (“Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of
current and future City residents”) and 10.2 (“Maintain a high level of residential livability”) and their
implementing policies. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is consistent with state law that mandates that
elderly persons are entitled to live as normally as possible within communities and that residenti al facilities
are considered a residential use of property. The project has been designed to provide for the needs of the
occupants in a manner that is appropriate in scale and design for the project site, surrounding properties
and public infrastructure. Neighborhood impacts are mitigated through the use of stepped building height
and form, setbacks, landscaping, and bike/pedestrian connections. This standard is met.
2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the
city,alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant
natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the
larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the TCDC.
Response: The site design, with building massing clustered towards the center, provides more and larger
aggregate open space and buffer areas than a traditional single family development or institutional
structure(s) conforming to the standard height limit. The project will also provide sidewalks and pathways,
outdoor patio areas, courtyard and garden areas. The building and landscaping (Plan Sheets A3.1 and L3.0 -
L4.0) are designed to provide a residential feel and scale with both horizontal and vertical variety in the
façade and a combination of buffering and openness in the surrounding landscaping. A public pedestrian
path will connect 83rd/Matthew Park to Hall Boulevard and Ross Street, and a direct entrance to Hall
Boulevard will reduce traffic in the neighborhood and facilitate access for emergency responders.
The proposed use also addresses a community need for senior living alternatives and facilities to provide
care and protection within an aging-in-pace model. As proposed, the project would create independent
living options for seniors, where they may then transition to greater levels of care as they age or become
disabled, without having to move to a new community or facility. Many of the future residents are likely
already part of the Tigard community or related to existing City residents who wish to move family
members closer (or vice versa).
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 16 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
As described above, this standard is met.
3. To achieve unique neighborhoods which will retain their character and city benefits,
while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate
buffering and lot size transitioning.
Response: The building design, setbacks, bike/pedestrian connections, buffering and extensive
landscaping contribute to a project that is both respectful to the surrounding neighborhoods while
providing for a needed housing and service within the City. This standard is met.
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features…
Response: The site was formerly farmed and the existing landscape lacks any significant landscape
features. The parcel is flat and contains few trees or shrubs. The site layout is designed to preserve and
protect the existing trees on adjacent properties. Existing onsite trees will be removed for the development.
The project arborist reviewed the existing onsite trees and determined that there were no trees significant
enough or healthy enough to justify protection. The existing trees will be replaced and additional trees will
be planted in accordance with the City’s new tree code. This standard is met.
5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density
requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors,
and the city.
Response: The project design is structured to provide enough units to support on-site services and
activities to be provided (dining, movie theater, exercise, crafts, hair care, trips and excursions) on balance
with building aesthetics, massing, and open space and buffering for the neig hboring properties. This
standard is met.
6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment
through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction
methods and materials.
Response: The project design will meet the current building codes with regards to energy usage and storm
water treatment. Larger open space areas are provided with the project design than what would occur with
detached single family development. This standard is met.
d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the “Planning Commissioner’s Toolbox.”
Response: The toolbox was consulted in relation to the proposal and applied where appropriate, specific
examples are sidewalks that ‘wander’, inviting open spaces and the use of a Licensed Landscape Architect.
This standard is met.
2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of
the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and
completed.
Response:
The applicant has provided a construction timeline as detailed below:
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 17 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2014 Demolition, Tree Protection, Tree Removal
June – August 2014 Grading
July 2014 – July 2015 Building Construction
May – July 2015 Public Improvements
June – July 2015 Landscaping
The project would be constructed in one phase, beginning summer 2014 and completed summer 2015.
This standard is met.
3. A statement of the applicant’s intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all
or portions of the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is
proposed, the statement shall include the applicant’s intentions whether the applicant will
build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders.
Response: The proposed use is senior housing with suites for independent living, assisted living and
memory care residents. The applicant will build, own and manage the property, renting the suites to
residents on a month-to-month basis. The applicant owns and operates several other communities in the
metro area and western states and plans to implement a similar business model at this project site. This
standard is met.
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of
this section, the concept plan, data, and nar rative shall include the following information, the
detailed content of which can be obtained from the director.
1. Existing site conditions;
2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing
types, and their general arrangement on the site;
3. A grading concept;
4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space
and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s);
5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790;
6. Parking concept;
7. A sign concept;
8. A streets and utility concept; and
9. Structure setback and development standards concept, including the proposed residential
density target if applicable.
Response: The required information was submitted with the application, and is included on plan sheets
C1-9, sheets A2.1-3.1, sheets L1.0-L6.0, the project narrative, urban forestry plan supplemental report, and
other application materials contained in the project file. This standard is met.
C. Allowable Uses.
1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned
development approval may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to
the density provisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of
Section 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are allowed with planned development
approval:
d. Multifamily residential units;
Response: Group living is a multifamily residential use. This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 18 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
Response: Open space areas are shown on the plans. These open spaces can be divided into perimeter
buffers; pedestrian corridors along the northerly and easterly property lines; the area between the exterior
of the building and the looped walkway system surrounding the building and inside of the parking areas;
and interior facility related open spaces. There are no significant natural features on the site however site
plans was designed to protect existing trees on neighboring properties. This standard is met.
2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies
methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management.
Response: None of the trees located on the site were noted as significant and worthy of preservation by
the project arborist. However there are several trees on adjacent properties that were significant and the
site design addresses protection of these trees through the placement of buffers and the use of a skinny
street standard and offset road alignment where SW 83rd will connect to Ross Street. One of these adjacent
trees near the southeastern corner of the property was nominated for heritage status, and 83rd Street. This
standard 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.
Response: The proposed site plan includes significant buffers and landscape areas along the perimeter of
the site. The proposed building has been located towards the center of the site to further separate and
buffer the surrounding uses. The design of the building utilizes residential style (roof pitch, materials and
massing) including stepping the building height down as you get closer to the perimeter of the site to
provide appropriate scale and massing for the neighborhood context, evoking a resort or lodge rather than
an institutional structure. Existing stub streets at the end of 83rd Ave and Matthew Park Street will be
extended through the use of skinny street standards to provide some traffic calming. The proposed
pedestrian paths along the north and east property lines provide bike and pedestrian connections through
the site to Hall Blvd and Ross St. This standard 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.
Response: Pedestrian ways are shown on the plans, including those that connect to the same sidewalk area
containing an existing bus stop on Hall Boulevard near Ross Street. In senior housing developments of
this nature, few residents own cars. Transpor tation is an amenity provided to the residents, and public
transit is readily available for residents and employees. The proposed pedestrian paths along the north and
east property lines provide bike and pedestrian connections through the site to Hall Blvd and Ross Street.
This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 19 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In
the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or
generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site.
Response: The proposal is for three housing types for seniors – independent, assisted living and memory
care units. All units and support facilities will be located in one building centered on the site. This standard
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.
Response: The standard development of this parcel would provide single family residential homes, which
are abundant in the neighborhood. The proposed plan provides residential living, consistent with the
general purpose of the zone, but which is designed to meet the specific needs of seniors. The proposed
community provides needed housing with amenities and features that enable seniors to continue to live in
residential areas, within their community, while benefitting from an improved lifestyle.
The applicant indicates that they believe their concept plan provides the following advantages over a
standard development:
1. Needed housing and services for seniors within a residential setting.
2. Buildings are setback significantly more than the 5-foot side yard or 20-foot rear yard setbacks
allowed in the zone.
3. Clustered building design to maximize open spaces and perimeter setbacks.
4. Stepped building heights to reduce scale and building mass near adjacent properties.
5. Significant pedestrian walkways including new through connections to adjacent streets.
6. Significant landscaping and open spaces.
In order to accomplish the development plan the applicant is seeking the following allowances through the
planned development process:
A. Increase the allowed building height, bringing residential space towards the center of the site while
providing for the services required for the residents. The increased height is accomplished in a
stepped fashion increasing as you move towards the center of the site while providing increased
setbacks and landscaped open areas. This enhances the residential feel, architectural merit and
functionality of the building as the fourth floor units are closer to activities than they wou ld be on
the end of a three story wing.
B. Minor reduction in parking (15% in alternative 2, when combined with the requested parking
adjustment), to better suit the resident needs and provide increased landscaping and open space.
C. Direct Access from Hall Blvd, reducing the impact on neighborhood streets and improves access to
the community.
D. An exception from requirement to construct the 83rd Ave extension will reduce traffic on existing
neighborhood streets without compromising access (Alternative 1).
E. An increase in the size of the allowed wall sign, to provide increased awareness of the project,
useful as the appearance is similar to a standard multi-family development.
This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 20 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING: The proposed concept plan provisionally meets all of the Concept Plan Approval Criteria
and, therefore, may be approved by the Commission. However, as indicated in the Toolbox,
the concept plan should reflect the maximization of opportunities where the objective is
design excellence. It is the express intention of the concept plan review that the concept is
entirely open for discussion. Therefore, staff recommends, prior to approval of the
proposed concept plan, the Commission consider the following discussion areas, in addition
to any others they may have, in order to provide the applicant with clear direction in
developing the detailed 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…
Response: No new lots are proposed. A property line adjustment is included to create a lot adjacent to
Matthew Park that will comply with the requirements of the R4.5 zone, as discussed in findings pertaining
to chapters 18.410 and 18.510. All lots meet the required dimensional standards as shown on plan sheets
C2 and C6. 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.
Response: Proposed site coverage for lot 1 on Alternative 1 is 64% and 68% for Alternative 2 without
including right-of-way dedications. There are no impervious improvements proposed for Lot 2 at this time.
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 ½ times the height of the building.
Response: The maximum building height within the R-4.5 zone is 30 feet. The applicant has proposed an
increase in the maximum height limit to 37 and 48 feet, as discussed below.
The building is stepped from the perimeter of the site towards the center with a one story memory care
portion, two story elements, three story wings and a four story core. This design increases the setback as
the building height increases. As shown on plans submitted with the application and discussed below, the
building will be sufficiently set back to meet or exceed this standard.
The 3-story portion of the building (37-foot height) is setback 60 feet from the south property line (1.6
times the height); 85 feet from the west property line (2.3 times the height); 92 feet from the north property
line (2.5 times the height); and 126 feet from the east property line (3.4 times the height).
The 4-story portion of the building (48-foot height) is setback 166 feet from the south property line (3.5
times the height); 170 feet from the west property line (3.5 times the height); 187 feet from the north
property line (3.9 times the height) and 235 feet from the east property line (4.9 times the height).
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 21 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
This standard is met.
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. Setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that
required by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360.
Response: The proposed perimeter setbacks significantly exceed the setback requirements of the base
zone, as demonstrated in the table below. This standard is met.
Yard Area Required Setback in R-4.5
Zone
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Front Yard 20 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Rear Yard 15 ft. 127 ft. N/A
Side Yard 5 ft. 46 ft. 46 ft.
Street-Facing Side Yard 15 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Garage Face 20 ft. N/A N/A
b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply
except that:
Response: Only one structure is proposed. This standard does not apply.
c. If seeking to modify the base zone setback, the applicant shall specify the proposed
setbacks, either on a lot by lot, or project wide basis. The commission may require site
specific building envelopes.
Response: No modification to the base zone setbacks is requested. This standard does not apply.
5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except
as modified by this Chapter.
