The URL can be used to link to this page

01/03/2011 - Packet , II Completeness TIGARD Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Name of Board, Commission or Committee January 3,2011 Date of Meeting ' 0-g/v --- Aa&Z Signature Doreen Laughlin 11/6/14 Date " City of Tigard sd TIGARD 14 Planning Commission Agenda y MEETING DATE: January 3, 2011; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. CONTINUED FROM 12/6/10 PUBLIC HEARING (PDR) 2010-00002/MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2010-00002 RED ROCK CENTER 7:05p.m. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Detailed Plan approval for an approximately 39,125 square foot general/ medical office and retail development in three buildings on a 4.09-acre site. The Detailed Plan proposal also includes approximately an acre of open space with a quarter of that in enhanced wetlands, substantial improvements to the public streets abutting the property's four frontages, 145 surface parking spaces,landscaping,lighting, and access and utility infrastructure improvements. A three-lot minor land partition is also requested. The Planning Commission previously approved the Concept Plan under PDR2008-00003. Sensitive Lands Review and approval was obtained for the associated Red Rock Creek drainage and wetland enhancements approved under Red Rock Center Planned Development Concept Plan Approval. LOCATION: 12625 SW 70th Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 2S101AB,Tax Lots 00100 and 00300. The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Road and east of SW 72nd Avenue,within the Tigard Triangle. ZONE: C-G (PD): General Commercial District. 6. WORK SESSION— ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 8:05 p.m. 7. OTHER BUSINESS (Officer Elections &Update on Assignment of CCI Responsibilities) 8:35 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JANUARY 3, 2011 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 11111 'q City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum E To: President Dave Walsh and Planning Commission Members From: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Re: Red Rock Center Detailed Development Plan,January 3, 2011 Hearing (Continuation from December 6, 2010 Hearing) Date: December 27, 2010 Background At the Planning Commission hearing on December 6, 2010 the Commission approved the proposed detailed development plan subject to: 1) revised findings consistent with the evidence available at the hearing, and 2) with the understanding that conditions 41, 42, and 62 be revisited by the Commission if the applicant, the City, and ODOT are able to reach agreement on modification of said conditions. The Commission continued the hearing to a time certain, until January 3, 2011 to consider the revised findings and conditions. The Revised Staff Report to the Planning Commission (attached) includes revised findings and conditions of approval based on the Planning Commission's deliberation on December 6, 2010 and subsequent negotiations with the applicant. These revisions are summarized below: Revised Findings Findings for Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria (page 25-26), Street and Utility Improvement Standards (page 49-50), Traffic Study (page 56-57), and Rough Proportionality (page 58) have been revised consistent with the evidence available at the hearing and the subsequent negotiations with the applicant.The revised findings led to the following revised conditions of approval. Revised Conditions The applicant, City and ODOT reached agreement on the modification of Conditions 41, 42, and 62: Conditions 41(ODOT recommendation to require $300,000 in off-site improvements to Hwy217/72"d Avenue intersection) and 42 (restrictive covenant for unmitigated impact) have been deleted. Instead, of these exactions, Conditions 37 and 38 have been revised to include additional improvements to SW Dartmouth between 69`h and 72"d Avenues. These alternative exactions meet both the nexus test, as they directly benefit the project, and the proportionality test, as shown in the Rough Proportionality Analysis. Condition 62 has been revised to reflect a reduced trip generation count for proportionate share contributions to the signalization funds for the intersections at Dartmouth and 68th and 70`h, consistent with the figures agreed to by the applicant and ODOT. Public Testimony/Staff Response John Frewing provided testimony opposed to Commission approval based on the alleged lack of City coordination with ODF&W with respect to the design of the storm water system to ensure dissipation of the energy and velocity of the newly piped Red Rock tributary. The Red Rock Center Concept Plan application included a comment, dated September 13, 2006, from Devin Simmons, Habitat Biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), to Andy Harris, Harris Stream Services. Mr. Simmons qualified the Red Rock stream resource as a very small tributary to Red Rock Creek fed primarily by parking lot runoff that shows little hydrology, is contained in an incised channel with a minimal riparian zone, and is very flashy in nature. Mr. Simmons' main concern was to dissipate the energy and velocity of the stream and to provide filtration of pollutants. Mr. Simmons supported the proposed stormwater plan and mitigation elements referred to in the applicant's DSL/CORPS Joint Permit (37247-FP Modified,June 24, 2008). Additionally, the applicant's Engineer,Andrew Reiter, P.E., P.L.S. with PACE Engineers, Inc., has provided the City with a Memorandum (attached) dated December 20, 2010 that clarifies how the proposed design feasibly addresses energy and velocity dissipation of the piped stream. The calculated velocity at the 25 year event is 8.12 feet per second. The CWS table 5-4 requires ODOT class 200 Riprap 2.5' thick. The proposed width and length of the proposed Riprap pad exceeds the required minimum size. The 8.12 feet per second is on the lower end of the table for that class of rock. The table allows a flow up to 12 feet per second. Staff finds that the design, as submitted, meets requirements consistent with ODF&W concerns and CWS and City standards for approval. Attachments: 1. Revised Staff Report to the Planning Commission 2. ODOT Comment 3. Staff Communication with John Frewing 4. PACE Engineering Memorandum Agenda Item: Hearing Date:January 3,2011 Time: 7:00PM REVISED STAFF REPORT TO THE q PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TI+GARD 120 DAYS = 2/11/2011 [REVISIONS ARE IDENTIFIED IN ITALICS AND BOLD] This Revised Staff Report to the Planning Commission includes revised findings and conditions of approval based on the Planning Commission's deliberation on December 6, 2010. The Commission approved the proposed detailed development plan subject to: 1) revised findings consistent with the evidence available at the hearing, and 2) with the understanding that conditions 41, 42, and 62 be revisited by the Commission if the applicant, the City and ODOT are able to reach agreement on modification of said conditions. 1)Findings for Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria(page 25-26), Street and Utility Improvement Standards (page49-50), Traffic Study (page `57), and Rough Proportionality (page 58) have been revised consistent with the evidence available at the hearing. 2) The applicant, City and ODOT reached agreement on the modification of Conditions 41, 42, and 62: Conditions 41 and 42 have been deleted, while Conditions 37 and 38 have been revised to include additional improvements to SW Dartmouth between 69th and 72nd Avenues. Condition 62 has been revised (now Condition 60) to reflect a reduced trip generation count for proportionate share contributions to the signalization funds for the intersections at Dartmouth and 68th and 70`h. SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: RED ROCK CENTER CASE NO.: Planned Development Review (PDR) PDR2010-00002 (Detailed Plan Review) Minor Land Partition (MLP) MLP2010-00002 APPLICANT/ Douglas Fry APPLICANT'S Anderson Dabrowski Architects, LLC OWNER: 908 Deborah Road REP: Attn:John Anderson Newberg, OR 97032 1430 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97214 APPLICANT'S Commercial Tennant Advisors APPLICANT'S SFA Design Group REP:: Attn: Brad Pihas REP: Attn: Ben Altman 22151 SW 55th Avenue, Suite 100 9020 SW Washington Square Dr. #350 Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland, OR 97223 REQUEST: The applicant requests Planned Development Detailed Plan approval for an approximately 39,125 square foot general/ medical office and retail development in three buildings on a 4.09-acre site. The Detailed Plan proposal also includes approximately an acre of open space with a quarter of that in enhanced wetlands, substantial improvements to the public streets abutting the property's four frontages, 145 surface parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, and access and utility infrastructure improvements. A three-lot minor land partition is also requested. The Planning Commission previously approved the Red Rock Center Concept Plan (PDR2008-00003) under Planning Commission's Final Order No. 2009-01. Sensitive Lands Review (SLR 2010-00002) and approval was also obtained for the associated Red Rock Creek drainage and wetland enhancements for the site. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 1 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 LOCATION: The property is located at 12625 SW 70th Avenue, south of SW Dartmouth Road and east of SW 72nd Avenue;Washington County Tax Map 2S101AB,Tax Lots 00100 and 00300. ZONES/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: C-G (PD): General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. (PD): The property has a planned development overlay designation. Theurposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1) To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; 2) To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; 3) To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; 4) To preserve to the greatest extent 5ossible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) t_arough the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; 5) To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and 6) To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. Although it is recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra-district pedestrian and transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied elsewhere in the City through the legislative process. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350 and 18.390, 18.420, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795,and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development Detailed Plan and Minor Land Partition will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following revised recommended Conditions of Approval and Findings within the staff report: RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 2 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE/BUILDING PERMIT. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. The approved phased detailed development plan includes a general, market driven time schedule for developing the site in phases, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for conceptual development plan review. 2. The Minor Land Partition shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. The applicant shall record the final partition plat with Washington County and the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded survey map within 15 days of recording to the City,to be incorporated into the record. 3. If the project is to be constructed in phases, the applicant must submit an overall phasing plan and a detailed plan for each phase to the Current Planning Division for review and approval. Each phase must show the limits of construction and appropriate transitions throughout the site and demonstrate consistency with all of the applicable planning stancards and conditions of approval. 4. Prior to issuance of site permits for each phase, the applicant shall submit a specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity,including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal,ground breaking,grading,public improvements,and building construction for each phase. 5. Prior to issuance of site permits for each phase, the applicant shall apply for Tree Removal Permits for trees proposed for removal during the respective phases. An erosion control plan shall be submitted with each phase that shows erosion control measures for the trees identified for removal for each phase. 6. Prior to issuance of site permits, the applicant shall submit a revised detail for the proposed engineered planting soils. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded reciprocal access and maintenance easement to ensure access and maintenance rights are recorded with the approved partition map. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit satisfactory legal evidence to establish the proposed joint parking use in the form of deeds,leases or contracts. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated,or if the uses change,the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit detail drawings showing appropriate railings for grade separated areas in the parking lot to prevent accidents. 10. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant submit a revised site plan showing wheel stops pursuant to TDC 18.765.040.J. 11. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit evidence that supports provision of a single loading space as sufficient to serve buildings A and B in the proposed configuration, or provide two loading spaces. 12. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the clear visions areas,consistent with visual clearance requirements. 13. Prior to issuance of any buildingermits, the applicant shall submit a revised Landscape Plan demonstrating compliance with the Level D buffer standards to include hedges on the southern property lines abutting the existing residences. 14. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed plans that show all service areas, including air conditioners and gas meters are screened from view. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 3 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 15. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a written sign-off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal) demonstrating that the proposed waste collection system location and design is compatible. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 2, 3, and 4, the applicant shall submit a revised elevation and detail drawings demonstrating that all roof-mounted equipment is screened from view from adjacent public streets. 17. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a revised dimensioned elevation demonstrating how the 50%ground floor windows standard is met. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a revised plan showing a building entrance for Building A at the corner of the intersection of Dartmouth and SW 70th, or otherwise demonstrate why it is not practicable to provide it. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 3, the applicant shall apply for a variance to the building setback standard for Building B pursuant to TDC 18.620.030.A. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, the applicant shall ap51y for a variance to the building setback standard for Building C or otherwise locate the building to meet tile standard. 21. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, and provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the a-Dplicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the front yard setback design stancards,TDC 18.620.030.A.3. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, and provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the parking location and landscape design standard,TDC 18.620.030.A.5. 23. Prior to issuance of site permit for Phase 4, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing that parking proposed for Tax Lot 300 is screened from SW 70th and SW Elmhurst by L-1 landscaping and screening. 24. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance (letter of credit or cash deposit) for the equivalent value of mitigation required (476 caliper inches of proposed mitigation tree planting x $125/caliper inch = $59,500). Any trees successfully planted and maintained in accordance with the approved Tree Mitigation Plan and TDC 18.790.060.D, will be credited against the assurance two years after all of the trees are planted. After the trees are planted, the project arborist shall submit a letter to the City Arborist to certify that all of the mitigation trees were properly planted per the approved Tree Mitigation Plan in order to set the starting point of the two year tree establishment period. After the two year establishment period, the applicant shall provide a re-inventory of the mitigation trees conducted by a certified arborist in order to document mitigation tree survival, and compliance with the approved Tree Mitigation Plan. The remaining value of caliper inches not successfully mitigated shall be paid as a fee in- lieu of planting from the original cash assurance. Failure to plant and provide documentation of mitigation tree planting by the project arborist within 6 months of certificate of occupancy issuance shall result in the forfeiture of the cash assurance to the City's tree fund. 25. Prior to site work, the applicant shall install fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shat be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 26. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the pro?osal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be includec on the Tree Protection Plan. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 4 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 27. The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. 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: Development Engineer, Gus Duenas (503-718-2470) for review and approval: 28. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit must be issued for this project to cover half-street improvements, sanitary sewer installation, water service installation, any other work in the public right-of-way or easement. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans stamped by a professional engineer shall be submitted for review to the Development Engineer. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and Planning Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. The PFI permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.tigard-or.gov). Any deviations from current standards will be as approved by the City and noted in the approved plans. 29. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee," and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 30. 72nd Avenue requires 46 feet of right-of-way on the east side as measured from centerline of right-of-way. Because this appears to be already done, the applicant is not recuired to dedicate any right-of-way on 72nd Avenue, except for the returns at its intersection with Dartmout-i Street. 31. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way at the intersection of 72nd and Dartmouth to accommodate the focal point design proposed for that corner of the intersection. That dedication shall integrate the focal point into the ultimate street section at that corner such that the improvements are installed at the ultimate right-of-way for that corner. 32. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to provide 47 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of ROW on SW Dartmouth Street including any additional right-of-way needed for the returns at the intersections with 72nd Avenue and 70th Avenue. 33. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall dedicate a 30-foot wide right-of-way for 70th Avenue including any additional right-of-way for the returns at the intersections. 34. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way on SW Elmhurst Street as measured from centerline of right-of-way. 35. Before the PFI permit is issued, provide storm drainage easements to cover all storm drain facilities transporting the previous creek flow wherever they are placed on the property, or in the right-of-way, including storm drain lines, manholes, and appurtenances. The easements need to be at least 15 feet in width, 7.5 feet on each side of the centerline of the pipe or structure. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 5 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 36. Prior to issuance of the PFI permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Development Engineer for approval as part of the permit issuance. These plans must show that the applicant will construct the following as part of this project: 37. Half-street improvements along SW 72nd Avenue, to include: a. 33 feet of pavement from centerline of right-of-way. Road structural section must be designed by a registered engineer, but as a minimum should be 12 inches of compacted aggregate and 8 inches of asphaltic concrete (AC); b. Concrete curb or curb and gutter as needed; c. Storm drainage and other underground utilities; d. 13-foot concrete sidewalk with tree wells or 8.5-foot sidewalk with 4-foot planter strip; e. Street trees sized and spaced per Triangle Standards; f. Street signs, street striping, and other traffic control devices; g. 5-foot bike lane exclusive of curb per Triangle Standards; h. Street light installation based on street light layout (to IES standards) by applicant's engineer to be approved by the City Engineer; i. Underground utilities; j. Coordinate with Tualatin Valley Water District for water improvements; k. Coordinate with the City of Tualatin to ensure that their 36-inch water transmission line is located and adequately protected during the installation of the new culvert crossing 72nd Avenue; and 1. Curb return at 72nd and Dartmouth reconstructed to ultimate section. 38. Half-street improvements along SW Dartmouth Street from 72nd Avenue to 69th Avenue, to include: a. 33 feet of pavement from centerline of right-of-way. Expansion shall be concrete pavement 7 inches thick (minimum) 4000 psi on top of 8 inches of compacted aggregate; b. Concrete curb and gutter installed at ultimate location; c. Commercial driveway as shown in the approved plans. Use steel reinforcement instead of wire mesh as shown in the City's standard drawings. Revised standard drawing for commercial driveway will require steel reinforcement; d. 6-foot concrete sidewalk placed at ultimate location and grade; e. Between 70th Avenue and 69th Avenue, sidewalk may be meandered to include curb tight installation as needed to conform to and minimize disturbance to the existing structures adjacent to the right of way; f. 7-foot planter strip exclusive of curb between the sidewalk and curb. Where necessary between 70th Avenue and 69th Avenue,planter strip can be located behind sidewalk in those locations where the sidewalk is meandered or installed curb tight and may vary in width to conform to the sidewalk installation; g. Storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and other underground utilities; _Z. Street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards; i. 5-foot marked bike lane per Triangle Standards; j. Street signs, street striping, and other traffic control devices as needed; k. Street light installation based on street light layout (to IES guidelines) by applicant's engineer to be approved by the City Engineer; 1. Curb return at 72nd and Dartmouth reconstructed to ultimate section; m. Curb return at 70th and Dartmouth constructed to ultimate section; n. Curb return at 69th and Dartmouth transitioned to the existing curb and sidewalk on 69th Avenue; and o. Construction of the focal point improvements within the right-of-way dedicated for that purpose in accordance with the City-approved final focal point design as shown in the approved set of drawings. Improvements shall be placed and integrated into the ultimate section of Dartmouth Street. 39. Full street improvements along SW 70th Avenue, to include: a. 36 feet of pavement curb to curb. The standard commercial street structural section is adequate for this street (12 inches of 1 1/2" - 0" compacted aggregate, 3 inches of 3/4" - 0" leveling course, and 4 inches of AC—2 inches of C mix on 2 inches of B mix); b. Concrete curb or curb and gutter as needed; c. 12-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side (or 8-foot walk with planter strip), 6-foot concrete sidewalk with 6-foot planter on the east side. Storm drainage and other underground utilities; d. Vertical alignment from existing conditions to meet current City standards; RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 6 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 e. Commercial driveway as shown in the approved plans. Use steel reinforcement instead of wire mesh as shown in the City's standard drawings. Revised standard drawing for commercial driveway will require steel reinforcement; f. Street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards; g. Street signs, street striping, and other traffic control devices as needed; and Street light installation based on street light layout (to IES guidelines) by applicant's engineer to be approved by the City Engineer. 40. Three-quarter street improvements in accordance with approved plans along SW Elmhurst Street, to include: a. 24 feet of pavement, 18 feet from centerline of right-of-way plus an additional 6 feet on the other side of the centerline. The standard commercial street structural section is adequate for this street (12 inches of 1 1/2" - 0" compacted aggregate, 3 inches of 3/4" - 0" leveling course, and 4 inches of AC—2 inches of C mix on 2 inches of B mix); b. Concrete curb or curb and gutter as needed; c. 12-foot concrete sidewalk per Triangle Standards; d. Tapers as needed; e. Commercial driveway as shown in the approved plans. Use steel reinforcement instead of wire mesh as shown in the City's standard drawings. Revised standard drawing for commercial driveway will require steel reinforcement; f. Storm drainage and other underground utilities; g. Street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards; h. Street signs, street striping, and other traffic control devices as needed; and i. Street light installation based on street light layout (to IES guidelines) by applicant's engineer to be approved by the City Engineer. 41. Construct the new culvert crossing 72nd Avenue and all improvements at the inlet and outfall of the new culvert. Culvert installation is to be performed in coordination with City plans for that intersection and in accordance with the approved development plans. Construction of the outfall improvements at the southwest corner of the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersection is also required and is subject to en ineering review under the PFI permit process and a revised CWS Service Provider Letter for offsite improvements. 42. If the project is to be constructed in phases, the applicant must submit an overall phasing plan and a detailed plan for each phase to the Development Engineer for review and approval. Each phase must show the limits of construction and appropriate transitions throughout the site. The phasing plan and detailed plan for Phase 2 (Building A) must be approved before the PFI permit is issued. 43. A 1200C permit shall be obtained. Permit application and plans shall be submitted to the Development Engineer. Permit approval must be obtained before the PFI permit is issued. 44. The development shall connect to the existing 8-inch water line at Elmhurst and 70th and extend that line to the west along Elmhurst to connect to the existing line on that street. Coordinate this work with TVWD. 45. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for proposed water connections and extensions prior to issuance of the City's PFI permit. 46. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Tualatin to ensure adequate measures are taken to protect their transmission line during construction of the new culvert crossing 72nd Avenue. These measures shall be implemented during the construction of the new culvert. 47. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards and in accordance with the approved plans. 48. The applicant shall provide on-site storm water detention in accordance with approved plans. 49. The applicant shall submit a future maintenance plan for the detention and water quality facilities that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. This plan must include a proposed contract with a company capable of maintaining the water quality facility in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 7 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 50. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall retain a professional engineer to monitor construction and perform visual observation of the water quality and detention facilities for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Certification from this professional engineer that the water quality and detention facilities have been constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications is required prior to final building inspection. 51. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. The plan shall clearly indicate that no parking shall be allowed on 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street. 52. The City Engineer may determine the necessity for, and require submittal and approval of, a construction access and parking plan for the building phase. If the City Engineer deems such a plan necessary, the applicant shall provide the plan prior to issuance of building permits. 53. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to the Development Engineer. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. 54. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from TVF&R for fire protection system and hydrant placement. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 55. Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy for eachhase, the applicant shall provide a revised site plan and design details for the required bicycle parking (19 spaces), demonstrating that the applicable location, access, and design requirements are met. 56. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for Phase 2, the applicant shall provide the following information to establish joint access: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. 57. Prior to issuance of building permits and any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through building construction, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. These reports must be provided to the City Arborist until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall,long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the 'project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. 58. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restrictions may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 8 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 59. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall call for final inspection by the Current Planning Department to ensure that the project is built according to the applicable standards and approved plan set. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Gus Duenas (503-718-2470) for review and approval: 60. Prior to final building inspection for each phase, the applicant shall pay their proportionate shares of the costs for signalization of the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersections. The amounts to be paid are computed in accordance with the formula previously developed under the Babies R Us development and are summarized as follows: Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue Dartmouth and 68`h Avenue Phase 2 - $22,771.75 Phase 2 - $3,508.77 Phase 3 - $15,655.58 Phase 3 - $2,506.77 Phase 4 - $17,078.81 Phase 4 - $3,007.52 Total All Phases: $55,506.14 Total All Phases: $9,023.06 Payment of the proportionate share shall be paid by phase as each phase becomes ready for final building inspection. 61. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements (including undergrounding of utilities and the new culvert crossing 72nd Avenue), obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for the improvements. 62. The applicant shall complete the installation of underground service to the development. 63. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City of Tigard Development Engineer with written confirmation from the professional engineer monitoring the work that the water quality and detention facilities have been constructed and completed in conformance with the design and specifications. 64. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City on City-furnished forms for the future maintenance of the water quality and detention facilities installed on the site. This agreement will be recorded and the facilities will be subject to future inspections by City staff to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement. This agreement shall include proof that a maintenance contract has been executed between the applicant and a company qualified to maintain the water quality facility in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 65. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall submit a final sight distance certification for each of the completed accesses on SW Dartmouth Street, 70th Avenue, and Elmhurst Street. 66. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a disc of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acce5table, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shat' 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). SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The subject site is vacant land located between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues and between SW Dartmouth and SW Elmhurst Streets. Staff reviewed City records and found no prior development action on the subject parcels. The subject site contains a mix of forest and grassland that slope moderately from the southeast toward the northwest. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 9 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The Planning Commission approved the Red Rock Concept Plan for PDR2008-00003 under Final Order No. 2009-01 PC,with direction to the applicant for the Detailed Plan. Sensitive Lands Review and approval (SLR 2010-00002) was also obtained for the associated Red Rock Creek drainage and wetland enhancements on portions of the subject site. Vicinity Information The subject 4.09-acre property is zoned primarily C-G (PD) with a 0.90 acre parcel in the southeast corner zoned MUE. The property is surrounded on the north and west by C-G (PD) zoned land, and on the south and east by land zoned MUE. The area to the south along Elmhurst zoned MUE, is a neighborhood in transition where, of a total of seven residences, two are vacant and two others are for sale. Of the three residences adjacent to the subject property, one appears inhabited. The area north across SW Dartmouth is developing with site development approvals for all parcels located between SW 68th and SW 72nd Proposal Description The applicant is requesting Planned Development Detailed Plan approval for an approximately 39,125 square foot general/ medical office and retail development in three buildings on a 4.09-acre site. The Detailed Plan proposal also includes approximately an acre of open space with a quarter of that in enhanced wetlands, substantial improvements to the public streets abutting the property's four frontages, 145 surfacearking spaces, landscaping, lighting, and access and utility infrastructure improvements. The proposal is a phased development in four phases, not to exceed seven years.A three-lot minor land partition is also requested. The applicant's Detailed Plan proposal differs from the approved Concept Plan in several ways: • uses proposed include medical and general office and retail, but no longer personal services (bank) and eating and drinking establishments (food services); • total floor area has been reduced from 45,800 to 39,125 square feet; • parking spaces have been reduced from 188 to 145 spaces; and • overall open space and landscaping has increased from 29% to 32%. In the Final Order for the Concept Plan approval, the Planning Commission instructed the applicant to address five subject areas when preparing their detailed plan for the site: 1. Green street concept; 2. Canopy coverage, and meeting with the Tree Board; 3. Ingress and egress on SW Elmhurst; 4. Traffic impact analysis addressing ODOT and City concerns; and 5. Retaining wall design and detail. These issues are addressed on pages 16-19 of this Staff Report and in the applicant's Compliance Narrative beginning on page 102. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES Chapter 18.390 Decision Making Procedures: Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. The applicant's submittal included the required information including an Impact Study for the proposed Red Rock Center. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 14, 2010, as required. Nine guests were in attendance. As recorded in the a?plicant's meeting notes, the issues raised at the meeting primarily concerned the impacts the development wou_d have on the adjacent neighbors on SW Elmhurst Street including retaining walls, screening and buffering, lighting on the pedestrian path and on the site generally. The major concern was the potential traffic impact on SW Elmhurst Street when SW 70th Avenue connected Elmhurst with SW Dartmouth and how the development's phasing related to those improvements. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 10 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal and be given an opportunity to provide written comments and/or oral testimony'prior to a decision being made. On October 20, 2010 the City sent a request for comments to agencies and utisties. On November 4, 2010, the City posted the site with a notice. On November 15, 2010 the City provided notice of hearing to neighbors within 500 feet and to interested parties. On November 18, 2010 the City published an advertisement in the Tigard Times. Staff received one written comment from neighbors regarding this application: JoAnne Nordling (7105 SW Elmhurst) I have attended many of the meetings and am feeling positive about the plans except for my concern about moving traffic to and from the rear of the development onto Elmhurst street. One concern is that access onto 72nd street from Elmhurst is very difficult because of the heavy traffic on 72nd and the poor visibility from Elmhurst. But my primary concern is this: Elmhurst is still a residential, dead end street. Under the NPO plan, which I took part in formulating, all residential, dead end streets are to remain that way until commercial development has taken place along that street. I trust the city will keep that pledge. Response: The City's Development Review Engineer recommends phasing street improvements: 1) full street improvement of SW 70th from SW Dartmouth to a point that includes the main access to Phase 2 (Building A) of the proposed development and 2) completion of SW 70th Avenue through to SW Elmhurst and the SW Elmhurst frontage improvements during Phase 4 (Building C) with development of Tax Lot 300, as market conditions permit, consistent with the planned development phasing standards. John Frewing Mr. Frewing submitted testimony at the Commission's December 6, 2010 hearing. He questioned whether: 1) the applicant's proposal is designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible and suggested the Commission require an alternate site plan, 2) the applicant's proposal is located in a floodway or floodway fringe and should therefore be subject to development standards within floodplains, and 3) the City has sufficiently coordinated its review with other Agencies, in particular ODF&W, to ensure dissipation of the energy and velocity of the newly piped Red Rock tributary. Response: 1) The Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with five issues to be addressed by the applicant for the Detailed Development Plan. The issue of tree canopy related to preservation of existing trees on site. The applicant had previously proposed alternative site plans preserving several trees in the southeast section of the site in thearking lot located on Tax Lot 300. However, the proposed Detailed Development Plan does not identify any trees for preservation outside of Tract A, where three trees have been preserved in the development plan prepared for SLR2010-00002. The applicant reasoned that off-site mitigation and on-site wetland and vegetated corridor enhancement to the extent proposed does preserve the natural features of the site to the greatest degree possible while allowing a commercially viable development site. During the December 6, 2010 hearing the Commission deliberated and did not require any alternative site plan, but instead provisionally approved the Detail Development Plan as consistent with TDC 18.350.070.a.4.A.1. fl2 The project area, at elevation 210 to 250, is approximately 1,250 feet east of the Red Rock Creek oodplain at elevation 185. The area of alteration is not within or adjacent to a floodplain (comprised of the f Ioodway and flood fringe). Therefore, TDC 18.775.020.G does not apply. 3) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on the project in an email dated September 13, 2006 from Devin Simmons, Habitat Biologist with ODFW, to Andy Harris, Harris Stream Services. Mr. Simmons qualified the stream resource as a very small tributary to Red Rock Creek, fed primarily by parking lot runoff that shows little hydrology, is contained in an incised channel with a minimal riparian zone and is very flashyin nature.Mr. Simmons'main concern is to dissipate the energy and velocity of the stream and to providaltration of pollutants. Mr. Simmons supports the proposed stormwater plan and mitigation elements ref erred to in the applicant's DSL/CORPS Joint Permit (37247-FP Modified,June 24, 2008). RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 11 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 12 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Additionally, the applicant's Engineer, Andrew Reiter, PE., P.L.S. with PACE Engineers, Inc. has provided the City with a Memorandum dated December 20, 2010 that clarifies how the proposed design feasibly addresses energy and velocity dissipation of the piped stream. The calculated velocity at the 25 year event is 8.12 feet per second. The CWS table 5-4 requires ODOT class 200 Riprap 2.5' thick. The proposed width and length of the proposed Riprap pad exceeds the required minimum size. The 8.12 feet per second is on the lower end of the table for that class of rock. The table allows a flow up to 12 feet per second. The design as submitted meets requirements, consistent with ODF&W concerns, and CWS and City standards for approval. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission approved the Red Rock Concept Plan for PDR2008-00003 under Final Order No. 2009-01 PC, with direction to the applicant for the Detailed Plan. The findings for the Concept Plan approval are not repeated below but are included by reference (Final Order No. 2009-01 PC). The applicant submitted a narrative and plan set entitled: Red Rock Center, Commercial Planned Development Detailed Development Plan, dated September 2, 2010 and as revised 9-17-10, 9-29-10, and 10-11-10. The applicant has not requested any variances or adjustments to the applicable development code standards. The applicant has not requested a modification to the strict application of the standards in those chapters that could be used as guidelines under the planned development standards. Therefore, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with all of the applicable development code standards in the following listed chapters: 18.350 (Planned Developments) 18.420 (Minor Land Partitions) 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.705* (Access, Egress and Circulation) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745* (Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765* (Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780* (Signs) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795* (Vision Clearance) 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvements) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures, Impact Study) *According to Section 18.350.100 of the Planned Development Chapter, these chapters are utilised as guidelines, and strict compliance is not necessa y inhere a development provides alternative designs and methods that promote the purpose of the PD Chapter. SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 18.350— (PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS) 18.350.010 Purpose: The six purposes of the planned development overlay zone were addressed in the findings for the Concept Plan review and approval under Final Order No. 2009-01PC. 18.350.020 Process: A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 13 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Eighty percent of the subject site (Tax Lot 100) currently has a PD overlay. Therefore, the applicant is required to address the provisions of the Planned Development chapter in their application for development. In addition, the applicant proposes to extend the overlay to cover the remainder of development site (Tax Lot 300). B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. The applicant received Concept Plan approval under Final Order No. 2009-01PC. The subject application is for Detailed Plan approval. The planned development overlay zone (PD) already exists over a majority (Tax Lot 100, 80%) of the subject site. The applicant is proposing to extend the PD overlay to the remaining portions of the site (It 300). C. Decision-making process. 1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. The applicant received Concept Plan approval under Final Order No. 2009-01PC. 2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan. The applicant has applied for review of the Detailed Plan. Pursuant to 18.390.050, the Planning Commission will hear the proposal to ensure it is substantially in compliance with the approved Concept Plan. 3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan. The applicant has applied for the (PD) overlay for Tax Lot 300, which will be applied to the site with approval of the Detailed Plan. 4. Applicants may choose to submit the concept plan and detailed plan for concurrent review subject to meeting all of the approval criteria for each approval. All applicants are advised that the purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of the detailed development plan and overlay zone. The applicant previously received approval for the Concept Plan and is now applying for Detailed Plan review. The Planning Commission gave the applicant clear direction on the Concept Plan for incorporation into the Detailed Plan. As reviewed in this Staff Report, the proposal meets, or has been conditioned to meet, all of the applicable approval criteria. 5. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone, once construction of the detailed plan has been completed; subsequent applications conforming to the detailed plan shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the chapter which apply to the particular land use application. This standard is applicable once construction of the detailed plan is completed. This standard is meant to apply to future modification or expansion of an existing development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 6. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for preliminary plat approval and the applications shall be heard concurrently with the detailed plan. The proposal includes a minor land partition to subdivide Tax Lot 100 into three separate lots (see Preliminary Plat, C2.0). The minor land partition is incorporated with the Detailed Plan review and will be heard concurrently. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 14 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 FINDING: The applicant has Concept Plan approval under Final Order No. 2009-01 PC. The applicant has applied for Detailed Plan review and (PD) overlay over Tax Lot 300. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the applicable process standards of the Planned Development chapter. 18.350.030 Administrative Provisions: Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after 1-1/2 years unless an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a preliminary plat approval or request for extension is filed. Action on the detailed development plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.070. On January 26, 2009, the Commission approved the Concept Plan (PDR2008-00003) under Final Order No. 2009- 01PC. The decision was final on February 13, 2009 and effective on March 3, 2009. On September 3, 2010, the applicant submitted their application for Detailed Plan review, within the 11/2 year validity period. Therefore, the Concept Plan has not expired. Zoning map designation. The planned development overlay zone application shall be concurrently approved if the detailed development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. The zoning map shall be amended to indicate the approved planned development designation for the subject development site. The approval of the planned development overlay zone shall not expire. Tax Lot 100 already has the planned development (PD) overlay. The applicant has applied for the (PD) overlay to Tax Lot 300 with this application. Provided the Commission approves the Detailed Plan, the (PD) overlay zone will be concurrently approved and shall not expire. D. Phased development. 1. The Commission shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for conceptual development plan review. The applicant has applied for a phased detail development plan (see below), consistent with the maximum seven year validity period. 2. The criteria for approving a phased detail development plan proposal are that: a) The public facilities shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; and b) The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard. The applicant's narrative provides the following phased detail development plan: The general development schedule is planned to proceed in four phases,with the Detailed Plan being driven by the triggering factors as outlined below. It is the applicant's intent to proceed with detailed planning and site construction as expeditiously as possible, given current weak market conditions. However, the final design of building and initial construction will be dependent upon signing a major tenant for each of the three buildings. Phase 1: Storm drainage improvements within Dartmouth right-of-way. Construction was initiated in October 2010 pursuant to Concept Plan approval and Sensitive Lands Review approval (SLR 2010-00002). Phase 2: Detailed Development Plan and Construction of Initial Building (A). This phase will include the final design of the building for the initial major tenant,including sidewalks, landscaping, and other site amenities required by the initial tenant. It will also include completion of the enhancements for the on-site wetland area, and Phase 2 parking requirements. Public improvements will include construction of RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 15 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 improvements to SW 72nd Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street, and full street improvements to the northern 205 linear feet of SW 70th Avenue right-of-way to accommodate the main entrance to the site. Phase 3: Work on this phase will be driven by signing of an Anchor Tenant for Building (B), and will complete any buildings,parking, site amenities, and landscaping required by the various tenants and the development code. Phase 4: Work on this phase will be driven by signing of the final Anchor Tenant for Building (C), and will include completion of any remaining uncompleted site improvements including the remaining southern portion of the SW 70th Avenue to SW Elmhurst and SW Elmhurst and may be financed by a Local Improvement District. The timing for Phases 2, 3, and 4 are market driven. These phases could occur concurrently if tenants are secured or market conditions so warrant construction sooner rather than later. The applicant states they understand that the code requires all phases to be completed within seven years or the applicant will be required to apply for a new concept plan. Staff finds that the proposed phased development plan is consistent with the phased development standards that require completion within seven years, public facilities to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase, and the development and occupancy of any phase will not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. Recommended conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure consistency with these standards as shown in the findings for Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. In addition, if the project is to be constructed in phases, the applicant must submit an overall phasing plan and a detailed plan for each phase to the Current Planning Division for review and approval. Each phase must show the limits of construction and appropriate transitions throughout the site and demonstrate consistency with all of the applicable planning standards and conditions of approval. Substantial modifications to concept plan. If the Planning Commission finds that the detailed development plan or preliminary plat does not substantially conform to the concept plan, a new concept plan shall be required. Based on the applicant's plan set and narrative and the findings in this Staff Report (page 25), staff recommends the Commission find that the proposed Detailed Plan substantially conforms to the approved Concept Plan. However,if the Commission finds that the proposed Detailed Plan does not substantially conform to the approved Concept Plan, a new Concept Plan shall be required. Noncompliance. Noncompliance with an approved detailed development plan shall be a violation of this chapter. Issuance of occupancy permits. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved detailed development plan including landscaping and recreation areas before any occupancy permits are issued. However, when the Director determines that immediate execution of any feature of an approved detailed development plan is impractical due to climatic conditions, unavailability of materials, or other temporary conditions, the Director shall, as a precondition of the issuance of a required permit, require the posting of a performance bond or other surety to secure execution of the feature at a time certain not to exceed one year. A planning inspection shall be required to ensure the development is completed in accordance with the approved detailed development plan. FINDING: The applicant timely applied for Detailed Plan approval prior to the 18-month expiration of the approved Concept Plan. The applicant has applied for the (PD) overlay to Tax Lot 300 with this application. Provided the Commission finds that the proposed Detailed Plan substantially conforms to the approved Concept Plan and approves the Detailed Plan, the (PD) overlay zone will be concurrently approved and shall not expire. The applicant is proposing a phased development plan, consistent with provision of permanent public facilities with each phase and development of all RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 16 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 phases within the maximum phasing period of seven years. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the administrative provisions of the Planned Development Chapter. The following conditions of approval will ensure these standards are met. CONDITIONS: • If the project is to be constructed in phases, the applicant must submit an overall phasing plan and a detailed plan for each phase to the Current Planning Division for review and approval. Each phase must show the limits of construction and appropriate transitions throughout the site and demonstrate consistency with all of the applicable planning standards and conditions of approval. • The approved phased detailed development plan includes a general, market driven time schedule for developing the site in phases, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for conceptual development plan review. • Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall contact the Current Planning Division to conduct an inspection to verify that the proposal was completed in accordance with this decision and the approved plans. 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. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection,preservation, and/or management. 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. 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. 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. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. The Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with direction for the applicant to address five issue areas in the Detailed Plan. The applicant's complete responses to the Commission's conditions can be found beginning on page 102 of the Compliance Narrative. Below, the issue areas are numbered one through five with a summary of the applicant's responses followed by staff comment. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 17 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 1. Green Street Concept The Commission was interested in application of green street concepts for storm water detention and treatment throughout the project. The applicant states that "because of the restrictions of slope and development intensity public streets are more appropriate for green designs." However, the proposal does include 1) a low flow diversion re-created as an open channel of the converted Red Rock Creek tributary to feed the wetland, 2) trees along both sides of the sidewalk on SW 70th which frame the walkway and provide increased canopy cover, and 3) off-site landscaping between the wetland and the sidewalk within the right-of-way along the 72nd Avenue frontage. Staff finds that, in addition to these items listed by the applicant, the proposed plan also includes the use of structural soils for the parking lot trees and for the 72nd Avenue street trees to enhance canopy coverage and reduce stormwater volumes. Measures to limit impervious surfaces include pavers to link tree wells in SW 70th Avenue and a gravel path located adjacent to the wetland and within buffers through the site. (See Tree Plan, Sheet LD3.0) 2. Canopy coverage, and meeting with the Tree Board The Commission requested that the applicant meet with the Tree Board to discuss canopy coverage for the proposed development and receive input. The applicant met with the Tree Board at their January 28, 2009 meeting. According to the meeting minutes,Mr. Bushnell described the following elements of the proposal, including 1) possible retention of existing trees in the NE portion of the site, although preservation of the wetland forced intensification of the remaining portions of the site, 2) use of structural soils,bio swales, and permeable paving to improve tree growth, and 3) an ADA crushed granite path to limit impervious pavement. In support of the proposal, the Tree Board thanked Mr. Bushnell for including these measures in the proposed development. (See Pre-Application Conference tab, page 5 of Tree Board Minutes) The applicant's response to the Commission's concern for adequate canopy are shown in the plan set and narrative, including: 1) 46 large trees (3-4") within the parking lot to increase canopy cover, 2) a double row of trees provided along 70th Street framing the sidewalk adjacent to the lower parking lot, 3) additional trees and landscaping for the Focal Point intersection, 4) additional trees within the wetland area, and 5) Project Landscape Architect review of the Tree Plan with the City Arborist to ensure the desired canopy cover. According to the applicant's Tree Plan (LD3.0), a total of 193 trees are being planted: 162 on-site and 31 street trees in rights-of-way. The applicant estimates the total canopy coverage for the parking field would be approximately 76%. This figure is in excess of the target 30% for parking lots and 40% City-wide, as identified below in the summary of tree canopy goals outlined in the Urban Forest Master Plan and Tigard's Comprehensive Plan: • American Forests has established a citywide tree canopy target goal for cities in the Pacific Northwest of 40%. This goal has been adopted and met or surpassed by a number of cities in the Portland metro area. • Tigard's current citywide tree canopy is 24% and its citywide tree canopy goal set in the Urban Forestry Master Plan is 40%by the year 2047. • The City's GIS Division assisted in the development of the 40% canopy goal by modeling future development scenarios along with future planting opportunities. • One of the main opportunity areas for achieving 40% tree canopy was found to be within Tigard's parking lot acreage. Of the 508.77 acres of parking lot sampled during the Urban Forestry Master Plan, the existing tree canopy was at 6%. • Many cities throughout the U.S. have adopted a 50% canopy target within their development codes for parking lots. Tigard staff is considering proposing a more moderate 30% canopy target for parking lots as part of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project. • This 30% canopy target for parking lots is consistent with the assumptions that were made when setting the citywide canopy target of 40%. • There are proven methods available for achieving tree canopy within parking lots while preserving space for parking. The Red Rock Center project is working with the City to implement these methods to meet or exceed 30% tree canopy for their parking lot. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 18 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 3. Alternatives to Ingress and Egress on SW Elmhurst The Commission heard testimony from neighbors on SW Elmhurst that through-traffic from the proposed development should be postponed until the subject property abutting SW Elmhurst (Tax Lot 300) is developed commercially. The applicant discussed the phasing plan for the proposed development with concerned neighbors identifying that Tax Lot 300 would be developed as the 4th phase when the market would support development of building C. Potentially, the SW Elmhurst access would not occur until after the adjoining residential uses had been sold for commercial use at some point in the future. Currently, two of the three properties adjacent to the subject site contain vacant dwellings, and two of the four dwellings south of Elmhurst are either for sale or rent,indicating a neighborhood in transition. The City's Development Review Engineer recommends full street improvement of SW 70th from SW Dartmouth to a point that includes the main access to Phase 2 (Building A) of the proposed development; completion of SW 70th Avenue through to SW Elmhurst and the SW Elmhurst frontage improvements would then occur during Phase 4 (Building C)with development of Tax Lot 300, as market conditions permit, consistent with the planned development phasing standards. (See Preliminary Plan and Profile for SW Elmhurst,Sheets C6.1 and C6.2) 4. Traffic Impact Analysis Addressing ODOT and City Concerns July 12, 2010, representatives of the applicant's Design Team met with ODOT and the City to discuss concerns raised by ODOT at the Concept Plan level. Appropriate methodology and proportionality relative to off-site traffic capacity improvements raised by ODOT were discussed. ODOT wanted the project's traffic impacts compared to those addressed in the Tigard Retail Center (Target - 2007). Their concern was the linkage to off-site improvements which had been conditioned for the Target project, but never built. Recognizing that the project is to be phased is also to be considered relative to proportional impacts. The consensus of the group was that traffic conditions have remained largely unchanged since traffic analyses were performed for the Tigard Retail Center and the Red Rock Center in 2007 and 2008 respectively. As a result, there was no need to recreate traffic analyses previously performed for both projects. Hence, the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Red Rock Center detailed development plan used the trip distribution pattern developed for the prior 2008 traffic impact study. The scope of the analysis submitted was agreed upon by all three parties at that meeting. The applicant's Traffic Engineer has provided a supplemental impact assessment (Lancaster Traffic Impact Study Update, dated September 3, 2010) based on the Detailed Plan refinements and compared the results with the Tigard Retail Center Study. The updated report documents that the total traffic generation from Red Rock Center will only be 11% and that Phase 2 (Building A) will only generate 4.5% of the volumes projected for The Tigard Retail Center. Based on this analysis, Lancaster finds that the off-site improvements listed by ODOT are not proportional to the impacts of this project. Seth Brumley, Associate Planner with ODOT, agreed with the City in an Email dated December 20, 2010 that the off-site improvements to the Hwy 217/72nd Avenue Interchange would not be proportional, given additional improvements to SW Dartmouth Street adjacent to the subject project. 5. Retaining Wall Design and Detail The Commission asked for more detail for the retaining walls proposed between the development and the adjoining residential properties to the south and, particularly, for those walls adjacent to the wetland feature on the west and facing SW Dartmouth on the north. The Detailed Plan Architectural Drawings (Sheets A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3) provide for refined grading compared to the approved Concept Plan. The refined site grading improves grade matching between the site and the abutting residential properties to the south. The refined grading plan allows for elimination of the retaining walls south of Pad C and along the west side of the southern parking lot, adjacent to the residential uses. Vegetative buffering and screening of the parking lot is provided along these two property lines. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 19 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The retaining wall along the 70`h Street frontage is located on-site, with the parking lot approximately 9 feet below the grade of the street. Along this frontage the sidewalk is framed with trees along both sides, together with supplemental shrubbery to soften the streetscape and screen and buffer the parking lot. Along the Dartmouth frontage, Building A is stepped down the grade to create the appearance of three different buildings. Therefore, along this portion of the Dartmouth frontage no retaining wall is proposed. Further west along Dartmouth, the applicant has used retaining walls to create a flat useable building pad. The retaining wall for Pad B varies from 3 feet in height just west of the access drive to 14 feet in height at the pathway entry. Street trees along this section help to soften the appearance of the wall (see A2.2 and A2.3). However, the wall does not step back from the street and there is no additional planting to soften the impact for the pedestrian experience. The Commission may wish to determine whether an alternative design to break up the mass of this wall could be achieved. Retaining walls adjacent to the wetland have been stepped back, providing pedestrian access to the wetland with a path that runs adjacent to the wetland and switches back to a look-out at the Pad B level. The proposed terraced area is modulated by refined detailing of railings and entry pylons, trees, landscaping, benches and pervious surface pathways. (See Site Details, Sheets A2.3,LD3.O,LD3.1) The applicant proposes textured lock&load retaining wall materials with color variation to give the walls character (see Site Detail, Sheet A2.3 and Materials Board, Sheet A3.4). The Commission may wish to further qualify this material selection to be satisfied that the scale, texture, and color is appropriate for its potential significant impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic as seen from SW Dartmouth and SW 72nd Avenue and supports the Tigard Triangle Design principles (18.620.010) to utilize streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. FINDING: Based on the applicant's plan set and narrative responses, Staff finds that the proposed Detailed Development Plan includes refinements from the Concept Plan that are generally more consistent with the Concept Plan Approval Criteria. The Commission may find that the applicant's Detailed Development Plan substantially addresses the five issues set out by the Commission for consideration. However, the Commission may wish to further consider these issues, or others, that arise in this Staff Report. 18.350.060 Detailed Development 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, the additional information required by Section 18.35O.O4O.B and the approval criteria under Section 13.350.070. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information: 1. Contour intervals of two to five feet, depending on slope gradients, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed. 2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, and building construction for each phase. 3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants. The applicant's narrative (Red Rock Center, Commercial Planned Development Detailed Development Plan, dated September 2, 2010 and as revised 9-17-10, 9-29-10, and 10-11-10) and plan set (Red Rock Center Detailed Plan Application) include the required information,with the exception of a specific development schedule. Therefore, a condition of approval shall require the applicant to submit a specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking,grading,public improvements, and building construction for each phase. C. Compliance with specific development standards. The Detailed Development Plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions,with the following modifications: RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 20 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80% of the minimum size required in the base zone. In the C-G and MUE zones there is no minimum lot size. Minimum lot width is 50 feet, but pursuant to this standard, the minimum lot width does not apply. 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; According to the applicant's submittal, the proposed site coverage is approximately 68%, consistent with this standard. 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 setback from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1- 1/2 times the height of the building. This standard applies to residential zones but not to the C-G or MUE zones. 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; Chapter 18.360 does not apply to planned developments. The base zone standards in Table 18.520.2 require 20 foot setbacks from adjacent residential zoning districts. No residential zoning districts abut the subject site. Therefore, this standard does not apply. However, the proposal does include 20-foot setback otherwise required by the buffering and screening standards for adjacent residential use. b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply except that: (1)All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; (2) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens facing a street. This setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing movements are accounted for. (3) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an attached single- family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided. This setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing movements are accounted for. The three proposed building pads are separated from each other by parking lots and accessways from a minimum of 98 feet and a maximum of 148 feet, well in excesses of UBC fire code requirements. Setback requirements for garages do not apply to the proposed commercial development. c. If seeking to modify the base zone setbacks, 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. The applicant does not seek to modify the base zone setbacks. 5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Other provisions of the base zone are reviewed below under the Commercial Zoning District Chapter. As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development plan is consistent with all of the applicable base zone standards. FINDING: As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed detailed plan is consistent with the RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 21 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 applicable Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements except with the provision of a specific development schedule. With the following recommended condition requiring the applicant to submit a specific development schedule, the standards are met. CONDITION: • The applicant shall submit a specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking,grading,public improvements, and building construction for each phase. 18.350.070 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: a. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount of parking; No residential development has been proposed. According to Table 1 of the applicant's narrative for the Detailed Development Plan, lot coverage has increased. Lot coverage for Building A has increased 900 square feet (8%) from 10,500 to 11,400 square feet. Lot coverage for Building B has increased 2,925 square feet (38%) from 4,800 to 7,725 square feet. Building C coverage remains the same. Overall, building coverage is increased 2.73% as a percentage of the total site from 17.18% to 19.91%. Although the net increase in building coverage is deminimus, the plain reading of this standard has not been met. According to Table 1 of the applicant's narrative, parking has been reduced 23% from 188 to 145 spaces. The reduction in parking reflects the reduction in overall building square footage (from two to one story development for Building A) and reduction in the number and type of proposed uses. Although the proposed parking is reduced, the Detailed Development Plan would remain consistent with the code requirements for on-site parking. Therefore, this criterion is met. b. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping; According to Table 1 of the applicant's narrative for the Detailed Development Plan, the amount of overall open space (including the wetland in Tract A) and landscaping has increased 4.37% from 41,463 square feet (28.09%) to 47,493 square feet (32.46%). Therefore, this criterion is met. c. The change involves a change in use; According to the applicant's narrative, there has been no change in the proposed uses. The proposed uses for the Detailed Development Plan include retail and general and medical office, while the bank and restaurant uses, additionally proposed under the Concept Plan, have been dropped. The change involves fewer uses but no new uses. Therefore, this criterion is met. d. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard; and No change is proposed that further commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to potential hazard. Therefore, this criterion is met. e. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 22 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The intensity of the development has been reduced by a reduction in total building square feet and associated parking. The proposed Detailed Development Plan does not include any major shifts in the location of buildings, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements.Therefore,this criterion is met. 2. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420, Partitions, and 18.430, Subdivisions, shall be met if applicable; As shown in the Preliminary Partition Plat (C2.0), the applicant has applied to partition the property concurrently with the planned development detailed plan approval; therefore, all partition criteria must be met. Compliance with the partition approval criteria is discussed in greater detail in the findings for Chapter 18.430, below. The application meets or has been conditioned such that the minor land partition provisions are met. Therefore this criterion is met. 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. The applicant has not requested any modifications to the standards in the chapters listed which may be utilized as guidelines for planned developments (see page 11). The applicant has not applied for a variance or an adjustment. Therefore, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with all applicable development code standards reviewed in this Report. 4. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: (1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; The Commission approved the applicant's Concept Plan with five issues to be addressed by the applicant for the Detailed Development Plan. The issue of tree canopy related to preservation of existing trees on site. The applicant had previously considered preserving several trees in the southeast section of the site in the parking lot on located on Tax Lot 300. However, the proposed Detailed Development Plan does not identify any trees for preservation outside of Tract A, where three trees have been preserved in the development plan prepared for SLR 2010-00002. The Commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate that the buildings and other site elements have been designed and located to preserve the existing trees to the greatest degree possible. (2) 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 A geotechnical report has been prepared, which confirms there are no known geologic hazards in the immediate area. The report does identify perched ground water and moderate compressible soil considerations, but provides design and grading recommendations to appropriately address these issues. (3) Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,where possible. The primary visual exposure of the site is to the north, and secondarily from the west with wind sheltering by trees on the south. At the same time, the site has nearly the same linear width exposure to the south. However, existing trees to the south will limit wintertime sun exposure, but also help to block southern winds. The trees also block any views to the south. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 23 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The functional purposes of the proposed buildings respond more to the orientation of the buildings to the street and to parking than to solar access. Therefore serious consideration was not given to orienting the buildings to take full advantage of sun and wind into extensive consideration. While the west site width is narrow, an effort was made to utilize the sites sloping topography and to create as much orientation of the building facades, walks, plazas, etc., towards the wetland as possible, as this is considered the most significant design feature of the site. b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: (1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between singlefamily and multi- family residential, and residential and commercial uses; Residential single-family dwellings exist abutting the southern property line of Tax Lot 100 and the western property line of Tax Lot 300. According to the applicant's narrative and plan set buffering has been shown in the proposed Detailed Development Plan, or otherwise conditioned . Therefore, this criterion is met. (2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c)The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. A Landscape Architect has designed the landscaping, plantings, and buffers for the entire site, including for the parking areas adjacent to street frontages. Table 18.745.1 requires D level buffering between proposed commercial uses and abutting single family residential uses. Consistent with D level buffering (Table 18.745.2), the Landscape Plan provides Option 3 buffering (10 feet) between the south parking lot and the residential uses, and Option 1 buffering (20 feet) between Buildings B and C and the residential uses. However, as shown in the applicant's Landscape Plan (LD3.1) the Option 1 screening does not appear to include a hedge, but instead is labeled "Li Buffer". The L1 landscaping and screening standard does not include a hedge. Since a hedge would provide screening of sufficient height to provide a visual barrier, this element is important to protect adjoining residential use. A condition to ensure adequate buffering is recommended and is included in the findings for the Landscaping and Screening standards later in this report. Therefore, this criterion is met. (3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c)Whether the screening needs to be year-round. As shown in the applicant's Landscape Plan (LD3.1), both plant materials and opaque structures are proposed to screen service areas and waste storage areas from site users as well as from adjoining streets and properties. As stated in the applicant's narrative, rooftop equipment will be surrounded by opaque screening of the same materials and design of the buildings they serve. Parking areas will either be screened from view of adjoining properties by the on-site buildings or by hedges and plantings, as well as grade level changes. A condition to ensure adequate screening is recommended and is included in the findings for the Landscaping and Screening standards later in this report. Therefore, this criterion is met. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 24 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 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; While the structures on the site are designed to maximize their exposure to the adjoining roads, they face perpendicular to, or directly away from, the adjacent residences. In addition, Building C, which is closest to the residential uses, will be separated from the property boundaries by 20 feet of trees, shrubs, and hedges in accordance with the requirements of Table 18.745.1. Building C is located down slope and at the end of long rear yards approximately 136 feet from the residences on adjoining parcels to the south. The residence to the west is located approximately 90 feet from Building B and over 115 feet from Building C. These distances will help to mitigate any privacy and noise issues. Buffering and screening are proposed, or have been conditioned, to ensure protection of private areas on adjoining properties. Therefore,this criterion is met. g.Access and circulation: (1) The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; Table 18.705.3, for 145 parking spaces, requires two access points at least 30 feet wide with 24 foot curb cuts or one access point at least 50 feet wide with a 40 foot curb cut. The Detailed Development Plan provides ingress and egress from three directions including SW Dartmouth, SW 70th, and SW Elmhurst, consistent with the Access, Egress and Circulation standards, as reviewed in this report. Therefore, this criterion is met. (2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles; and Tualatin Valley Fire &Rescue participated in the Pre-Application Conference, and has provided their standards for emergency vehicle access and circulation, as show in the RVF&R Comments at the end of the Staff Report. The Detailed Development Plan complies with the Fire District's standards for circulation. Therefore, this criterion is met. (3) 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. According to the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan,both SW Dartmouth and SW 72nd Avenue are designated bike lanes. Currently, these streets do not include bike lanes as the area is newly developing. The applicant has proposed dedication of the required public rights-of-way for these streets to accommodate bike lane improvements in the future, consistent with this standard. In addition, pedestrian access from the street into, within, and through the site has been provided connecting SW Dartmouth with SW Elmhurst Streets on build out of the project. Therefore, this criterion is met. i. Public transit: (1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a quarter mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: (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 surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. (3) If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the development and the requirement. Transit service within the Triangle is current relatively limited. There is no service on SW Dartmouth or SW 72nd Avenue. The closest transit stop is located approximately 650 feet (1/8 mile) northeast of the site on SW 68th Avenue for bus line #78, (stops 7846 southbound and 7849 northbound). Therefore, provisions for public transit may be required. However, discussion with Ben Baldwin, TriMet Planner, determined that off-site improvements RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 25 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 are rare and not indicated in this case. In addition, no route changes are proposed for SW 72nd Avenue at this time. Therefore,provisions for public transit are not required at this time. j. Parking: (1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; The applicant's Site Plan (A2.1) shows the layout of all parking and loading areas. Compliance with the parking approval standards is discussed in greater detail in the findings for Chapter 18.765, below. The proposed Detailed Development Plan has met or has been conditioned to meet the applicable parking and loading requirements. Therefore,this criterion 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. According to the applicant's narrative and plan set (C10, C11, D1, and D2), drainage generally conforms to the requirements of Chapter 18.810, except that it is proposed to treat and convey stormwater via a stormwater treatment and retention field designed to release stormwater gradually to an emergent marsh and restored natural wetland where material not captured by storm drain filters will be degraded biologically and released to the adjacent tributary to Red Rock Creek. Storm drainage has been reviewed and approved under SLR2010-00002 for the Red Rock tributary and enhanced wetland. In addition, drainage for the remainder of the site has been addressed in the findings for Chapter 18.810 and conditioned, consistent with the applicable drainage standards. Therefore, this criterion is met. 1. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development are allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The project site, at elevation 210 to 250, is approximately 1,250 feet east of the Red Rock Creek floodplain at elevation 185. The area of alteration is not within or adjacent to a floodplain; therefore 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. This standard was amended by Ordinance No. 09-13 September 8, 2009, to clarify that the "shared open space facilities" standards apply to residential planned developments only. The amendment occurred between applications for the Concept Plan on October 10, 2008 and the Detailed Plan on Sept 3, 2010. Therefore, the Detailed Plan proposal is not required to apply the minimum 20% open space standard, yet must still be consistent with the approved Concept Plan. Since the applicant's proposed Detailed Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan with respect to shared open space facilities, and the code no longer applies to commercial developments, the proposed Detailed Plan is consistent with both the Concept Plan and the amended code. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the applicable Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria have all been met. 1) The Commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate that the buildings and other site elements have been designed and located to preserve the existing trees to the greatest degree possible. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 26 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 At the December 6, 2010 hearing, the Commission approved the proposed detailed development plan without requiring submittal of an alternate site plan. 2) According to the Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria, a detailed development plan may be approved only if certain listed criteria are met. Minor changes from the concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless they relate to one of these criteria. The proposed Detailed Development Plan increases the lot coverage by Buildings A and B by a total of 3,825 square feet, or 2.73% as a percentage of the total site from 17.18% to 19.91%. The Concept Plan submission requirements and approval criteria do not involve the level of detail required by the Detailed Plan and are not reviewed for specific building square footages. The Concept Plan approval criteria require the Concept Plan to identify "proposed uses and their general arrangement on site." It would be possible to obtain concept plan approval with only general building envelopes shown on the plan. Further, TDC 18.350.030.E, Administrative Provisions, Substantial Modifications to the Concept Plan, uses the term "substantially conform" as the threshold to be met before requiring a new concept plan. Accordingly, the minor increase in lot coverage is not of a significant magnitude to conflict with the approved Concept Plan or to require submittal of a new Concept Plan. At the December 6, 2010 hearing, the Commission approved theroposed detailed development plan finding that it substantially conformed to the approved Concept Plan. 18.420— (LAND PARTITIONS) Approval Process Decision-making process. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application partition,which shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.420.050. The subject site consists of two existing Tax Lots, 00100 and 00300, Tax Map T2S R1W Section 01AB. For Tax Lot 00100, the applicant is proposing a 3-Lot Preliminary Partition, with an Open Space Tract for the Wetland Resource Area. Tax Lot 00300 will remain as separate lot. Tentative Plat Tax Lot 00100, Map T2S R1W, Section 01AB Parcel/Tract Use/Function Square Feet Parcel 1 Building A 38,767 Parcel 2 Building B 38,136 Parcel 3 Building C 40,519 Tract A Natural Wetland Area 10,905 Total 128,327 18.420.050 Approval Criteria. A request to partition land shall meet all of the following criteria: The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations; The proposed partition complies or can be made to comply with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations as demonstrated by the analysis contained within this staff report and through the imposition of conditions of development approval. Provided all necessary conditions are satisfied as part of the development and building process,this criterion is met. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 27 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 There are adequate public facilities available to serve the proposal; Public facilities are discussed in detail later in this report under Chapter 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards). Based on the analysis provided herein, Staff finds that adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal. Therefore,this criterion is met. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards; and The public facilities and proposed improvements are discussed and conditioned later in this report under Chapter 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards). Improvements will be reviewed as part of theermit process and during construction, at which time the appropriate review authority will ensure that City andapplicableagency standards are met. Based on the analysis in this report,Staff finds that this criterion is met. All proposed lots conform to the specific requirements below: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. There is a 50 foot minimum lot width recuired for the C-G zoning district. Lot 1 is 153 feet in width;Lot 2 is 124 feet wide;Lot 3 is 134 feet wide. Therefore,Pais criterion has been met. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area. There is no minimum lot size in the C-G zone. No flag lots are proposed. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The proposed lots have frontage on SW Dartmouth or SW 70th Avenue exceeding the minimum 15 foot standard:Lot 1: 153 feet;Lot 2: 124 feet;Lot 3: 234 feet. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. There are no setbacks for the C-G zoning district. 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. No flag lots are proposed, so the front yard standard does not apply. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.050. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. The proposed accessways are internal to the site.Therefore,no screening of accessways is required. 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. According to the applicant's narrative, fire hydrants and sprinkler FDC's have been located within the development consistent with recommendations of the Fire District. The fire district (TVF&R) has reviewed the proposal and their comments are contained in the Agency Comments section of this report. The applicant has been conditioned to obtain approval from TVF&R for fire protection system and hydrant placement. 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. The primary access off of SW Dartmouth will serve all proposed phases of development. The applicant states that all RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 28 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 parking, except understructure, landscaping, and signage will be held in common ownership. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded reciprocal access and maintenance easement to ensure access and maintenance rights are recorded with the approved partition map. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705,Access,Egress and Circulation. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (A2.1), three accesses are proposed for the subject site. As addressed under Chapter 18.705 (Access, Egress and Circulation) later in this decision, the proposed accesses comply with the applicable standards. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred year floodplain, the city shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The project site, at elevation 210 to 250, is approximately 1,250 feet east of the Red Rock Creek floodplain at elevation 185. The area of proposed development is not within or adjacent to a floodplain; therefore this standard does not apply. An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applications for the partition and variance(s)/adjustment(s)will be processed concurrently. The applicant has not applied for a variance.Therefore,this standard does not apply. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed minor land partition meets, or can meet with the following recommended condition of approval, all of the applicable standards of the Land Partitions chapter. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded reciprocal access and maintenance easement to ensure access and maintenance rights are recorded with the approved partition map. • The Minor Land Partition shall be effective for period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. The applicant shall record the final partition plat with Washington County and the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded survey map within 15 days of recording to the City, to be incorporated into the record. 18.520— (COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) Uses: The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City- wide and even regional trade area. Except where nonconforming,residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports,medical centers,major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. The proposed Red Rock Center retail,general and medical office uses, and related accessory uses are permitted uses in the General Commercial zone,pursuant to Table 18.520.1. Development Standards: All development must comply with: All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370. As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set and the table below, the proposed Red Rock Center development meets the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. However, the Tigard RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 29 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Triangle Design Standards supersede these standards where they conflict. Planned Development Standards also supersede these standards. As shown in the table below, a maximum front yard setback is additionally required by the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the maximum site coverage is reduced from 85% to 80% under the Planned Development Standards. The applicant's proposed Detailed Development Plan meets the PD site coverage standard. However, the location for the proposed Building C does not meet maximum front yard setback standard as described later in this report under the Tigard Triangle Design Standards section. C-G STANDARDS C-G MUE Other Standards Lot A Lot B Lot C Minimum Lot Size None None NA NA NA Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 ft 153 ft. 234 ft. 124 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0 ft. 0 ft. (TTDS max 10 ft.) 1 ft. 120 ft. 45ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 ft. 0 ft. 28/3 ft. 30/8 ft. 26/122ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 ft. 0 ft. 90 ft. 30ft. 20ft. Maximum Building Height 45 ft. 45 ft. 30 ft. 22 ft. 33 ft Maximum Site Coverage 85% 85% (PD max 80%) 68% (total site) Minimum Landscaping 15% 15% (PD min 20%) 32% (total site) All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. As shown in the findings of this Staff Report,not all other applicable standards and requirements have been met. FINDING As shown in the analysis above, the proposed Red Rock Center uses are permitted uses and the proposed Detailed Development Plan meets the applicable develo-pment standards contained in the underlying C-G General Commercial and Mixed Use zoning cistricts. However, not all other applicable standards in Title 18 are met by the applicant's proposal, but can be met with recommended conditions of approval,as required in this Staff Report. 18.620— (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability Design standards for public street improvements and for new development for the Tigard Triangle include creating a high-quality, mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described in this chapter and other development standards required by the Community Development and Building Codes, such developments will be required to: Dedicate and improve public streets, to the extent that such dedication and improvement is directly related and roughly proportional to an impact of the development; As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the applicant proposes to dedicate and improve public streets adjacent to the subject site as detailed in frie findings and conditions for Chapter 18.810, Street and Utilities. In addition, the applicant has been conditioned to implement off-site improvements identified by ODOT which are directly related and roughly proportional to the impact of the development (see Rough Proportionality Analysis on page 58). Connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer,water and storm drainage; According to the applicant's plan set and narrative, the proposed development will connect to the sanitary sewer, water, and storm drainage systems, consistent with this standard. Participate in funding future transportation and other public improvement projects in the Tigard Triangle provided that the requirement to participate is directly related and roughly proportional to an impact of the development. According to the applicant's narrative, the applicant agrees to participate in funding future transportation improvements that are directly related and roughly proportional to the impact of the development, consistent with RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 30 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 this standard. The City's Development Review Engineer recommends proportional mitigation of intersection signalization consistent with the phased construction, and additionally recommends improvements to OR217/72nd Ave northbound off ramp, as indicated in the findings and conditions of this report. The proposed development will also contribute its proportional share for impacts to the County-wide system with payment of the Transportation Development Tax for each phase of site development (see Rough Proportionality Analysis on page 58). The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle within both the C-G and the MUE zones. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. 18.620.020 Street Connectivity All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet. Performance Option a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The proposed development utilizes exiting streets including SW 70th Avenue, SW 72nd Avenue, SW Elmhurst and Dartmouth Streets. No new streets are proposed. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 18.620.030 Site Design Standards All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2, governing criteria for granting a variance,is satisfied. The subject parcel is greater than 1 acre in size and the applicant has submitted a phased development plan. The applicant proposes to meet all of the applicable site design standards. However, as shown below, the building setback standard is not met for proposed Building B (Phase 3) because of the slope transition between the proposed Tract A Wetland Reserve and Building B. Therefore, a variance to the setback standard must be obtained, consistent with the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2 for granting a variance. Building Placement on Major and Minor Arterials - Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50% of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. The frontage on Dartmouth Street is approximately 500 feet (48 feet along the Tract A wetland reserve and 453 along the frontages for proposed Lots 1 and 2). Building A is 200 feet long parallel to Dartmouth; Building B is 72 feet long perpendicular to Dartmouth for a total of 272 feet or approximately 54 % of the total frontage and 60% of Dartmouth Street frontage along Lots 1 and 2. The frontage for Tract A on 72nd Avenue is 162 feet. Building B on proposed Lot 2 is 120 feet long parallel to 72nd Avenue, or 74 percent of the frontage. The proposed placement for Buildings A and B is consistent with the frontage standard. Wetlands and a small stream (Tract A) are present at the intersection of SW 72nd (arterial) and SW Dartmouth (collector), requiring the proposed Building B to be set back from the wetland/stream buffer rather than the property line per code section 18.620.030.A.2 below. Therefore, proposed Building B is located as close as is practicable to the public street intersection. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 31 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Building C is located on proposed Lot 3 which fronts on SW 70th Avenue, a local street. Therefore, this standard does not apply to building placement on Lot 3. Building Setback - The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. According to the applicant's site plan (Sheets A2.1), the building setbacks along adjacent rights-of-way vary from 2 to 5 feet for Building A and 8 feet for Building B, consistent with the setback standards from public streets rights- of-way. The building setback for Building B along the dedicated wetland in Tract A is approximately 30 feet due to the terracing of the slope and accommodation of the pedestrian access provided in the approved Concept Plan. The maximum building setback standard of 10 feet is exceeded. Therefore, (prior to issuance of buildingermits for Phase 3) the applicant shall be conditioned to apply for a variance to the building setback standard for Building B pursuant to TDC 18.620.030.A. Building C is located 126 feet from the SW 70th Avenue right-of-way. The applicant does not address this standard. The proposed setback exceeds the standard's maximum 10-foot setback. Therefore, (prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4) the applicant shall be conditioned to apply for a variance to the building setback standard for Building C or otherwise locate the building to meet the standard. Front Yard Setback Design - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets and an L-2 standard on accessways. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. The applicant's Landscape Plan, LD3.1, shows the extent of landscaping proposed for the site. The landscape design for the front yard setbacks are designed to meet the L-1 standard and to contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement of 20 percent of the site. Landscaping and hard surface expansion of the pedestrian path are provided between proposed Buildings A and B and the sidewalk proposed for the right-of-way. Therefore, this standard is met. Building C is located 126 feet from the SW 70th Avenue right-of-way. Landscaping between the proposed parking lot and the SW 70th Avenue is to L-2 standards. The applicant does not address this standard for Building C. Therefore, this standard is not met for Building C (Phase 4). Per the discussion above, if the applicant locates Building C to meet the setback standard, then the front yard setback design standard would apply; if a variance is obtained, this standard would not apply. Therefore, provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the front yard setback design standards,TDC 18.620.030.A.3. Walkway Connection to Building Entrances - A walkway connection is required between a building's entrance and a public street or accessway. This walkway must be at least six feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modularaving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. Thesepareas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.520.040B and Table 18.520.2. Eight-foot-wide scored concrete sidewalks connect entrances for Buildings A and B with the proposed sidewalk along SW Dartmouth Street and 70th. The proposed Building C entrance is internal to the site but connects to sidewalks that cross through the parking lots to Dartmouth and 72nd. Therefore, this standard is met. Building A is located at the intersection of Dartmouth and 72nd. According to the applicant'slan set (A2.1,LD3.1) a building entrance architectural arcade feature is shown at this corner, but is landscapedwithouta hardscape connection to the sidewalk. The applicant's narrative refers to an exit only doorway that is not at street grade at this location. This apparent conflict in the applicant's submittal needs clarification. Although not required by this standard, an entrance at the corner of Building A is encouraged. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plan showing a building entrance at the corner of the intersection of Dartmouth and SW 70th, or otherwise demonstrate why it is not practicable to provide it. Parking Location and Landscape Design - Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 32 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street,where it shall be landscaped to an L- 1 Landscape Standard. See Diagram 2. As shown in the applicant's Site Plan (A2.1), the parking for the project is located in back and to the side of proposed Buildings A and B and meets the maximum 50% criterion. In addition, as shown in the applicant's Landscape Plan (LD3.1), all frontages meet the L-1 landscaping requirements, consistent with this standard. Parking for Building C is located to the side of the building (which faces SW Dartmouth) but between the building and the frontage of the proposed Lot 3 on SW 70th Avenue. As shown above, Building C does not meet the setback standards. Provided Building C met the setback standard, parking of Building C would be to the rear and side. However, this has not been proposed and the parking location standard is not met for Building C (Phase 4). Provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the parking location and landscape design standard, TDC 18.62O.030.A.5. Additional surface parking is proposed on the southern portion of the development site (TL30O) in association with Building C (Phase 4). Pursuant to TDC18.52O.O5O.C.1, the maximum floor area for commercial use types shall not exceed 0.40 in the MUE zone. TL 300 is zoned MUE. Construction of commercial floor area on this site is prohibited because the site was used to support the floor area in the adjacent Specht development to the east. However, the restriction does not apply to accessory parking where no floor area is proposed. Therefore, the location of Building C cannot occur on TL30O and the associated parking may be located adjacent to SW 70th and Elmhurst, provided the L-1 landscaping and screening standard is included between the right-of-way and the proposed parking lot in lieu of the L-2 standard shown (LD3.1). 18.620.040 Building Design Standards Non-residential buildings. All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2, criteria for granting a variance, is satisfied. The applicant proposes to meet all of the following building design standards. However, staff's findings below show that the building facades do not meet the standards and either need to be revised or require a variance. Ground Floor Windows - All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50% of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. The north and east elevations of Building A and the north elevation of Building B are subject to this standard for being street-facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets (Building C would be subject to this standard on SW 70th if consistent with the required setbacks from public street rights-of-way). According to the ap-plicant's elevation drawings (A3.1, A3.2) the following window areas have been calculated for the ground floor wad area measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation: Building A: North elevation: 46% (or 54%,if including windows below 3 feet);East elevation: 23%. Building B: North elevation: 43%; (West elevation for the wall area adjacent to the pathway is 50%) According to the applicant's narrative, these elevations have at least 50%windows. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised dimensioned elevation demonstrating how the 50%ground floor windows standard is met. Building Facades - Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 33 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 at least one of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1 foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by other design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The facades of the proposed buildings facing a public street include the north and east elevation of Building A, the north and west elevation of Building B, and the east elevation of Building C. According to the applicant's narrative and plan set, all of these facades meet the 50-foot standard except for the north elevation of Building A where the central wall extends 69 feet. However, given the context within the overall elevation, the length of the wall appears proportional and is otherwise provided with horizontal variation in building materials and articulated with four 13- foot awning projections, consistent with this standard. The longest building facade proposed is 200 feet, consistent with the 300-foot maximum. Weather Protection -Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway.Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicant's architectural elevations (Sheets A3.1 thru A3.3) show that the main entrances are covered to provide weather protection. Therefore, this standard is met. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. According to the applicant's architectural elevations (Sheets A3.1 thru A3.3), the building materials will be a combination of stucco, fiber cement lap siding, cultured stone veneer, aluminum framed windows, and pre-finished metal roof. Cloth awnings or steel canopies over windows and doors are also proposed. Therefore, the building materials standards have been met. Roofs and Roof Lines - Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The roofs of the proposed buildings are flat and hidden from view by parapet extensions of the building's walls, except at corner structures where pitched roofs are proposed. No false fronts or false roofs are proposed. Therefore, this standard is met. Roof-Mounted Equipment - All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant states that equipment screening will resemble, and in the cases of Buildings A and C be continuous with, the curtain wall system used throughout the project. No satellite dishes or solar heating panels have been proposed. Screening of equipment as seen from the Haines off-ramp for I-5 and the westbound travel along SW Dartmouth from the intersection with SW 68th may be problematic with the elevation difference. Provided all roof- mounted equipment is screened from view from adjacent public streets, this standard is met. A condition requiring this will ensure this standard is met. 18.620.050 Signs A. Sign standards. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the C-G and MUE zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R-25 zone 18.78O.13OB; non-residential developments within the C-G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones, 18.78O.13OC; and non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130D. Sign area limits - The maximum sign area limits found in 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 34 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height limits - The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roof line of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign location - Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant does not propose any signage with this application. Prior to the construction and erection of any signs, fl-ie applicant will be required to submit a sign permit application that demonstrates consistency with the applicable requirements of Chapter 18.780. 18.620.060 Entry Portals and Focal Point Required locations. Entry portals shall be required at the primary access points into the Tigard Triangle. Location - Entry portals shall be located at the intersections of 99W and Dartmouth; 99W and 72nd; I-5 and Dartmouth; Hwy. 217 and 72nd; and at the Hwy. 217 Over-crossing and Dartmouth. Design - The overall design of entry portals shall relate in scale and detail to both the automobile and the pedestrian.A triangle motif shall be incorporated into the design of entry portals. The nearest entry portal to the subject property is located at the Haines 1-5 off-ramp and SW Dartmouth and 68th Avenue intersection. In addition,The Tigard Triangle Street Plan Urban Design Concept identifies a "Focal Point" at the intersection of the SW Dartmouth and SW 72nd Avenue. The Focal Point is adjacent to the subject property and is applicable to this development. The City has prepared a design concept for the Focal Point which the applicant has incorporated into their detailed development plan, consistent with this element of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L-1 Low Screen - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. In addition to the application of this standard as shown on the applicant's Landscape Plan (LD3.1), the L-1 standard is also required between the SW 70th and Elmhurst rights-of-way and the proposed parking lot on Tax Lot 300. 2. L-2 General Landscaping - For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 2-1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years.Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. As shown on the applicant's Landscape Plan (LD3.1),L-2 landscaping and screening standards have been applied, consistent with this standard. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 35 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development does not comply with all of the applicable Tigard Triangle Design standards. Provided the applicant meets the following recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development will be consistent with the applicable Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 C2,governing criteria for granting a variance, are satisfied. CONDITIONS: • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 3, the applicant shall apply for a variance to the building setback standard for Building B pursuant to TDC 18.620.030.A. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, the applicant shall apply for a variance to the building setback standard for Building C or otherwise locate the building to meet the standard. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, and provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the front yard setback design standards,TDC 18.620.030.A.3. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 4, and provided Building C is relocated consistent with the applicable setback standard, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating consistency with the parking location and landscape design standard, TDC 18.620.030.A.5. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a revised plan showing a building entrance for Building A at the corner of the intersection of Dartmouth and SW 70th, or otherwise demonstrate why it is not practicable to provide it. • Prior to issuance of site permit for Phase 4, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing that parking proposed for Tax Lot 300 is screened from SW 70th and SW Elmhurst by L-1 landscaping and screening. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the applicant shall submit a revised dimensioned elevation demonstrating how the 50%ground floor windows standard is met. • Prior to issuance of building permits for Phases 2, 3, and 4, the applicant shall submit a revised elevation and detail drawings demonstrating that all roof-mounted equipment is screened from view from adjacent public streets. 