Response: No other modifications to the base zone provisions are requested. This standard does not
apply.
18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria
A. Detailed development plan approval criteria. A detailed development plan may be approved
only if all the following criteria are met:
1. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the
concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless:
Response: The detailed plan is consistent with the concept plan. This standard is met.
2. All the provisions of the land division provisions Chapters 18.420, Partitions, and 18.430,
Subdivisions, shall be met if applicable;
Response: No land division is proposed. A property line adjustment is proposed be tween the two tax lots
on the property. Both adjusted lots meet the development standards for the zone. This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 22 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
3. 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.
a. Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, are not applicable to planned development reviews. The detailed
development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as the site
development review.
b. 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).
Response: 18.705.030.H.3 requires 600’ spacing of driveways along an arterial. There is not sufficient
distance between the existing intersections at Ross Street and Murdock Street to meet thi s standard. The
proposed site plan includes a right-in/right-out only access on Hall Blvd. Restricting the access on Hall
Blvd. to right-in/right-out eliminates any negative impacts but still provides improved access for residents,
visitors and emergency vehicles. The City of Tigard Public Works Department, Engineering Division has
reviewed the proposal and submitted a memorandum endorsing the applicant's proposed right-in/right-out
entrance onto Hall Boulevard.
The subject property has frontage on Hall Blvd and Ross St and abuts the stub streets of 83rd Ave and Matthew
Park Ln. Hall Blvd is a State Highway and an Arterial, so these policies require primary access to this property
to be via Ross, 83rd, or Matthew Park.
While the subject property can be accessed via Ross St, 83rd Ave, or Matthew Park St and thus this standard
could be met, the applicant has requested a right -in/right-out access to Hall Blvd, with a concrete median
physically prohibiting left turns into and out of the site. The applica nt has submitted a traffic analysis of the
proposal by Frank Charbonneau, P.E. and a sight distance analysis by Anthony Weller, P.E. of the proposed
accesses.
As the intersections of Hall Blvd with Ross St and Murdock St are about 1,000 feet apart, it i s not possible to
achieve the 600-foot access spacing standard for an access between the two. The proposed access is
approximately 330 feet north of the intersection of Hall Blvd with Ross St. The proposed raised median
would physically separate the access from the southbound lanes and thus eliminate potential conflicts between
the access and southbound traffic. The proposed access is well outside the observed queuing/influence area of
the Hall/Ross intersection and is at a location with good available sight distance. The proposed Hall Blvd
right-in/right-out access would allow most delivery and transport vehicles to enter the site directly from Hall
Blvd without having to travel through the surrounding residential neighborhood. It would make it easier for
visitors (including those from outside the area) to find the entrance and drive onto the property. The proposed
Hall Blvd access would also provide a quicker response route for emergency vehicles to the site, especially if
the median is constructed to be traversable by emergency vehicles. Staff recommends approval of the
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 23 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
proposed right-in/right-out access to Hall Blvd because it would not be detrimental, and would actually be
beneficial, to public safety, would increase transportation efficiency, and would help reduce the amount of
traffic through adjacent neighborhoods.
Section 18.705.030.I requires two accesses for a development of this scale. Alternative 1 would only provide
access to the property via Ross St and the right-in/right-out connection to Hall Blvd. Sufficient space would
not be available for a second connection to Ross St, meaning the property would depend on Hall Blvd as one
of its primary accesses. This is contrary to city and state access policies that require access to be taken from
lower classification streets (such as a local street) wherever possible instead of connecting to a State Highway
and Arterial (such as Hall Blvd) or Neighborhood Route (such as Ross St). While Option 2 would still not
provide two accesses from local streets, it is significantly closer to meeting this standard and could more easily
be retrofit to meet this standard because 83rd Ave would connect in both directions.
While the subject property can be accessed via Ross St, 83rd Ave, or Matthew Park St an d thus this standard
could be met, The applicant has provided a preliminary access report for the Hall Blvd access and a street or
driveway connection to Ross St, but has not provided an access report for the site connection to 83rd Ave.
The proposed alignment of 83rd is relatively straight and level, and the applicant has ownership of the
surrounding property and would be able to ensure unobstructed visibility at this corner. It is evident that this
standard can be met by condition. Prior to obtaining a site permit the applicant shall provide a preliminary
access report which verifies that design of all site driveways and street connections are safe by meeting
appropriate standards (such as roadway geometric standards and sight distance). 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 building inspection.
As proposed and conditioned, this standard could be met.
c. 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.
Response: The proposed group living use is not measured using dwelling units, the size of the
development is limited by other standards, such as lot coverage. This standard does not apply.
d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The commission may grant an exception
to the landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall landscape
plan was prepared by a licensed landscape architect, provides for 20% of the net site
area to be professionally landscaped, and meets the intent of the specific standard
being modified.
Response: No exceptions to the landscaping requirements are requested. This standard does not apply.
e. 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:
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 24 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
i. The minimum number of parking is not reduced by more than 10% of the required
parking; and
Response: Bonaventure provides onsite transportation services with both a shuttle bus and van as part of
the services each resident has available to them at the facility. Also there is a Trime t bus stop on Hall Blvd
at Ross St. Parking needs for Senior Housing is different from the typical residential housing types
described in the City’s Development Code. None of the Memory Care tenants are able to drive nor will
any have a car on the premises. Very few of the Assisted Living Tenants will have a car on the premises.
Seniors choosing to live in the Independent Living Units may have a car on the premises and often with the
Transportation Services provided by the facility and Transit availabil ity to the site will decide not to keep
their car.
Based on Table 18.765.2, Group Living minimum parking is 1 space per room or 1 space for 2.5 beds. It
was determined during the pre-application meeting that the applicant should utilize the 1 space per room
for the 71 independent living suites, and 1 space per 2.5 beds for 57 Assisted Living and 24 Memory Care
suites. This results in a required minimum off-street parking of 104 spaces (10 of these spaces being
required for the Memory Care suites). Alternative 1 provides 106 parking spaces and Alternative 2 provides
102 parking spaces. Subsection 18.754.030.E requires an additional 15% be added to accommodate visitor
parking, raising the minimum required to 120 spaces. When applying the 10% reduction ava ilable under
this standard (108 spaces rather than 120), the applicant cannot meet this standard through the planned
development process alone.
Given the unique parking needs for Senior Housing and the lowered parking needs for residents as they
transition from independent to assisted living and memory care, it is reasonable to assume that fewer
parking spaces will be needed for daily operations and staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve a special adjustment to reduce required minimum parking. Utilizing the provisions of
18.765.070.F.1, would allow a reduction up to 20 percent through 18.370.020.C.6a. and reduce the required
parking from 120 spaces to a minimum of 96 spaces., less than the 102 or 106 spaces proposed. The
findings for 18.370.020.C.6a are included elsewhere in this report. With the special adjustment, minimum
parking requirements will be met.
ii. 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
Response: The proposed use is senior housing, which has a low demand for off-street parking as reflected
in the Group Living parking rates. Memory care is a specialized type of assisted living, where resi dents no
longer have the capability to drive, further reducing the number of spaces needed below that of a standard
assisted living community. This standard is met.
iii. 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
Response: No shared parking is necessary or proposed. This standard does not apply.
iv. Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not
adversely affect adjoining uses; or
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 25 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Response: Public transportation is available to the site, with the Tri-Met 76 bus line servicing multiple
stops within the project vicinity, including a stop at the corner of Hall Boulevard and Ross Street.
Additionally, transportation service is an amenity provided to the residents of the development. Existing
residential properties adjoining the development will not be affected by the reduction in parking provision.
This standard is met.
v. 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.
Response: The existing property is flat and featureless, with few natural features on site. There are,
however, significant trees within close proximity to the project site whose root systems could be impacted
by the construction of additional parking near the boundaries of the project site. A reduction in parking
may contribute to the preservation of these tree. This standard is met.
f. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional
requirements in the applicable zone if:
i. The sign is not increased by more than 10% of the required applicable dimensional
standard for signs; and
ii. The exception is necessary for adequate visibility of the sign on the property; and
iii. The sign will be compatible with the overall site plan, the structural improvements
and with the structures and uses on adjoining properties.
Response: Section 18.780.130.A.2 allows every housing complex one permanent freestanding sign at each
entry point to the housing complex from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped, and not
exceeding 32 square feet per face in area. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a
public or private nuisance, as determined by the Director considering the purpose of the zone.
Freestanding signs at the entries from Hall Blvd and Ross/83rd are proposed. The signs will comply with
the size limit of 32 square feet per face and will be illuminated, and no exception has been requested for
the entrance signs.
Section 18.780.130.A.1 limits wall signs in residential areas to four (4) square feet. The applicant proposes a
wall sign of 4 square feet based on their interpretation that the measurement of this sign under
18.780.085.B.1.b will not include areas where the background wall shows through the sign:
“If the sign is composed of individual letters or symbols using the wall as the background with o r without added
decoration, the total sign area shall be calculated by measuring the area within the perimeter of all symbols and letters
or other decoration including logos;”
Their interpretation is contrary to a clear reading of the phrase “the perimeter of all symbols and letters or
other decorations including logos” which specifies the perimeter of a group, rather than individual letters
or symbols. That said, the planning commission is authorized to grant an exception of not more than
10% of the required applicable dimensional standards, which for wall signs would increase from 4 square
feet to 4.4 square feet. Given the enhanced setbacks and height of the property, the increase in sign area by
0.4 square feet would have an imperceptible impact and staff is not opposed to granting the exception.
Compliance with this standard, or with the granted 10% increase, will be determined as part of normal sign
permit review. This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 26 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
g. 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;
Response: Exception to the visual clearance requirements is not requested. This standard does not apply.
h. 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:
(1) Public safety will not be compromised; and
(2) In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a
conforming design; and
(3) 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.
Response: An exception to block size standards set forth in Section 18.810.040 is requested. Section
18.810.040 requires block sizes below 2,000 feet, although 18.810.040.B.1.b allows exceptions for blocks
adjacent to arterial streets, as is the case with this parcel. The applicant's preferred alternative 1 provides a
public street block length of 2,845 feet for pedestrians and cyclists, and 3,770 feet for vehicles. Internal
driveway and sidewalk circulation provides reduced block lengths including the opportunity to reduce block
length for emergency vehicles by providing limited access to Matthew Park Street in the northeast corner, if
requested by the fire department. Alternative 2 provides public street block length of 2,845 for all vehicles,
which is also reduced by the internal circulation system. The traffic engineer’s report included with the
application determined that public safety is not compromised; with less public street construction
maintenance costs are lower; and likewise storm water runoff will be reduced with less impervious area.
Staff finds the connection of 83rd Avenue south to Ross Street necessary to meet Tigard Development
Code sections 18.810.030D and H (connectivity) and Q (access), and 18.810.040 A and B (block length),
Tigard’s Transportation System Plan, and Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan. Alternative 1 is also
inconsistent with the access location requirements of TMC 18.705.030 G and H and the Oreg on Highway
Plan and Oregon Administrative Rules. Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.350.070.A.3.h states
“Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis, and nothing in this exception 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 has not found adequate basis to justify this exception request, and therefore
does not sanction it. For these reasons staff recommends denial of Alternative 1 and no granting of
an exception to block length standards. In order to ensure compliance with this standard, a condition
of approval is recommended o require the plans submitted for site work and building permits to conform
to plan sheets marked as Alternative 2. As conditioned, this standard will be met.
4. In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
i. 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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 27 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site
plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion;
Response: In both alternative plans, the street/accessway connection provides appropriate buffer space
for the previously nominated heritage tree near the southeast corner of the site on the adjacent property.
This standard is met.
ii. 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
Response: A geotechnical report is included with the application materials. No areas of slumping or
sliding exist on the site. This standard is met.
iii. Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the
structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,
where possible.
Response: The design of the building, with windows, exterior space and access on all sides, provides
flexibility in addressing weather conditions. Building and site layout was mainly influenced by lot shape,
primary street frontage (Hall) and providing buffering to existing adjoining uses. This standard is met.
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
i. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g. between
single-family and multifamily residential, and residential and commercial uses.
Response: Buffer level C is required and provided along the north, east (not in Alternative 2 since 83rd is
extended) and south boundaries. Specific compliance with 18.745 is addressed within that section of this
narrative. The site design with the building location in the center of the site maximizes the level of
screening and buffering provided to adjoining uses. This standard is met.
ii. 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…
Response: The landscape plan has been prepared by a registered landscape architect. No reduction to the
buffer requirements is proposed. This standard does not apply.
iii. On site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service
areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e. air
cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors shall be
considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening:
a. What needs to be screened;
b. The direction from which it is needed; and
c. Whether the screening needs to be year-round.
Response: In addition to the wall enclosure, extensive landscaping is proposed to screen the solid
waste storage/generator area and parking lot. The storage/generator area is also located over 100 -feet
from any adjoining property. The rooftop equipment will be screened with a mechanical equipment well
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 28 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
and roof trellis. Details are included in the application package and as shown on the landscape plans. This
standard is met.
c. Privacy and noise. Nonresidential structures which abut existing residential dwellings
shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree
possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise;
Response: The proposed use is residential. Existing residential development abuts the property on 3
sides. This standard does not apply.
d. 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 two of the following:
(1) Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet;
(2) 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
(3) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.
Response: Exterior elevations and floor plans are included with the application materials on sheets A2.1
through A3.1, which demonstrate the use of recesses, extensions, and offsets in roof elevations. This
standard is met.
e. Private outdoor area – Residential use:
i. 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 dimension of four feet;
ii. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun;
and
iii. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the
users of the space.
Response: As shown on sheet A2.1, outdoor private areas meeting the minimum dimensions are provided
for ground level Independent living suites. Memory care and Assisted living suites do not have private
outdoor areas; these do not qualify as dwelling units. In the case of Memory Care units, outdoor private
areas are incompatible with resident safety, and the amenity is provided through a limited access courtyard
within the memory care unit. These standards are met.
f. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas – Residential use:
i. 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:
A. Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit;
B. Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
ii. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for
reasons of crime prevention and safety;
iii. The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
A. Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities;
B. Additional outdoor active use open space facilities;
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 29 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Indoor recreation center, or
D. A combination of the above.
Response: Shared outdoor recreation and open space is provided and equipped appropriately for the use
of resident seniors, including walking paths, raised garden beds, lawn games, patio areas and benches.
Memory care residents have access to a secure outdoor courtyard, as mentioned we are not able to provide
unmonitored outdoor space for these units. Space requirements are calculated on the basis of 71
Independent and 57 Assisted Living suites, providing 128 x 200 = 25,600 square feet of outdoor space.
Specifically shared recreation area being provided is between the building exterior and the looped walkway
along the interior edge of the parking/circulation area. It includes the looped walking path, large patio
areas just outside the dining rooms along the east edge of the building and raised garden area near the main
entrance of the building. For Alternative 1 approximately 48,115 square feet is being provided in this area,
and for Alternative 2, approximately 46,287 square feet is provided, almost double the minimum required
under both Alternatives.
In addition to the outdoor space the building contain the following indoor recreation areas:
Café (1st) 610 sf Social area with coffee, snacks, newspapers and fireplace
Parlor/Library (1st) 355 sf Sitting area with books
Garden room (1st) 329 sf Activity space with tools, workbench, table
Theatre (2nd) 692 sf Movie theatre with projector and seating
Activity room (2nd) 757 sf Craft and activity space with tables and equipment
Hospitality (2nd) 1,194 sf Pool table, card tables, bar, seating
Exercise (2nd) 452 sf Exercise equipment, weights, activity space
TOTAL INDOOR
RECREATION AREAS
4,389 sf
As demonstrated above, this standard is met.
g. Access and circulation:
i. The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in
Chapter 18.705;
ii. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate
emergency and service vehicles; and
iii. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site
if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the
project site.
Response: Two access points are required by 18.705 and two are proposed. Circulation patterns are
designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian paths are provided through the
site. This standard is met.
h. Landscaping and open space:
i. Residential development. In addition to the buffering and screening requirements
of paragraph b of this subsection, 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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 30 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape
architect, and surety for such landscape installation.
Response: There are no minimal use areas on this site. Excluding the required buffers, 42% of the site
is proposed to be landscaped in Alternative 1 and 38% of the site is proposed to be landscaped in
Alternative 2. Landscaping plans are included with the application materials. The following is a breakdown
for the landscape calculation:
Alternative 1 (No extension of 83rd Avenue)
232,475 sf net area
126,744 sf of impervious area
8,324 sf of required buffers (Buffer C – along North, South and East boundaries.)
Net area of landscaping = 97,407 sf (42%)
Alternative 2 (Extension of 83rd Avenue to Ross Street)
210,174 sf net area
124,715 sf of impervious area
6,164 sf of required buffers (Buffer C – along North and South)
Net area of landscaping = 79,295 sf (38%)
This standard is met.
i. Public transit:
(1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a
quarter mile of public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on:
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
(2) The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities
as:
(a) A waiting shelter;
(b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and
(c) Hard suface paths connecting the development to the waiting area.
(3) If provisions of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, he
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.
Response: There are existing bus shelters within close proximity to the project site, the closest are located
at the corner of Hall Boulevard and Ross Street. TriMet submitted verbal comments stating they have no
opposition to the development and prefer the existing location and design of proximate bus stops stop, but
did request an improved path to facilitate pedestrian movement across the parking lot to the public
sidewalk that hosts the existing bus stop. This path is also required by chapters 18.705 and 18.720, as
discussed below, and a condition of approval has been added to require this improvement. As conditioned,
this standard is met.
j. Parking:
i. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765;
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 31 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Response: Parking and loading areas are laid out consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.765, as
amended through a special adjustment to reduce minimum park stall numbers. This standard is met.
k. 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.
Response: Drainage facilities will be constructed to City and CWS standards as part of normal permitting
through the engineering and building departments. This standard is met.
l. Floodplain dedication…
Response: There are no floodplains onsite. This standard does not apply.
m. 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:
i. 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).
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat
or covenants.
Response: There are no minimal use areas on this site. The project provides both passive and active
shared open space facilities exceeding the required 20% as shown on the plans. No final plat or covenants
will be required for this project. This standard is met.
FINDING: As discussed above, the planned development standards can be met by plans submitted
under alternative 2, or will be met under the provisions of other applicable chapters, as
discussed below.
Variances and Adjustments (Chapter 18.370)
18.370.020 Adjustments
C. Special Adjustments
6. Adjustments to parking standards (Chapter 18.765)
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 32 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Reduction from minimum parking requirements. By means of a Type II procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.040, the director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the
total minimum vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765 .070.H when an
applicant for a development permit can demonstrate in a parking study prepared by a
traffic consultant or in parking data from comparable sites that:
i. Use of transit, demand management programs, and/or special characteristics of
the customer, client employee or resident population will reduce expected vehicle
use and parking space demand for this development, as compared to standards
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) vehicle trip generation rates and
minimum city parking requirements; and
ii. A reduction in parking will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses.
b. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in new developments for transit
improvements. The director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum
vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a Type II
procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, when the applicant:
i. Incorporates transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters,
transit-oriented developments and other transit-related development; and
ii. Documents operational characteristics indicating the number of transit users, or
number of non-auto users for a particular facility.
Response: Parking needs for Senior Housing is different from typical residential housing types. None of
the Memory Care tenants are able to drive nor will any have a car on the premises. Few of the Assisted
Living Tenants are expected to have a car on the premises. Seniors choosing to live in the Independent
Living Units may have a car on the premises, but are also expected to utilize transportation services
provided by the Bonaventure shuttle and public transit, and as such may reduce or eliminate personal car
ownership.
Based on Table 18.765.2, Group Living minimum parking is 1 space per room or 1 space for 2.5 beds.
Guidance provided by staff during the pre-application meeting proposed utilizing the 1 space per room for
the 71 independent living suites, and 1 space per 2.5 beds for 57 Assisted Living and 24 Memo ry Care
suites. This results in a required minimum off-street parking of 104 spaces (10 of these spaces being
required for the Memory Care suites). Alternative 1 provides 106 parking spaces and Alternative 2 provides
102 parking spaces.
In addition, multifamily residential is required to provide an additional 15% above the minimum required to
provide parking for visitors (18.765.030.E). Applying the additional visitor parking requirement to the
entire site would increase the required parking from 104 spaces to 120 spaces.
A reduction in minimum required parking can be considered when the City is presented with parking data
from comparable sites. The table below was provided by the applicant and shows similarly sized
Bonaventure communities and their parking levels. The applicant notes that the Salem building is
Bonaventure’s “flagship community”; is next door to the home office and is the site of most corporate
training. As such the Salem building contains a staff training facility and 10 ‘hotel’ suites, for out of town
staff to use when visiting for training, in addition to the listed units. This is the reason for the higher
parking provision, without this community the average falls to 0.61 spaces per unit or about 0.05 spaces less
per unit than that proposed by the applicant.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 33 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Community City IL AL MC Total Opene
d Parking P/unit
North Creek Bothell 62 57 23 142 2005 69 0.49
Spring Creek Bellingham 40 111 18 169 2007 83 0.49
Bonaventure
of Lacey Lacey 116 60 36 212 2008 120 0.57
Bonaventure
of Sparks Sparks 128 80 32 240 2008 148 0.62
Bonaventure
of Castle Rock
Castle
Rock 89 55 18 162 2012 102 0.63
Bonaventure
of Salem Salem 66 52 24 142 2012 143 1.01
Bonaventure
of Colorado
Springs
Colorado
Springs 80 52 22 154 2013 120 0.78
Bonaventure
of Salmon
Creek
Vancouver 63 53 24 140 2014 92 0.66
Average
: 0.65
Bonaventure
of Tigard Tigard 71 57 24 152 2015 102 0.67
For Alternative 1, the 106 spaces would result in a 12 percent reduction. For Alternative 2, the 102 spaces
would result in a 15 percent reduction. Both reductions are within the 20% reduction allowed by the Tigard
Development Code. Such reductions appear appropriate for this project given parking data for comparable
site and the availability of a facility shuttle and public transit for daily needs. This standard is met.
FINDING: As discussed above, the applicable adjustment standards for a reduction in minimum
parking stalls have been met.
Lot Line Adjustments (Chapter 18.410)
18.410.40 Approval Criteria
A. Approval criteria. The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in
writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied:
1. An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel
reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established
by the zoning district;
2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site
development or zoning district regulations for that district;
3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning
district, including:
a. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of
the applicable zoning district;
b. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag
lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation;
c. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right -of-way by at
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 34 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and
d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district.
4. With regard to flag lots:
a. When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the
front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be
located so as to maximize separation from existing structures.
b. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved
drive in an accessway is located within 10 feet of an abutting lot in accordance with
Section 18.745.050. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots
and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development.
5. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an
accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities.
6. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement
which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved
partition map.
7. Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress,
and Circulation.
Response: Two existing lots measuring 252,938 square feet and 1,028 square feet respectively will be
reconfigured into two lots measuring 210,174 and 9,922 square feet (Alternative 2), excluding(?) right-of-
way dedication proposed as part of this project. Both parcels are larger than the 7,500 square foot
minimum required in the R-4.5 zone and meet all other dimensional requirements. All existing structures
will be removed and new structures will be constructed in compliance with site development standards, as
discussed elsewhere in this report under 18.350 (Planned Development) and 18.510 (Residential Zoning
Districts). Flag lots are not a part of this application. Accessways will not serve more than one lot, and
each newly created parcel will have frontage on multiple streets. Fire department requirements are
discussed elsewhere in this report. In order to ensure that the lot line adjustment is properly recorded prior
to development on the site, a condition is recommended to ensure recordation of the lot line adjustment
occurs prior to final inspection.
FINDING: As discussed above, and as conditioned, the project complies with approval standards
pertaining to lot line adjustments.
Residential Zoning Districts (Chapter 18.510)
18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts
D. R-4.5: Low Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to
accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are
permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally.
Response: The proposed use is senior housing, which the City classifies as group living with six or more
persons. Consistent with Table 18.510.1, group living facilities for six or more persons are allowed as a
conditional use in residential zones. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, as discussed
elsewhere in this report. This standard is met.
8.510.050 Development Standards
B. Development Standards. Development standards contained in residential Zoning Districts are
contained in Table 18.510.2.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 35 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Standard Required in Table 18.510.2 Proposed
Minimum Lot Size
7,500 sf Lot 1
232,475 sf Alt 1
210,174 sf Alt 2
Lot 2
9,633 sf Alt 1
9,922 sf Alt 2
Average Minimum Lot
Width
50’ 485’ Alt 1
435’ Alt 2
75’
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard
Street Side Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Dist. Between property
line and front of garage
20 ft.
15 ft.
5 ft.
15 ft.
20 ft.
60’
60’
46’
127’ Alt 1
78’ to 83rd Alt 2
N/A
20’
15’
5’
15’
20’
Maximum Height 30 ft. 48’ 30’
Minimum Landscape
Requirements
None 47% Alt 1
42% Alt 2
NA
Response: As proposed above, the proposed development is compliant with development standards
applicable to the R-4.5 zone, and has applied for Planned Development Approval to obtain exceptions to
standards it does not. This standard is met.
FINDING: The proposed use is consistent with standards applicable to the R-4.5 zoning district.
Access, Egress and Circulation (Chapter 18.705)
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.
B. Change or enlargement of use. Should the owner or occupant of a lot or building change or
enlarge the use to which the lot or building is put, thereby increasing access and egress
requirements, it is unlawful and is a violation of this title to begin or maintain such altered use
until the provisions of this chapter have been met if required or until the appropriate approval
authority has approved the change.
Response: The applicant submitted site plans (Sheets C2 and C6) which include the proposed accessways
and site circulation. This standard is met.
17.705.030 General Provisions
D. Public Street Access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and
18.705.030I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public
use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis.
Response: The applicant has proposed two alternatives, each with two access points onto a public street,
as shown on sheets C2 and C6. 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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 36 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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;
Response: Numerous paved walkways connect the building to the parking area, and sidewalks surrounding
the building are proposed to meet the requirements of this section. However, the site plan does not show
walkways that connect across the parking lot to Hall Boulevard and the extension of 83 rd Avenue. As an
institutional use, this project is required to do so. In addition, TriMet expressed a desire for such a walkway
in order to facilitate a connection between the building and nearby bus stops. To ensure compliance with
this standard, a condition of approval has been added that requires the submittal of a revised site plan to
show compliance with this standard. As conditioned, this standard is met.
2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments,
each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and
common open space and recreation facilities;
Response: Site plans submitted with the application (Sheets C2 and C6) demonstrate the required
walkways. This standard is met.
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;
As discussed above the project does not include walkways across parking lots, and a condition has been
attached requirement their inclusion consistent with this standard. As conditioned, this standard is met.
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.
Proposed walkways will constructed of concrete and lighted with bollard lighting and overheard lighting for
safety purposes. This standard is 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.)
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.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 37 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
Response: Access spacing on Hall does not meet the minimum requirement of 600 feet; an exception is
requested through the PD process and findings and recommended conditions pertaining to this st andard
are discussed there.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable access, egress and circulation standards
have not been fully met but can be met with the stated conditions of approval.
Design Compatibility Standards (18.720)
18.720.030 Design Standards
A. Density transition.
When a multi-family or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-
family, the following design standards shall apply:
1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line or
three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line;
Response: As shown on the site and architectural plans submitted with the application (sheets C2, C6, and
A2.1 through A3.1), the proposed building does not exceed one story within 50 feet of the property line.
This standard is met.
2. Building planes for multi-family dwellings within 50 feet of the common property line(s)
and abutting public rights-of-way shall be subject to the following standards:
a. No building plan that faces the common property line shall exceed 960 square feet
within 30 feet or 1,400 square feet within 50 feet of the property line;
b. No building plane shall have a dimension greater than 40 feet in length or 35 feet in
height;
c. If more than one building plane faces a property line and building planes align at a
common distance from the line, then building planes shall be horizontally separated by
at least 20 feet. For purposes of this standard, “common distance” shall be defined as
within 12 feet;
d. Building plane is defined as a surface that includes a building wall that extends from
the ground to the top of each wall of a structure. Area is determined by multiplying the
length of each wall by the height. The plane does not include roof area. When a
structure along a wall juts out from the wall, or is off-set from an adjacent part less than
four feet, the structure is considered part of the building plane of the wall behind it. If
the structure protrudes more than four feet, it represents a separate building plane. If a
building plane is at an angle in relation to the property line, the midpoint of the wall
shall provide the point at which the plane and related distances are measured.
Response: As shown on the architectural and site plans, only the north wall of the one story Memory care
wing is within 50 feet of the property line (49 feet per sheets C2 and C6). The largest plane in this area is
34 feet wide by 11 feet in height, a total of 374 square feet.
The architectural design of the building benefits from variations in the layout of interior spaces which
create off-sets in the exterior planes of the building. This creates visual interest and allows for variations in
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 38 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
materials to break up the apparent mass of the building. Length: Offsets are used on all sides of the
building, including building planes that do not face a street. Offsets of 4 feet or more create separated
planes, which are each 40 feet in length or less. Height: The three story planes on the building are 29 feet in
height, the core of the building extends to four stories, but the first floor features porches or one story
spaces that break up the building planes to a maximum of 31 feet on the west side or 26 feet on the east
side.
No building planes are within 12 feet of the property line. Where offsets are required to separate building
surfaces into multiple planes to stay within design standards the offsets are 4 feet or greater.
As discussed in the paragraphs above, these standards have been met or do not apply.
B. Front facades. All primary ground-floor common entries or individual unit entries of street
frontage units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front
elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or
less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof
pediments are encourages for structures facing a street to create visual interest.
Response: The primary entry is oriented to Hall Blvd. All facades include features to divide the structure
into smaller areas. All units are accessed from the interior of the building. This standard is met.
C. Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the street
upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main entrance oriented
to either street or at the corner.
Response: The main entrance faces Hall Blvd, towards which the project fronts. This standard is met.
D. Unit definition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay
windows on the street-facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the
street. Ground level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in
area with no dimension less than six feet.
Response: Individual units are entered from a common interior corridor; the main entrance is emphasized
by a covered drop off and many second and third story units will have individual balconies. This standard is
met.
E. Roof lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in
the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall
be a minimum 4-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally.
Response: Roof-line offsets are provided, along with façade modulation, to increase variety and break up
the roofline. The roofline is occasionally simplified above some façade modulations to reduce complexity
and visual over-ornamentation in keeping with the scale of the building. This reduction in detailing can
minimize the perceived scale of the building. This standard is met.
F. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porche s, windows and doors
that are on a primary structure's street-facing elevation(s).
Response: Trim details are shown on the building elevations and accent eaves, windows, doors and
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 39 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
porches on all elevations. This standard is met.
G. Mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or ventilators,
shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground-level view. Screening shall
be integrated with exterior building design.
Response: Roof mounted equipment is screened within a proposed mechanical well and trellis cover for
the units above. The backup generator adjacent to the trash enclosure is screened with the same CMU wall
and plantings as the trash enclosure. Architectural details for both were included in the applicat ion. This
standard is met.
H. Parking. Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and
the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from
the street, parking must be provided:
1. In a garage that is attached to the primary structure;
2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; or
3. In a parking area at the side or rear of the site.
Response: Due to the nature of the site with street frontage on 3 sides this standard cannot be met.
However, a majority of the parking is away from the primary frontage on Hall Boulevard and significant
landscaping and screening is provided to reduce the visual significance of the onsite parking and
circulation. The site circulation has been designed to address fire department access requirements to the
building. This standard is met.
I. Pedestrian circulation.
1. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level
entrances of primary structure(s) to the following:
a. Streets abutting the site;
b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities;
c. Parking areas;
d. Shared open space and play areas;
e. Abutting transit stops; and
f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints.
2. There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200
linear feet of street frontage.
Response: The applicant has submitted site plans on sheets C2 and C6 which demonstrate an on-site
circulation system with connections across the property and between the building and onsite amenities, but
it does not clearly show a pedestrian connection across the parking aisles and parking lots between the
building and the street and local transit stops. As discussed in findings pertaining to 18.705, a condition has
been added that requires the submittal of a revised site plan that shows this connection. As conditioned,
this standard can be expected to be met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all of the applicable design compatibility standards are met or
can be met with the stated conditions of approval.
Environmental Performance Standards (18.725)
18.725.030 Performance Standards.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 40 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
A. 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.
B. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 6.02.410 through
6.02.470 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
Response: The proposed use will not generate excessive noise, visible emissions, disallowed vibrations,
odors, glare or heat. Onsite lighting details are provided in the application package. Materials will be stored
and grounds maintained so as to not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health
hazard. As described in the applicant’s narrative, the proposed development will have a limited delivery
schedule for necessary supplies:
Deliveries happen during normal business hours (8-5) when the building is more accessible
(entrances are locked over night) and staff are available.
Food is delivered once a week with a larger truck, about 10am on a weekday (between breakfast and
lunch rush in the kitchen). The delivery is one pallet, and does not take a long time.
Mail/courier deliveries are the same as for any home in terms of size of vehicle and frequency
Medical supplies – oxygen/furniture etc., these happen during the work week (m-f) between 9 and
5. They will happen a few times a week and will have delivery vehicles similar to the couriers/box
vans.
Other than food which will deliver to the kitchen at the east side of the building, deliveries will
come to the front entry, shielded from the neighborhood by the building.
In order to ensure compliance with noise standards, an ongoing condition of approval is recommended
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 41 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
that would restrict deliveries to the hours listed above for all but mail and courier deliveries.
FINDING: As conditioned, the proposed group living use would not typically generate unacceptable
levels of noise, visible emissions, vibrations, odors, glare, heat, or attract insects and rodents.
Any activities that would generate unacceptable adverse effects would be subject to the
enforcement provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Landscaping and Screening (18.745)
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.
The applicant has submitted plans that specify the required planting standards for the landscape and urban
forestry plans (see plan sheets L1.0 through L6.0). The landscape and urban forestry plans have been
prepared by a landscape architect and a certified arborist, who will supervise installation and ensure
planting occurs to standard. A condition of approval has been added that requires a review by the project
planner to ensure all requirements of this title have been met prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. This standard is met.
18.745.040 Street Trees
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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 42 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
The applicant has submitted urban forestry and landscape plans in conformance with these requirements and
that of the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual (sheets L2-L6). Under Alternative 2, the project includes 492 linear
feet of frontage along Hall Boulevard, and 528 linear feet along Ross Street and the west side of the 83rd
Avenue extension. The applicant proposes to plant 12 street trees along Hall Boulevard (12 required), and 17
street trees along the west side Ross/83rd (13 required). Conditions have been attached requiring planting be
done in conformance with the provisions of the Urban Forestry Manual. This standard is met.
18.745.50 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.
Buffer Level C is required along the north and south boundaries for both Alternatives and along the east
boundary for Alternative 1. The applicant is proposing Option C2 for the north and east (Alternative 1 only)
property lines and Option C1 for the south property (see plan sheets L3.0 and L5.0). No new fences and walls
are proposed as neighboring properties already possess fencing. Buffer areas are shown on the plans and are
consistent with City standards. This standard is met.
B. Buffering and screening requirements.
1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and
having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and screening matrix and
containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 43 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and
landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area
except where an accessway has been approved by the city.
Response: Buffer Level C is required along the north and south boundaries for both Alternatives and
along the east boundary for Alternative 1. The applicant proposes Option C2 for the north and east
(Alternative 1 only) property lines and Option C1 for the south property. Buffer areas are shown on the
plans and are consistent with City standards. No buildings, accessways or parking is proposed for the buffer
areas. These standards are met.
4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for
landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall
meet the following specifications:
a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. Trees shall be chosen from any of the tree lists
in the Urban Forestry Manual (except the Nuisance Tree List) unless otherwise approved
by the director and have a minimum caliper of 1½ inches for deciduous trees and a
minimum height of six feet for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees
shall be as follows:
i. Small stature or columnar trees shall be spaced no less than 15 feet on center and no
greater than 20 feet on center.
ii. Medium stature trees shall be spaced no less than 20 feet on center and no greater than
30 feet on center.
iii. Large stature trees shall be spaced no less than 30 feet on center and no greater than 40
feet on center.
b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each
1,000 square feet of required buffer area.
c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover.
5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required
for buffering:
a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four-
foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of
planting; or
b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form
a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The
unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or
c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a
continuous sight obscuring screen.
Response: Detailed landscape plans are included with the application (plan sheets L1.0-L6.0). The selection
and placement of plants was specifically determined by a professional landscape architect to comply with these
standards, and is shown on Sheets 2 and 3 of the landscape plans. Calculations for the Type C Buffering &
Screening requirements:
North Property Line (with 5' wood fence, Option C2)
Length= 408 LF
Required Medium Trees (30' o.c.)= 14
Buffer Area (8' wide)= 3,264 SF
1 gallon Shrubs Required (20 per 1,000 SF)= 65
The applicant proposes 14 medium trees and 136 shrubs at 2 gallon size.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 44 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
South Property Line (no fence, Option C1)
Length of portion abutting neighboring properties= 290 LF
1 Large Street Tree proposed counts for 40 Linear Feet
Required Small trees for remaining 250' (20' o.c.)= 13
Buffer Area (10' wide)= 2,900 SF
5 gallon Shrubs Required (10 per 1,000 SF)= 29
The applicant proposes 13 small trees and 1 large tree, as well as 44 shrubs at 5 gallon size, for the area abutting
other properties. The remainder of the South property line will be planted with evergreen shrubs for parking
lot screening and required street trees at 30' on center.
East Property Line (Alternative 1 with 5' fence, Option C2)
Total Length= 429 LF
Length of portion without stormwater facility= 270 LF
3 Large Trees Proposed count for 120 Linear Feet
Required Medium Trees for remaining 150' (30' o.c.)= 5
Buffer Area (8' wide)= 2,160
5 Gallon Shrubs Required (10 per 1,000 SF)= 22
The applicant proposes 3 Large and 5 Medium trees, as well as 44 shrubs at 5 gallon size, in the buffer area to
the South of the stormwater facility. Existing neighboring trees will provide additional screening in this area.
The required number of trees and shrubs for the water quality facility will surpass the quantity required for
buffer screening. There are also a number of existing mature trees on the neighboring property that screen a
portion of the water quality facility.
This standard is met.
6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements
as set forth in Chapter 18.795.
Response: As demonstrated in the landscape plan, the proposed landscaping does not conflict with vision
clearance requirements. This standard is met.
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 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;
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 45 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
iii. Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical
shrubbery and trees;
iv. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve
at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in
accordance with the parking lot tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry
Manual.
Response: Parking lot landscaping is shown on the proposed landscape plans and is consistent with the
screening requirements. Extensive landscaping is proposed for the parking area, and is detailed on plan sheets
L2.0 through L6.0. The plans have been prepared by a registered landscape architect to comply with these
standards. As specified on landscape plans, each parking area exceeds the 30% tree canopy cover at maturity
standard. Proposed parking lot tree canopy cover ranges from 35-53%. This standard is met.
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;
3. Screening Of Refuse Containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse
container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot,
residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be
screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or
evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area.
Response: Refuse containers and service facilities are screened from view with masonry walls and
landscaping as shown in the landscape plans and plan details for the refuse container. This standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have been fully
met.
Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage (18.755)
18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance
A. Alternative methods of compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four
methods to demonstrate compliance:
1. Minimum standards;
2. Waste assessment;
3. Comprehensive recycling plan; or
4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off.
Response: The applicant has chosen the minimum standards method. The use is considered ‘other’,
requiring 4 square feet of storage per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed building is
approximately 150,000 square feet, requiring 600 square feet of storage. This is reduced by 42% as the
storage area is 7 feet tall, leaving a required minimum area of 252 square feet. The provided storage area
will meet this requirement. This standard is met.
C. Minimum Standards Method
4. General requirements:
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 46 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
c. The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of 4 feet for solid
waste/recyclable. Vertical storage higher than 4 feet but no higher than 7 feet may be
used to accommodate the same volume of storage in a reduced floor space (potential
reduction of 43% of specific requirements). Where vertical or stacked storage is
proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate the layout of the storage area
and dimensions of containers.
Response: Plan details for the storage area are included with the application materials. This standard is
met.
18.755.050 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas
B. Location Standards
1. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co-located
with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste;
2. Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code
requirements;
3. Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple
locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations.
4. Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior
storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent
to a public or private street;
5. Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance
security for users;
6. Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at
least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the areas
used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions
in 18.755.050.C, design standards;
7. The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage
area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets
adjacent to the site.
Response: As shown on the plans, the trash and recycling receptacles will be co-located on the east side
of the building, adjacent to the delivery truck access and parking lot, on the “rear” of the building and not
visible from the primary frontage along Hall Boulevard, and as far away from adjoining residential uses as
possible. The storage area will be screened, accessible for collection vehicles and will not obstruct
pedestrian or vehicle traffic on the site or public streets. Indoor and outdoor storage areas will comply with
Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements. Screening for the storage area includes a CMU wall
enclosure and extensive plantings meeting the standards of 18.755.050.C. Specific plant species and sizes
are detailed on the landscape plans. The storage enclosure is located such that to provide ample room for a
garbage truck to maneuver without obstructing traffic movement entering or exiting the site. Deliveries
will be scheduled so as to avoid conflict on garbage pick-up day. This standard is met.
C. Design Standards
1. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current
methods of local collection;
2. Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with
waterproof materials or situated in a covered area;
3. Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least
six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 47 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being
secured in a closed and open position;
4. Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials
accepted
Response: The dimensions of the storage area are adequate to accommodate containers consistent with
current methods of local collection. Storage containers will be labeled, meet Fire Code standards and the
storage area will be walled, with gate openings sufficient for hauler access. The dimensions of the solid
waste/recyclable portion of the storage area are 24’ x 11.33’. As shown on the landscape plans, extensive
landscaping is proposed around the storage enclosure for screening. The gate openings for truck access
will be 10’9” wide, and 4’ wide for employee access. This standard is met.
D. Access Standards
1. Access to storage areas can be limited for security reasons. However, the storage area shall
be accessible to users at convenient times of the day, and to collection service personnel on
the day and approximate time they are scheduled to provide collection service;
2. Storage areas shall be designed to be easily accessible to collection trucks and equipment,
considering paving, grade and vehicle access. A minimum of 10 feet horizontal clearance
and eight feet of vertical clearance is required if the storage area is covered;
3. Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out of a
driveway onto a public street. If only a single access point is available to the storage area,
adequate turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to safety exit the site
in a forward motion.
Response: Collection vehicles will be able to access the storage area without backing onto a public street,
and with ample clearance. Deliveries will be scheduled so as to avoid conflict on trash pick-up day. The
24’-wide delivery truck access is adjacent to the storage enclosure, providing extra maneuvering room for
the trash hauler. This standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the mixed solid waste/recycling storage area standards
have been fully met.
Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765)
18.765.030 General Provisions
B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows:
1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached
dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings.
2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet
from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the
building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require
more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40
spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which
remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1)
Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and
vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces.
Response: As shown on the applicant’s site plan (Sheets C2 and C6), the parking lot on the site is located
adjacent to the proposed building. This standard is met.
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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 48 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the
development.
Response: The applicant has requested a parking adjustment to reduce minimum required parking. Visitor
parking was considered as part of that adjustment and is discussed elsewhere in this report in findings
pertaining to Variances. Proposed parking is scattered around the site and accessible to multiple entrances.
Required bicycle parking is evenly distributed, with approximately half by the main entrance for visitors, and
half by the rear entrance for staff. This standard is met.
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 of Oregon Uniform Building Code
and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by
these regulations.
Response: The site plans (plan sheets C2 and C6) propose between 10 (Alternative 1) and 6 (Alternative 2)
ADA handicap spaces near various entrances to the site. ADA requirements will be verified and enforced by
the Building Official during building permit review. This standard will be met.
18.765.040 General Design Standards
B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking:
1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and
constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic on the site;
2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation;
3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails,
fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives;
4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795,
Visual Clearance;
5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any
pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and
6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Section 18.810.030.P,
groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing
movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be
required.
Response: The proposed access drive meets the requirements of Chapter 18.705, is clearly marked, and is
designed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on
the site. Accessways will be maintained to provide clear visual clearance areas. This standard is met.
F. Pedestrian Access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance
with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade
separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a
slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent
pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges.
Response: As discussed and conditioned in findings pertaining to 18.705 and 18.720, the project will
comply with pedestrian access through the parking area. Therefore, this standard is met.
I. Parking lot striping.
1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the
off street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces
clearly marked; and
2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of
flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 49 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Response: The applicant’s site plan (sheets C2 and C6) shows that parking spaces will be clearly marked
with striping. This standard is met.
J. Wheel Stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior
landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high
located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking
stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height
of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk
requirements.
Response: The applicant’s site plans do not show wheel stops, but can be reasonably expected to do so
through a condition of approval to require conformance with this subsection. This standard is met.
L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales
area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district.
Response: Fixture details and cuts sheets were included in the application package, and installation
locations indicated on the site plans. Proposed lighting will be of a residential scale, and will be arranged
such that light is not directed toward the adjacent properties. This standard is met.
N. Space and Aisle Dimensions. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact
spaces.
1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum
dimensions for parking spaces are:
a. 8.5′ x 18.5′ for a standard space;
b. 7.5′ x 16.5′ for a compact space; and
c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated
disabled person parking spaces;
d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space.
2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24
feet in width;
3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall’s length and width, aisle width, and
maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2.
Response: According to the applicant’s site plan (Sheets C2 and C6), the parking lot space and isle
dimensions meet the applicable design standards. This standard is met.
18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Location and Access.
A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking:
1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to
structures;
2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or
pedestrian ways;
3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the
bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located
the parking area;
4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance
open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain
access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on
upper stories within a multi-story residential building.
B. Covered parking spaces.
1. When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover.
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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 50 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
the building, in which case, the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the
building entrance.
Response: The bike racks are split between two locations. Half are located on the east side of the building,
near the service entrance, not within parking, landscape or pedestrian areas. These spaces are located to be
more convenient for staff to use. Half of the required bike racks will be located near the main entrance
which is more convenient for visitor use. The bicycle parking is not covered, however, and a condition of
approval has been added requiring the applicant to provide a cover for the bicycle parking or demonstrate to
the Director of community development or his designee why it is not possible to cover the bicycle parking.
This standard is met through an added condition of approval.
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
longterm (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.
Response: Bicycle parking spaces will be installed on concrete pads adjacent to concrete walkways near
building entrances. Concrete will be sloped to drain. The application did not include dimensional and design
details for individual bicycle parking spaces, but there is no reason to believe the applicant cannot do so as
part of normal site work and building permit review, and a condition of approval has been added requiring
the inclusion plan details for bicycle parking. As conditioned this standard will be met.
E. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces
for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 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 Section 18.370.020.C.5.e.
Response: Per Table 18.765.2, elderly multi-family developments are required to provide 1 space per 20
units (requiring 152/20 = 8 spaces). The proposed bicycle parking location has been split between the
main entrance area and the rear entrance area to better serve both staff and visitors. The proposed site
plans (plan sheets C2 and C6) proposed 7 bicycle parking spaces, but there is no reason to believe the
applicant could not install 8 as required, and a condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance
with this standard. As conditioned, this standard can be met.
18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 51 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking. Reductions in the required number of
vehicle parking spaces may be permitted as follows:
1. The director may reduce off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to
20% in new developments for the incorporation of transit-related facilities such as bus
stops and pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-oriented developments and other transit-related
development through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using
approval criteria contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.b. Applicants who qualify for this
adjustment may also apply for further parking reductions per paragraph F.2 below.
2. The director may reduce the total required off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section
18.765.070.H by up to a total of 20% by means of parking adjustment to be reviewed
through a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria
contained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.a.
Response: As discussed earlier in this staff report pertaining to Tigard Development Code Section
18.370.020.C (Special Adjustments), the applicant has requested and staff is recommending approval of a
reduction in minimum parking standards (120 required, 102 provided under Alternative 2). The request was
based upon the unique population needs of senior living center, data from comparable facilities, and the
presence of transit service on site. Bonaventure provides onsite transportation services with both a shuttle
bus and van as part of the services each resident has available to them at the facility. There is also a TriMet
bus stop on Hall Blvd at Ross St which is served by Bus Line 76. With the special adjustment, this standard
will be met.
18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements
A. Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which
receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street
loading and maneuvering space as follows:
1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or
more;
2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more.
B. Off-street loading dimensions.
1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the city engineer as to design and location.
2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the
site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of
the longest vehicle using the facility site.
3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the city
engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710.
4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for
parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745.
Response: The project proposes one delivery truck access space on the east side of the building for the
receipt of foodstuffs once a week. The area is screened as demonstrated on landscape plans (plan sheets L2.0-
L6.0). All other materials are to be delivered to the main entrance on the west side of the building, which by
its nature is not intended to be screened. The city engineer has reviewed the plans and found them adequate.
This standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have been fully met.
Urban Forestry Plan (18.790)
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;
Response: An Urban Forestry Plan prepared/approved by a landscape architect and certified arborist has
been provided (plan sheets L2.0 and L4.0). This standard is met.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 52 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual
(UFM);
Response: A tree preservation and removal plan was submitted identifying all trees proposed for
preservation and removal (plan sheet L1.0). The plan meets the tree preservation and removal standards;
this standard is met.
3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and
Response: The applicant’s Urban Forestry Plan shows that the site meets the minimum effective canopy
requirements. The project landscape architect and project arborist have signed the Urban Forestry site plan
and attested that the plan meets the tree canopy site plan standards.
4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
Response: A supplemental report was prepared by the project landscape architect, Morgan Holan (ISA
Certified Arborist PN-6145A) and Janet L Otten (Otten Landscape Architects, Inc.). The report includes
the required inventory data for the existing open grown trees (UFM Section 10, Part 3, and Subsection D).
Protection measures, consisting of a 5 foot metal fence secured to the ground located along the dripline of
preserved trees shall be in place prior to any site work.
The table below demonstrates the effective tree canopy for Alternative 2, in accordance with UFM Section
10, Part 3, and Subsection M). Because the site is zoned 4-4.5, the required effective tree canopy is 40% for
the entire site. According to calculations provided on the urban forestry plan (plan sheets L2.0 and L4.0),
the proposed site canopy for Alternative 1 is 40.4% and Alternative 2 is 40.8%. The required canopy for
the entire site is met.
B. Tree canopy fee. If the supplemental report demonstrates that the applicable standard percent
effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or
preservation for the overall development site (excluding streets) or that the 15% effective tree
canopy cover will not be provided through any combination of tree planting or preservation for
any individual lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts (when the overall
development site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the
applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in the
tree canopy fee calculation requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual.
Response: The site meets the canopy requirements; therefore, this standard does not apply.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the urban forestry plan requirements have been fully met.
18.790.060Urban Forestry Plan Implementation
B. Inspections. Implementation of the urban forestry plan shall be inspected, documented and
reported by the project arborist or landscape architect whenever an urban forestry plan is in
effect. In addition, no person may refuse entry or access to the director for the purpose of
monitoring the urban forestry plan on any site with an effective urban forestry plan. The
inspection requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual shall apply to sites with an effective
urban forestry plan.
C. 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.
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.
Response: Section 11 of the Urban Forestry Manual establishes standards for the implementation of
urban forestry plans including inspection requirements, tree establishment, and inventories. Conditions of
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 53 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
approval have been added to ensure the plan is implemented consistent with the provisions of the manual.
These standards will be met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable urban forestry inventor y standards have not
been fully met but can be as conditioned.
Visual Clearance Areas (18.795)
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.
Response: The applicant has indicated in the narrative and shown on the site plans (plan sheets C2.0 and
C6.0) and landscape plans (L2.0-L6.0) compliance with vision clearance requirements. This standard is met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the visual clearance area standard is met.
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Chapter 18.810)
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public a nd private
facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are
addressed below:
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.
D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and g rade of all
streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to
existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and
in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets:
1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with subsection N of
this section; and
2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of
streets in a development shall either:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding
areas, or
b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing
street patterns because of par ticular topographical or other existing conditions of the land.
Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the
capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety.
Response: The property adjoins Hall Boulevard to the west, Ross Street to the South, and stubs to 83rd
Avenue and Matthew Park to the north and east. 83rd Ave was constructed as a stub street to the boundary
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 54 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
of the subject property to be connected south to Ross St at the time the subject property is developed and
thus ends with a barricade rather than a cul-de-sac. Matthew Park St was constructed as a stub street to the
boundary of the subject property to be connected west to 83rd Ave and possibly Hall Blvd at the time the
subject property is developed and also ends in a barricade. 83rd Ave and 84th Ave provide north-south
connections to the south of Ross St. These set the street pattern for this area. These connection plans
have also been established through a public process in the Tigard Transportation System Plan. Adequacy
of adjacent streets is findings pertaining to minimum right-of-way and street widths below.
Alternative 2 provides the north-south connection of 83rd Ave to Ross St and Matthew Park St to 83rd Ave.
While it does not connect Matthew Park St to Hall Blvd, that connection would not meet the 600-foot
access spacing requirement for Hall Blvd (an Arterial), and a straight connection of Matthew Park St from
81st to Hall could lead to extra traffic and speed concerns on Matthew Park St. A pedestrian/bicycle
connection is proposed along the Matthew Park St alignment from 83rd to Hall. The 83rd Ave connection
to Ross St would not be directly opposite 83rd Ave or 84th Ave (on the south side of Ross) because such
connection would need to cross private property not under the applicant’s control. Alternative 2 can be
found to meet this standard as closely as reasonably possible.
Alternative 1, by not providing the north-south connection of 83rd Ave to Ross St, does not provide for the
continuation or appropriate projection (neither of which would include a 90-degree complete change of
direction) of existing streets in the surrounding area. Thus Alternative 1 does not meet this standard. The
condition necessary for Alternative 1 to meet this standard would be extension of 83rd Ave south to Ross
St, which would essentially make it the same as Alternative 2. Conditions of approval have been added
requiring the applicant to conform to Alternative 2. As conditioned, this standard will be met.
E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street
plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the 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
Response: The applicant is proposing to provide an 18-foot street half-width and 5-foot sidewalk along Ross
St, along with the required planter strips, street trees, street lights, underground utilities, storm drainage, etc.
Such construction would meet this standard for Ross St.
The applicant is proposing to provide a ‘no-parking’ street width of 24 feet along Matthew Park St and 83rd
Ave, with 83rd widening at the north end to match the existing street width, plus 5-foot planter strips, street
trees, street lights, underground utilities, storm drainage, etc. along both streets. The proposal deletes the
sidewalk in the central section of 83rd Ave because it would be normal practice to require the developer of the
adjacent property to construct this sidewalk along their frontage at the time that property develops. The
applicant proposes to provide many spaces of onsite parking for residents and visitors adjacent to 83rd Ave,
and on-street parking is not anticipated to be needed for other adjacent uses. The property to the east could
construct parking along the east side of 83rd Ave if it becomes appropriate with development of that property.
This proposed street construction of 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St in Alternative 2 would meet this standard,
and would need to be accomplished before final inspection of the proposed senior living facility.
Hall Blvd is designated as a five-lane facility in the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TSP also
includes a large project to extend Hall Blvd to the south across the Tualatin River and into the City of Tualatin.
The City of Tualatin has since removed this Hall Blvd extension and bridge from their TSP, and it is likely that
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 55 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
the next update of the Tigard TSP will do the same. A sizable portion of the travel demand which creates the
need for a five-lane Hall Blvd would have been drivers using Hall Blvd to cross the river. The next Tigard TSP
update will revisit the question of whether Hall Blvd should ultimately be a three-lane or five-lane road. While
dedication of the full five-lane right-of-way and construction of the sidewalk at its five-lane location is
appropriate in accordance with the TSP, it would be reasonable to allow the applicant to reduce the pavement
width of their street frontage improvements to a three-lane width, and thus leave space available for
construction of a five-lane half-width if such becomes necessary in the future. This construction would
provide a 24-foot paved half-width along Hall Blvd plus an 8-foot sidewalk starting about 41 feet from the
street centerline line, a resulting 17-foot wide planter strip between the curb and sidewalk, and pavement tapers
as necessary. These frontage improvements will need to be complete before final inspection of the proposed
senior living facility.
Conditions of approval have been added at the request of the engineering division to ensure the proposed
road improvements are constructed to standard. As conditioned, this standard is met.
H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is
required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre -
existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing
prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be
exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be
extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict
adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered
precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide
required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater
than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of envir onmental or topographical
constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street
connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some
reasonable street connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or
planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as
schools, shopping areas and parks.
4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide
short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development.
Response: 83rd Ave was constructed as a stub street to the boundary of the subject property to be
connected south to Ross St at the time the subject property is developed and thus ends with a barricade
rather than a cul-de-sac. Matthew Park St was constructed as a stub street to the boundary of the subject
property to be connected west to 83rd Ave and possibly Hall Blvd at the time the subject property is
developed and also ends in a barricade. 83rd Ave and 84th Ave provide north-south connections to the
south of Ross St. These set the street pattern for this area. These connection plans have also been
established through a public process in the Tigard Transportation System Plan.
Alternative 2 provides the north-south connection of 83rd Ave to Ross St and Matthew Park St to 83rd Ave,
which would achieve the required 530-foot maximum spacing of north south connections between 81st
Ave, 83rd Av e, and Hall Blvd. While the proposal does not connect Matthew Park St to Hall Blvd (which
would also be required to meet the 530-foot standard), that connection would not meet the 600-foot access
spacing requirement for Hall Blvd (an Arterial), and a straight connection of Matthew Park from 81st to
Hall could lead to extra traffic and speed concerns on Matthew Park St. A pedestrian/bicycle connection is
provided along the Matthew Park St alignment from 83rd to Hall. The 83rd Ave connection to Ross St
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 56 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
would not be directly opposite 83rd Ave or 84th Ave (on the south side of Ross) because such connection
would need to cross private property not under the applicant’s control. Alternative 2 can be found to meet
this standard as closely as reasonably possible.
Alternative 1, by not providing the north-south connection of 83rd Ave to Ross St, does not provide for the
extension of existing streets in the surrounding area. Thus Alternative 1 does not meet these standards of
TMS 18.810.030.H and the Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan. The condition necessary for
Alternative 1 to meet these standards would be extension of 83rd Ave south to Ross St, which would
essentially make it the same as Alternative 2. A condition of approval has been added requiring the
applicant to conform to Alternative 2. As conditioned, this standard will be met.
J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less
than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or
development.
Response: Additional right-of-way is being dedicated for Hall Blvd (2457 sf), Ross Street (749 sf) and the
connection of 83rd Ave to Matthew Park Street (8,652 sf in Alternate 1 and 30,664 sf in Alternate 2) a s
shown on the plans. This standard is met.
Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or
proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection
for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if
separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall
include any of the following:
1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector;
2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with
frontage along another street;
3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation
along the arterial or collector; or
4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from
the lower classification street.
Response: This proposed senior living facility is a residential facility and abuts Hall Blvd, an Arterial.
Alternative 2 would provide 83rd Ave as a parallel access street along Hall Blvd, while Alternative 1 would
not. Thus Alternative 1 does not meet this standard. The condition necessary for Alternative 1 to meet
this standard would be extension of 83rd Ave south to Ross St, which would essentially make it the same as
Alternative 2. As a result the project has been conditioned to conform to Alternative 2 to ensure
compliance with this standard.
Alternative 1 would only provide access to the property via Ross St and the right-in/right-out connection
to Hall Blvd. Sufficient space would not be available for a second access (as required by 18.705), meaning
the property would depend on Hall Blvd as one of its primary accesses. This is contrary to city and state
access policies that require access to be taken from lower classification streets (such as a local street)
wherever possible instead of connecting to a State Highway and Arterial (such as Hall Blvd) or
Neighborhood Route (such as Ross St). While Alternative 2 would still not provide two accesses from local
streets, it is significantly closer to meeting this standard and could more easily be retrofit to meet this
standard because 83rd Ave would connect in both directions. Alternative 1 does not meet this standard.
The condition necessary for Alternative 1 to meet this standard would be extension of 83rd Ave south to
Ross St, which would essentially make it the same as Alternative 2, or establishing a primary access to the
site via either the northern portion of 83rd Ave or Matthew Park St, both of which would route site traffic
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 57 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
through an existing residential neighborhood. As a result the project has been conditioned to conform to
Alternative 2 to ensure compliance with this standard. As conditioned, this standard is met.
CC. Traffic study.
1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of
the following circumstances:
a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision
intersections identified by Washington County.
b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of access and the
existing ADT fall within the following range:
Existing
ADT
0-3,000 vpd
3,001-6,000
vpd
>6,000 vpd
ADT to be added by
development
2,000 vpd
1,000 vpd
500 vpd or more
c. If any of the following issues become evident to the city engineer:
1. High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out
of the site.
2. Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the proposed access
drive(s).
3. Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points.
4. The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a
potential hazard.
5. The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-through
operation.
6. The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local
streets.
2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments
under any of the following circumstances:
a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility; and/or
b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT
facility; and/or
c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT
facility.
Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic study prepared by Charbonneau Engineering prepared in
September of 2013. This study calculated that the proposed development would be anticipated to generate
477 daily trip ends. Since the study was prepared, the project size has decreased slightly (from 154 to 152
units) and the unit mix has shifted slightly to include less independent living units and more memory care
units. Both of these changes would be anticipated to result in a slight decrease in trip generation, so that
the proposed development would be anticipated to generate about 450 vehicle trip ends per day. This study
found that adequate capacity is available at area intersections to accommodate traffic to and from the
proposed development, crash rates are low and anticipated to remain low in the area, and no mitigation
measures or additional turn lanes are necessary to accommodate development traffic. These standards
would be met with the proposed development.
Figure 5b of the traffic study shows that the anticipated volumes of total traffic using existing portions of
83rd Ave and Matthew Park St will be very low - less than 5 vehicles during either the morning or
afternoon peak hours – with 83rd Ave extended south to Ross St and Matthew Park St extended west to
83rd Ave.
18.810.040 Blocks
A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to
providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for
convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations
and opportunities of topography.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 58 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Sizes.
1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the
centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat
areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development; or
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads.
c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent
access.
Response: This property is currently part of a large block bounded by Hall Blvd, Bonita Rd, 81st Ave, and
Ross St that is approximately 5,300 feet in length. Alternative 1, by connecting 83rd Ave to Matthew Park St,
would reduce this to a 3,800-foot block of Hall Blvd, Murdock St, 83rd Ave, Matthew Park St, 81st Ave, and
Ross St, but would preclude any future ways to reduce this excessive block size. Thus Alternative 1 does not
meet this standard. The condition necessary for Alternative 1 to meet this standard would be extension of
83rd Ave south to Ross St, which would essentially make it the same as Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would provide one block of 83rd, Matthew Park, 81st, and Ross that would be 1,900 feet in length
and one of Hall, Murdock, 83rd, and Ross that would be about 2,800 feet in length. The proposed pathway
along an extension of Matthew Park St would reduce this length to 2,000 feet for pedestrians and cyclists.
Further reductions in block length (below those provided by Alternative 2) would not be in accordance with
the 600-foot access spacing of Hall Blvd. Alternative 2 meets this standard, and to ensure conformance to
standard the project has been conditioned to utilize Alternative 2. As conditioned, this standard is met.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided
when full street connection is exempted by paragraph 1 of this subsection B. Spacing
between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict
adherence to other standards in the code.
Response: As stated above, a full street connection of Matthew Park St from 83rd Ave to Hall Blvd is not
required in this case because it would not be in accordance with access management policies for Hall Blvd;
therefore this section is applicable. A pathway connection along the projection of Matthew Park St from 83rd
Ave to Hall Blvd would be such a connection. A second connection (within 330 feet of Ross St and the
Matthew Park pathway) would disrupt the proposed building footprint, and anticipated usage would be low
due to a lack of unique origins and destinations, which are sufficient reasons to not require a second pedestrian
connection.
A condition is recommended that will require the applicant shall obtain city approval of site plans showing a
minimum 10-foot pathway in a minimum 15-foot easement along an extension of Matthew Park St from 83rd
Ave to Hall Blvd. Construction of this pathway shall be complete before final building inspection. As
conditioned, this standard will be met.
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.
1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000
vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x
the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 59 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the
developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian
system off-site if justified by the development.
2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within
300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the
site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk
does not serve a neighborhood activity center).
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and
the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions
exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant
portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features
(large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the
sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to
the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify otherwise. Additional
consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case
basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage.
Response: The proposed plans show sidewalk connections to existing sidewalk on Matthew Park St, 83rd
Ave, and to the west on Ross St and to the south on Hall Blvd. There are no existing sidewalks to the east
on Ross St, and the sidewalks to the north on Hall Blvd on the same side of the street are much more than
300 feet away. This standard will be met by construction of the proposed sidewalks. 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 existing 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.
Response: This site is served by an existing sanitary sewer system. The applicant is proposing to connect
to the existing sanitary sewer line in 83rd Ave to the north. Sewer flow calculations have been submitted
indicating adequate sewer capacity. It is evident that an adequate sewerage system can be provided to serve
the proposed development. No other properties have been identified that would need to be served
through the subject property. This standard can be met by condition. Prior to obtaining the site permit 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 final inspection of the
proposed senior living facility the applicant shall obtain a pproval 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. As conditioned, this standard can be met.
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.
C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large
enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether
inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 60 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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).
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).
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.
The applicant has submitted a stormwater manag ement report with this proposal. The proposal is to treat
runoff from Hall Blvd and Ross St in streetside planters and detention pipes before discharging to existing
stormwater facilities. Stormfilter catch basins and underground detention are proposed f or runoff from
the northwestern and southern portions of the site. Runoff from the eastern portion of the site and 83rd
Ave will flow to a surface detention/water quality pond. However, the storm drainage report submitted is
for Alternative 1, which does meet code for several reasons, rather than Alternative 2. Storm drainage
characteristics are not likely to be significantly different between the two alternatives, but will be enough to
necessitate a revised stormwater management plan.
It is evident that an adequate storm drainage system can be provided to serve the proposed development.
No other properties have been identified that have storm drainage running across the subject property.
This standard can be met by condition. Prior to obtaining the site permit 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 final inspection of the proposed senior
living facility the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies of
the construction of the storm drainage system to serve the site and mitigation of any downstream impacts.
As conditioned, these standards can be met.
18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways
A. Bikeway extension.
1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where
identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike
lane requirements along collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be
determined by the city engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1.
2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city’s adopted
pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways
through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly
related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development.
3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this
document and on the adopted bicycle plan.
Response: Hall Blvd is designated as an Arterial route in Tigard’s Transportation System Plan, and thus a
bike lane is required as part of the subject property’s frontage improvements along Hall Blvd. The
proposed plans show adequate width to provide this bike lane. This standard would be met by the
proposed street construction. This standard is met.
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
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 61 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities
during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and:
1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the
underground services;
2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by
the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and
4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street
improvements when service connections are made.
B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the
development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground utility
facilities, and:
1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be
submitted to the city engineer for review and approval; and
2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct
vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic.
Response: The existing utility lines along Hall Blvd are mounted on overhead poles along the frontage of
the subject property. All existing overhead utilities serving or along the frontage of the subject property
shall be relocated underground as part of the frontage improvements for the proposed development as
described above. Any new utilities serving the subject property shall be placed under ground. Easements
have been shown on the proposed site plans.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the street and utility improvements standards have not been
fully met but can be as conditioned.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS:
Fire and Life Safety:
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) is the service provider for fire and emergency services. A condition
is recommended to require the applicant to provide approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) for
access and hydrant location prior to issuance of the site permit.
Public Water System:
The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water main under Ross St and is proposing to connect
the existing dead-end water mains under 83rd Ave and Matthew Park St to each other. It is evident that
adequate water service can be provided to serve the proposed development. No other properties have
been identified that would need to be served through the subject property. This standard can be met by
condition. Prior to obtaining the site permit the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer for
the final design of the water system to serve the site and any offsite improvements necessary to
accommodate this service. Prior to final inspection of the proposed senior living facility the applicant shall
obtain approval from the City Engineer of the construction of the water system to serve the site and any
offsite improvements necessary to accommodate this service.
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.
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 62 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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. With the 6-acre size
of this site, it is anticipated that a 1200-C permit will be necessary.
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 commencing construction, and all work shall be complete prior to final inspection of the proposed
development.
Survey Requirements
Final plats and other survey work on that level shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two
monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These
monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat
boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements
to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by:
GPS tie networked to the City’s GPS survey.
By random traverse using conventional surveying methods.
In addition, the applicant’s as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant’s engineer
shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water
valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State
Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91).
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.
The applicant has provided an impact analysis addressing the project’s impacts on public systems (see
project narrative pages 22-26). The applicant’s plans propose improvements or upgrades as needed to not
have any adverse impact on the city infrastructure. Existing public sanitary sewer and water late rals will
serve the site. There is no known deficiency in capacity. Since the site is a commercial development, there
should be no impact on the City’s parks system. A proportional share contribution will be made for the
resulting transportation impacts.
ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS
The Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) for this project is based on a use of
Continuing Care. The tax is $2,097 per unit for 152 units, a total of $318,744. The Continuing Care rate
recovers 25% of the traffic impact, making the 100% impact $1,274,976. This impact is reduced by the
removal of a single family residence, with a TDT of $6,665 and a recovery rate of 23% the 100% impact is
$28,978. The net impact on major street improvements countywide is therefore estimated to be $1,245,998.
The costs for 83rd and Matthew Park streets are based on the City’s “Skinny” street option. The total value
of these mitigated costs including the TIF assessment is 97% of the projected impacts, and therefore is
roughly proportionate. Transportation construction costs would be even less if the applicant constructs a
24-foot half-width of Hall Blvd (as allowed and discussed in findings pertaining to 18.810 below) rather
than the 36-foot half-width assumed in the study, meaning that the cost of the transportation-related
improvements will be even less than the calculated transportation system impact of the proposed
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING PAGE 63 OF 64 PDR2013-00001
3/17/2014 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
development.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the required public improvements are roughly proportional to
the impact of the development.
SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Public Works and Building Division were invited to comment but did not submit a
response.
The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it.
The City of Tigard Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and provided
comments which are included in the Access, Egress and Circulation section and Street and Utility
Improvements Standards section of this report. Recommended conditions are included in the conditions
of approval. A full copy of the Division’s comments are included as Exhibit “A” of this report.
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Notices were sent to Clean Water Services, Century Link, Comcast, and NW Natural Gas but no
comments were received from these utilities.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) has reviewed the proposal and submitted a comment letter
dated March 10, 2014 which states their approval criteria and requested conditions of approval. These
conditions generally pertain to access standards and hydrant placement, and their enforcement will be
ensured through Condition of Approval 19 which requires TVF&R to approve site access and hydrant
location prior to issuance of a site permit. In their comments, it was noted that alternate plan #1 did not
meet fire hydrant criteria pertaining to fire hydrant/fire department connections, whereas alternate plan #2
did conform to their criteria (Contact John Wolff, Deputy Fire Marshal II; 503-649-8577).
Oregon Department of Transportation reviewed the proposal and submitted a comment letter dated
March 4, 2014 (attached as Exhibit “D” of this report). In the letter ODOT affirms its permitting
authority for development within or affecting Hall Boulevard, and recommended seven conditions of
approval. The Tigard Engineering Division reviewed the ODOT letter and recommends inclusion of the
recommended conditions within the City’s land use decision. (Contact Seth Brumley, Development Review
Planner, 503-731-8234)
Portland General Electric commented on the proposal and confirmed that electric service is available for
the proposed development (Contact Tod L. Shattuck, Project Manager, 503-672-5466).
Frontier Communications submitted comments on February 25, 2014 in which they requested the
applicant make arrangements to remove Frontier owned lines from PGE poles prior to removal of the
poles. The coordination was requested in order to ensure continued service to customers in the area. A
condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance and continuity of service to their customers.
TriMet submitted verbal comments through a phone call with Associate Planner John Floyd on March 5,
2014 and in a letter dated March 6, 2014. In the comments TriMet stated a preference to keep the existing
bus stops where they are and did not expect a negative impact or lack of capacity as a result of the project,
but wanted to see a more clearly defined pedestrian path across the parking lot between the public sidewalk
and the building, in order to facilitate the path of riders (Contact Grant O’Connell, Planner II, 503-962-
6478). As discussed in findings above, a condition of approval has been added to add this pedestrian path.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality submitted verbal comments through a phone call with
Associate Planner John Floyd on March 5, 2014. They have no opposition to the project and are presently
BONAVENTURE OF TIGARD
CASE FILE NO. XX-XX
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING
3220 STATE ST, STE 200
SALEM, OR 97301
P: 503-373-3153 F:503-588-3531
2876 10/10/13
ARW HHW
SITE PERSPECTIVE13
2876-PERSPECTIVES.DWG
REVISIONSDATE:PROJECT NO.:
DESIGNED BY:
SH
E
E
T
OF
DRAWN BY:
83RD A
V
E
/
M
A
T
T
H
E
W
P
A
R
K
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
W
ROSS
S
T
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
W
BONAVENTURE OF TIGARD
CASE FILE NO. XX-XX
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING
3220 STATE ST, STE 200
SALEM, OR 97301
P: 503-373-3153 F:503-588-3531
2876 10/10/13
ARW HHW
SITE PERSPECTIVE23
2876-PERSPECTIVES.DWG
REVISIONSDATE:PROJECT NO.:
DESIGNED BY:
SH
E
E
T
OF
DRAWN BY:
HA
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
E
HA
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
E
BONAVENTURE OF TIGARD
CASE FILE NO. XX-XX
BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING
3220 STATE ST, STE 200
SALEM, OR 97301
P: 503-373-3153 F:503-588-3531
2876 10/10/13
ARW HHW
SITE PERSPECTIVE33
2876-PERSPECTIVES.DWG
REVISIONSDATE:PROJECT NO.:
DESIGNED BY:
SH
E
E
T
OF
DRAWN BY:
HA
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
HALL B
L
V
D
/
R
O
S
S
S
T
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
E
A
S
T
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Bonaventure Senior Living
8325 SW Ross Street
March 17, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing
CITY OF TIGARD
Comments After Publication of Staff Report
1.Letter from Barbara Benson, et. al.
2.Letter from Clean Water Services
3.Letter from Michael Urban
4.Letter from Edward House
5.Email from Laurie Sepp
6.Architectural Renderings & Cross Sections by
Applicant
7.Verbal Comments from ODOT (summarized later)
CITY OF TIGARD
Proposed Project:
6 acre site / two lots
Group Living (Progressive Senior Care)
72 Independent Living Units
57 beds for Assisted Living
24 beds for Memory Care
Landscaping, service facilities, 106/102 Parking Spaces
Street & bike/ped connections
New Single-Family Lot (Alternative 1)
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
Consolidated Permit Review
Planned Development Review (PDR 2013-00001)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2013-00005)
Adjustment to Parking Standards (VAR 2013-00006)
Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 2013-00006)
CITY OF TIGARD
Requested Exceptions
Planned Development Approval & Special Adjustment
1.Waive Requirement to extend SW 83rd (Alternative 1)
2.Increase in maximum building height
3.Exception to spacing standards along an arterial
4.Reduction of minimum parking requirements
5.Increase in the size of the allowed wall sign
CITY OF TIGARD
Staff Recommends Alternative No. 2
Alternative 2 complies with Title 18, Tigard
Transportation System Plan, Metro Regional
Transportation Plan & TVF&R Standards
Alternative 1 inconsistent with Title 18, Oregon
Highway Plan & Oregon Administrative Rules
City Engineer does not sanction Alternative 1
18.350.070.A.3.h – “The Commission can only grant an
exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by the
City Engineer.”
CITY OF TIGARD
Neighborhood Comments
General preference for Alternative 1 (or Alternative 2
with a gate) due to traffic concerns
Concern for traffic levels higher than single-family
Inappropriate/incompatible land use
Loss of property value
Noise/Light impacts associated with service facilities &
parking lots
Excessive Height / Visual Mass
Market saturation
CITY OF TIGARD
Traffic Impacts
Hall Blvd access expected to reduce traffic impacts to
neighborhood
Traffic Study by Charbonneau Engineering
Approximately 450 trip ends per day
Traffic Study found very low impact to existing
portions of 83rd / Matthew Park with less than 5 new
trips during am/pm peak hours (Alternative 2)
Expected LOS of “B” or higher
CITY OF TIGARD
Proposed Condition to Address Lighting
Concerns
Prior to issuance of sitework permits, applicant shall
submit a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting is
located or shielded in such a manner as to prevent direct
or sky-reflected glare beyond the lot line of the project
site.
CITY OF TIGARD
ODOT Verbal Comments of March 17, 2014
Expressed design concerns regarding proposed median
along Hall Boulevard (ODOT facility)
Prefer a non-mountable design
Wanted more input from TriMet, TVF&R, and City prior
to endorsing proposed access
CITY OF TIGARD
Approval Process
Applicant requests concurrent approval of Concept &
Detailed Development Plans
Separate approvals by Commission still required
CITY OF TIGARD
Concept Plan: Points of Consideration
Satisfaction with site & building design.
Satisfaction that project integrates with existing
neighborhood.
Satisfaction that project identifies methods for
promoting walkability in neighborhood/community,
and enhances/enables transit ridership.
Satisfaction that exceptions requested provide for a
superior design solution.