18.705— (ACCESS,EGRESS AND CIRCULATION): *PD Guideline Chapter Section 18.705.030.0 Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. The applicant proposes to partition Tax Lot 100 into three lots and, together with Tax Lot 300, will have a development site consisting of four lots. The applicant states that the access and parking facilities will be held in common among all potential owner of the various lots. Therefore, to meet this standard, the applicant shall provide: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements,leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Section 18.705.030.D Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030.H and 18.705.030.I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. As shown in the proposed plan set, all vehicular access and egress meets the applicable provisions of 18.705.030.H, RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 36 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 consistent with this standard. Section 18.705.030.F Walkways, requires that on-site pedestrian walkways comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; As described in the applicant's plan set and narrative, on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed between the building entrances and the streets that provide access and egress, as well as to the parking lot. Connections to adjacent development will be provided with improvements to the abutting public streets. Therefore, this standard is met. 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 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The applicant's Site Plan (Sheet A2.1) shows eight foot walkways physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by 6-inch curbs and walkways in brick pavers crossing parking lot aisles less than 36 feet in length, consistent with this standard. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant's site plan and narrative provide for concrete sidewalks and walkways where required in parking lots and soft surfaced crushed granite pathways within required buffers, consistent with this standard. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley. Driveways of the proposed development are designed so that no backup movement is required within the street, consistent with this standard. Access Management: Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT,Washington County, the City and AASHTO. A final sight distance certification for each access point and intersection shall be submitted after construction of the frontage improvements on SW Dartmouth Street, 70th Avenue and Elmhurst Street as conditioned under the Street and Utilities section of this report. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall 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 RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 37 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 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. There are no proposed driveways within the influence area of a collector or an arterial. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The subject site fronts SW 72nd Avenue, an arterial street, however, no access is proposed. Access on SW Dartmouth Street, a collector, is proposed but is greater than 200 feet to both SW 72nd Avenue and SW 70t1 Avenue. The primary access to the site is off of SW 70th Avenue, a local street, which is greater than 160 feet. Therefore, the proposed development meets the minimum spacing standards. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.J provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with fewer than 100 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The applicant proposes 145 parking spaces. Pursuant to Table 18.705.3, either one 50-foot access or two 30-foot accesses are required. The development includes two accesses, one at 30 feet with 24 feet of pavement and curbs on SW Dartmouth and a second on SW 70th Avenue with a 40-foot access and 36 foot of pavement and curbs. Therefore, this standard is met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development complies with the applicable Access and Egress standards. To ensure compliance, the following recommended condition of approval shall be met. CONDITION: • The applicant shall provide the following information to establish joint access: 1) Satisfactory legal evidence presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. 18.725— (ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance Standards) regulates: Noise, visible emissions,vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation,the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 38 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: The proposed uses include general and medical office and retail uses, which are permitted outright within the C-G zone. The applicant's narrative states that the above standards will be met. Based on the provision of adequate trash and recycling area, and the fact that the proposed uses are not likely to generate noise, visible emissions, odors, glare and heat, or harbor insects and rodents, this standard is met. The applicant shall provide ongoing maintenance to stay in compliance with these standards and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's Code Enforcement Officer. Therefore, these Environmental Performance Standards are met. 18.745—(LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING): *PD Guideline Chapter Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C. Section 18.745.040.0 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the street tree standards have been met provided a revised detail for engineered planting soils is provided. 18.745.050, Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 3.In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards,provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. 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; 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; 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements,which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; 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. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 39 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 (2) Medium-sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. According to the applicant's narrative and Landscape Plan (LD3.1), "L1 buffering" is provided along the property lines for single family residences which occupy the area south and southwest of the development. However, this is in conflict with the applicant's selection of Level D buffering, Options 1 and 3, which require a hedge and wall respectively. A 6-foot wall is proposed to screen the parking lot, consistent with the Option 1. However, the other three southern boundaries do not include a hedge as LI landscaping and screening does not require it. Therefore, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan consistent with the Level D buffering (with the addition of a hedge) for the southern boundaries of Tax Lot 100. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. As shown in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the parking lot tree requirements have been met provided a revised detail for engineered planting soils is provided. 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; There is inadequate information provided in the plans to establish whether this standard is met. Therefore, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans for Planning Division review prior to issuance of a building permit that shows all service areas including air conditioners and gas meters are screened from view. Screening of Refuse Containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The applicant's site plan and narrative describe a six-foot-high masonry trash enclosure. Therefore, this standard is met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the applicable Landscaping and Screening Standards have not all been met. With the following recommended conditions of approval, these standards can be met. CONDTIONS: • The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan consistent with the Level D buffering (with the addition of a hedge) for the southern boundaries of Tax Lot 100. • The applicant shall submit detailed plans that show all service areas, including air conditioners and gas meters are screened from view. • The applicant shall submit a revised detail for the proposed engineered planting soils. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 40 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 18.755— (MIXED SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING STORAGE): Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant chose the minimum standard method to demonstrate compliance with these standards and provides evidence in the narrative and plan set that the proposal meets the standards. The applicant must submit a written sign- off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal). Therefore,with a condition requiring the sign-off,this standard is met. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables shall be co-located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The applicant proposes consolidating the refuse storage areas for Building A and C along the east side of Building C, accessed from the parkinglot and visible in order to enhance security for users. An additional refuse area is proposed for Building B. Te 'Droposed exterior storage areas will not occupy any required parking stalls and adequate screening is achieved t trough a combination of retaining walls and landscaping. Therefore, this standard is met. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior 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. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. According to the applicant's narrative and site plan (A2.1), the storage areas will be screened with block walls and opaque welded tube and steel sheet gates, and surrounding landscaping, consistent with the design standards. Access Standards. 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; 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; storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out of a driveway onto a public street. As shown in the applicant's narrative and site plan, the proposed storage area meets the access standards. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the Mixed RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 41 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage standards.To ensure the design of the facility is compatible with the waste hauler,the following recommended condition of approval shall be imposed. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a written sign-off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal) demonstrating that the proposed waste collection system location and design is compatible. 18.765— (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS): *PD Guideline Chapter Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 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. The proposed parking lots for the subject development are all located on site. Joint Parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Joint parking is proposed with this application. Therefore, as a condition of approval the applicant shall submit satisfactory legal evidence in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish t-ae proposed joint parking use. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects. In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated above. This proposal is a mixed-use project; therefore this standard is applicable and reviewed below under the minimum and maximum parking standards. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term Carpool/Vanpool Parking. Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long- RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 42 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. According to the applicant's site plan (A2.1), 145 parking spaces are proposed. Five percent (5%) or 8 stalls are proposed for carpool/vanpool spaces. These spaces are located close to building entrances, consistent with this standard.Therefore,this standard is met. Disabled-Accessible Parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The applicant has indicated that there are 10 ADA handicap spaces provided. According to ORS 447.233, incorporated through reference to the International Building Code (IBC), 5 spaces are required (101 to 150 spaces) for the proposed 145 space parking lot. Final determination of the number of required ADA spaces will be made by the building official during the review of the building permit application. Therefore,this standard has been met. DEQ Indirect Source Construction Permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; or 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators The applicant proposes 145 parking spaces for the subject development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. General Design Standards Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The proposed access drives are clearly marked, and the parking area provides ample room to facilitate a forward entrance onto the public street. The applicant has been conditioned to provide visual clearance areas on a revised site plan. Therefore, this standard is met. 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. There applicant's site plan (A2.1) indicates that there are drop-off grade separated areas within the parking area in the vicinity of the SW 70a' Avenue. Railings have been proposed in some areas such as the retaining wall at the property edge. However, the pedestrian and auto access approaches to SW 70th may also have grade separated areas where no railings have been shown. To ensure this standard is met throughout the project the applicant shall submit detail drawings showing railings for grade separated areas in the parking lot to prevent accident. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 43 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The applicant's site plan (A2.1) shows the parking spaces clearly marked with striping, consistent with this standard. 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. The applicant's site plan (Sheet A2.1) shows that all proposed Barking spaces contain a wheel stop except for five spaces south of and adjacent to the access approach to SW 70 Avenue. Therefore, this standard is not met, but can be met provided the applicant submits a revised site plan showing wheel stops pursuant to TDC 18.765.040.J. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. The applicant's site plan (A2.1) dimension the parking spaces to show that 13 of 145 spaces (9%) will conform to the compact standard sized spaces with the remaining spaces conforming to the standard sized spaces. The applicants site plan shows 24-foot-wide aisles. Therefore, this standard is met. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050.A states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parkingaisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parkingshall be visible from on-site builings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible Trom the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and-bicycre parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi- story residential building. The applicant states that the required bicycle parking will be met at the time of building permits. Therefore, this standard has not been met. Covered Parking Spaces: When possible, bicycle parking facilities should be provided under cover. Required bicycle parking for uses served by a parking structure must provide for covered bicycle parking unless the structure will be more than 100 feet from the primary entrance to the building, in which case, the uncovered bicycle parking may be provided closer to the building entrance. The applicant states that the required bicycle parking will be met at the time of building permits. Therefore, this standard has not been met. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 44 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 The applicant has not provided design details for the proposed bicycle parking racks and space allocations. Therefore, this standard has not been met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The applicant states that Building A (11,400 sf.) is for Medial Office use, Building B (7,725 sf.) is for half retail and half medical office uses, and Building C (20,000 sf.) is for general office use but may be marketed for medical office use depending on the market. Table 18.765.2 states that bicycle parking shall be required as follows (with a minimum of 2 spaces/use,Footnote 2): General office: 0.5/1,000 sf.;Medical office: 0.4/1,000 sf.;Retail: 0.3/1,000 sf. Building Rate TSF Spaces Use Building A bicycle spaces: 0.4 x 11.4 = 5 Medical Office Building B bicycle spaces: 0.4 x 3.85 = 2 Medical Office 0.3 x 3.87 = 2 Retail Building C bicycle spaces: 0.5 x 20 = 10 General Office Total bike spaces 19 Building C bicycle spaces: 0.4 x 20 = 8 Medical Office Total bike spaces 17 Based on the proposed square feet per building, 19 total bicycle rack spaces are required. The applicant has proposed racks that can accommodate 12 bicycles.Therefore,this standard is not met. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. The applicant states that Building A (11,400 sf.) is for Medial Office use, Building B (7,725 sf.) is for half retail and half medical office uses, and Building C (20,000 sf.) is for general office use but may be marketed for medical office use depending on the market. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum and maximum parking for these uses are as follows: General office minimum 2.7/1,000 sf.; Zone A maximum is 3.4/1,000 sf. Medical office minimum 3.9/1,000 sf.;Zone A maximum is 4.9/1,000 sf. Retail minimum 3.7/1,000 sf.; Zone A maximum is 5.1/1,000 sf. Building Rate TSF Min Rate TSF Max Use Mixed Use Min/Max Building A parking: 3.9 x 11.4 = 44.46;4.9 x 11.4 =55.86 Medical Office Secondary at 90% = 41/51 Building B parking: 3.9 x 3.85 = 13.47;4.9 x 3.85 = 18.86 Medical Office Secondary at 90% = 13/17 3.7 x 3.87 = 15.48; 5.1 x 3.87 = 19.73 Retail Tertiary at 80% = 13/16 Building C parking: 2.7 x 20 = 54.00;3.4 x 20 = 68 General Office Primary at 100% = 54/68 Total parking 121/152 Building C parking: 3.9 x 20 = 78.00; 4.9 x 20 = 98 Medical Office Primary at 100% = 78/98 Total parking 145/182 In mixed use developments, the primary use by square footage is counted as 100%, the secondary use is 90% and the tertiary use is 80%.The applicant proposes 145 parking spaces.Therefore,the proposed parking spaces are consistent with the minimum and maximum off-street parking standards for Zone A, whether Building C is used for either general or medical office. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more;A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 45 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Proposed Buildings A and C contain 14,700 and 20,000 square feet, respectively. The applicant proposes one loading space for both buildings reasoning that the combined size is less than 40,000 square feet. It appears to staff that the standard should be applied per building and that in this case one loading space per building A and B should be required for a total of 2 spaces. In support of this reading of the code,TDC 18.765.030.0 states that"owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay." Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit evidence supporting the contention that a single loading space would be sufficient to serve two buildings in the proposed configuration, or provide two loading spaces. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully satisfied; however if the applicant complies with the following recommended conditions, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall submit satisfactory legal evidence to establish the proposed joint parking use in the form of deeds, leases or contracts. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. • The applicant shall submit detail drawings showing appropriate railings for grade separated areas in the parking lot to prevent accident. • The applicant submit a revised site plan showing wheel stops pursuant to TDC 18.765.040.J • The applicant shall submit evidence that supports provision of a single loading space as sufficient to serve buildings A and B in the proposed configuration, or provide two loading spaces. • The applicant shall provide a revised site plan and design details for the required bicycle parking (19 spaces), demonstrating that the applicable location, access, and design requirements are met for each phase. 18.775— SENSITIVE LANDS : FINDING: The applicant received Sensitive Lands Review approval (SLR2010-00002) for Red Rock Creek drainage and wetland enhancements conceptually approved under Red Rock Center Planned Development Concept Plan Approval, PDR2008-00003. In October 2010, the applicant replaced the existing degraded portion of Red Rock Creek along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage with a 30-inch storm pipe. Ongoing work will construct the vegetated swale outfall and an enhanced wetland area on the subject property. The project had received CWS and Corp/DSL approvals for on and off-site mitigation. The applicant has also approved for tree removal permits for the removal of seven (8) trees within the project area, within sensitive lands. With these prior approvals, the proposed Red Rock Detailed Plan does not affect sensitive lands and therefore, no further sensitive lands review is required. 18.780—(SIGNS): *PD Guideline Chapter FINDING: The applicant has a sign concept including a free standing main entry sign and building signage. Yet no specific signs are proposed with this development application. Therefore, all subsequent signage will be reviewed through a Type I process and will be subject to the code standards in effect at the time of application submittal. 18.790— (TREE REMOVAL): 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 46 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Tree plan required. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal wherever possible. A tree plan has been provided by the applicant, and contains all of the required elements. The applicant submitted an arborist report dated September 28, 2010 and May 27, 2008,with a Tree Inventory Table prepared by a certified arborist,Ray Kinion with Tree Care and Landscapes Unlimited. The plan set includes Tree Mitigation Plan (LD1.0) and Tree Plan (LD 3.0),which provides guidelines for the removal and protection of existing trees on the site. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; The Revised Arborist Report dated May, 27, 2008, the Arborist Tree Mitigation Plan Confirmation, dated September 29, 2010, Existing Tree Plan (CP4.01), and the Tree Mitigation Plan (LD 1.0) account for all existing trees on the subject site (177), consistent with this standard. 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.79O.O6OD, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.79O.O6OD of no net loss of trees; b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.79O.O6OD; c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.79O.O6OD; d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The Tree Mitigation Plan (LD 1.0) shows the tree mitigation calculation for all trees greater than 12 inches dbh (34 trees with 639 caliper inches). Since all trees are proposed to be removed, 100% mitigation is required. The applicant shows mitigation for 26 trees with 476 caliper inches, after exempt trees have been accounted for, consistent with this standard. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; The Tree Mitigation Plan (LD 1.0) accounts for all existing trees on the subject site to be removed, except for four in Tract A, consistent with this standard. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The Tree Mitigation Plan (LD 1.0) shows the tree protection fencing and details for protection of the off-site trees south of the site and those trees retained in the Tract A, consistent with this standard. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 47 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. 18.790.050 Tree Removal Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.775. The permit for removal of a tree shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using the following approval criteria: The subject site includes the following sensitive lands: wetlands, drainageways and significant habitat areas as shown on the City of Tigard's Significant Habitat Areas Map. The prior sensitive lands review and approval (SLR2010-00002,TRE2010-00022) accounted for eight trees removed within the project area for the drainages and wetland improvements. The applicant proposes removal of the balance of trees on the subject site. The applicant's narrative and Sensitive Lands and Tree Removal exhibit account for 115 trees proposed for removal in either moderately or lightly limited Significant Habitat Areas. Therefore, tree removal permits are required. The applicant has also requested tree removal permits be processed along with the proposed phasing plan for Pads A and B (approximately 60 trees) and Pad C (approximately 50 trees). The applicant shall apply for Tree Removal Permits prior to issuance of site permits for each phase. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion; b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment-laden flows; or evidence of on-site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan (C4.0) with this application. However, an erosion control plan shall be submitted with each phase that shows erosion control measures to be employed for the trees proposed for removal for the respective phase,consistent with this standard. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75% canopy cover or no less than the existing canopy cover if the existing canopy cover is less than 75%. Tree removal within the site's stream and wetland corridors has been previously accounted for under the prior Sensitive Lands Review approval (SLR2010-00002, TRE2010-00022). Therefore, this standard does not apply to the proposed development. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development complies with all of the applicable Tree Removal standards. to ensure compliance with these standards, the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS: • Prior to issuance of site permits for each phase, the applicant shall apply for Tree Removal Permits for trees proposed for removal during the respective phases. An erosion control plan shall be submitted with each phase that shows erosion control measures for the trees identified for removal for each phase. • Prior to site work, the applicant shall install fencing as directed by the Project Arborist to protect the trees to be retained. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 48 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 • The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. • If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the Project Arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The Project Arborist shall be on site while work is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. This note shall be included on the Tree Protection Plan. • The applicant shall have an on-going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation through the building construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the amount of TPZ was reduced, then the Project Arborist shall certify that the construction activities did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees and that the street trees were properly planted per the approved street tree plan. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. • Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restrictions may be removed or will be considered invalid if all trees preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as hazardous trees. • Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a cash assurance (letter of credit or cash deposit) for the equivalent value of mitigation required (476 caliper inches of proposed mitigation tree planting x $125/caliper inch = $59,500). Any trees successfully planted and maintained in accordance with the approved Tree Mitigation Plan and TDC 18.790.060.D, will be credited against the assurance two years after all of the trees are planted. After the trees are planted, the project arborist shall submit a letter to the City Arborist to certify that all of the mitigation trees were properly planted per the approved Tree Mitigation Plan in order to set the starting point of the two year tree establishment period. After the two year establishment period, the applicant shall provide a re-inventory of the mitigation trees conducted by a certified arborist in order to document mitigation tree survival, and compliance with the approved Tree Mitigation Plan. The remaining value of caliper inches not successfully mitigated shall be paid as a fee in- lieu of planting from the original cash assurance. Failure to plant and provide documentation of mitigation tree planting by the project arborist within 6 months of certificate of occupancy issuance shall result in the forfeiture of the cash assurance to the City's tree fund. 18.795— (VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS): *PD Guideline Chapter Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 49 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2),30-foot distance points with a straight line. FINDING: The applicant has indicated in the narrative but has not shown on the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at the vehicular access of the property and on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. Therefore, as a condition of approval the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the clear visions areas consistency with visual clearance requirements. CONDITION • The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the clear visions areas as shown in Table 18.795.1, consistent with visual clearance requirements. 18.810— (STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080A requires 72nd Avenue (arterial) to have 92 feet of right-of-way with 66 feet of pavement between curbs. Other improvements required include medians, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. The street cross-section requires 4 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot median, 5-foot bike lanes and 13 feet from face of curb to right-of-way line to accommodate a 12-foot sidewalk. Dartmouth Street requires a 72-foot right-of- way with an additional 11-foot reserve right-of-way on each side for future expansion to a full 5-lane facility in the future. 70th Avenue requires a 60-foot right-of-way. 72nd Avenue requires 46 feet of right-of-way on the east side as measured from centerline of right-of-way. This appears to be already done. A 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication is required for 70th Avenue including any additional right- of-way for the returns at the intersections. On Dartmouth Street, right-of-way dedication to provide 36 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of ROW is required. In addition, an 11 foot wide reserve strip is typically required in anticipation of the future widening of Dartmouth Street to a 5-lane facility. However, the unmitigated impact of this project supports dedication of the additional 11 foot strip and construction of half-street improvements to ultimate section along Dartmouth Street.Furthermore, adoption of the updated Tigard Transportation Plan is imminent. The updated plan requires 4 travel lanes and turning lanes, which require the additional right-of-way for full implementation. Therefore, there is sufficient justification to require that the additional 11 foot strip be dedicated at this time to provide an ultimate right-of-way 47 feet from the centerline of right-of-way and to construct half-street improvements to the ultimate section. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 50 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 SW Elmhurst Street requires dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way on the applicant's side. Right-of-way dedication is required at the intersection of 72nd and Dat unouth to accommodate the City-approved final focal point design for that corner of the intersection. That dedication shall integrate the focal point into the ultimate street section at that corner such that the improvements are installed at the ultimate right-of-way for that corner and no future dedication would be required when the widening of Daiunouth Street occurs. The cross-sections for each of the streets are as follows: Half- street improvements will be necessary along SW 72nd Avenue,to include: ® 33 feet of pavement from centerline of right-of-way. Road structural section must be designed by a registered engineer,but as a minimum should be 12 inches of compacted aggregate and 8 inches of asphaltic concrete (AC). Iconcrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities 13 -foot concrete sidewalk with tree wells street trees spaced per Triangle Standards 5-foot bike lane exclusive of curb per Triangle Standards street signs,traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Other: Curb return at 72"d and Dartmouth reconstructed to ultimate section for both streets. Street improvements will be necessary along SW Dartmouth Street,to include: VI33 feet of pavement from centerline of right-of-way. Expansion shall be concrete pavement 7 inches thick (minimum) 4000 psi on top of 8 inches of compacted aggregate. 1 concrete curb and gutter installed at ultimate location ® storm sewers and other underground utilities 1 6-foot concrete sidewalk placed at ultimate location set back 6 inches from ROW line N 7-foot planter strip exclusive of curb VI marked 5-foot bike lane per Triangle Standards X street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards X street signs,traffic control devices, streetlights (to IES standards) and a two-year streetlight fee. N Other: Curb return at 72'd and Dartmouth installed at ultimate locations for both streets Full street improvements will be necessary along SW 70th Avenue,to include: ® 36 feet of pavement curb to curb. The standard commercial street structural section is adequate for this street (12 inches of 1 1/2"- 0" compacted aggregate, 3 inches of 3/4" - 0" leveling course, and 4 inches of AC—2 inches of C mix on 2 inches of B mix) concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities 12 -foot concrete sidewalk on each side street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards street signs,traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Three quarter (3/4) street improvements will be necessary along SW Elmhurst Street,to include: ® 24 feet of pavement, 18 feet from centerline of right-of-way plus an additional 6 feet on the other side of the ROW. The standard commercial street structural section is adequate for this street (12 inches of 1 1/2" - 0" compacted aggregate, 3 inches of 3/4" - 0" leveling course, and 4 inches of AC—2 inches of C mix on 2 inches of B mix) ® concrete curb RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 51 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 storm sewers and other underground utilities 12 -foot concrete sidewalk street trees sized and spaced per Triangle standards street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.81O.03O.F states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the City Engineer,the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub streets in excess of 150 feet in length. There are no future streets or extensions needed through the property. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.810.03O.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre- existing developments, 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. Section 18.81O.O30.H.2 states that all local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15%for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Future street connections are not required through this property. Cul-de-sacs: 18.81O.O3O.L states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: • All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and • The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and • If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. No cul-de-sacs are proposed. Grades and Curves: Section 18.81O.O3O.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12%on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 52 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 70th Avenue is to be extended to its intersection with Elmhurst Street with all phases of the project completed. For Phase 1, 70th will be extended to the extent needed for access to the property, in accordance with the approved plans for Phase 1. Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.Q states that where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or major 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: • A parallel access street along the arterial or major collector; • Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or major collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; • Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a non-access reservation along the arterial or major collector; or • Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; • If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications,primary access should be from the lower classification street. Primary access to this property will be from 70th Avenue. A 24-foot access is allowed along Dartmouth Street. This access will eventually become a right-in right-out access after construction of the median in Dartmouth Street occurs in the future. Provisions to ensure right-in right-out access on Dartmouth must be made after the median in Dartmouth Street is installed. There will also be access to the property from Elmhurst Street. Private Streets: Section 18.810.030.T states that design standards for private streets shall be established by the City Engineer. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. No private streets are proposed. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length,width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: • Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre- existing development or; • For blocks adjacent to arterial streets,limited access highways,major collectors or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. No new streets are proposed. The existing block perimeter measures 2,399 lineal feet. However, SW 72nd is an arterial and for this commercial development,internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.810.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width,unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. There is no minimum lot size in the C-G Zoning District. As shown in the applicant's plan set proposed lot sizes and shapes meet this standard. Lot Frontage: Section 18.810.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley. In the case of a land partition,18.420.050.A.4.c applies,which requires a parcel to RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 53 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 either have a minimum 15-foot frontage or a minimum 15-foot wide recorded access easement. In cases where the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, the frontage shall be at least 15 feet. The subject development includes a land partition. Therefore, 18.420.050.A.4.c applies. As shown in the findings above for minor land partitions,the proposed lots are consistent with the frontage standard. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. Half-street improvements along 72nd Avenue will include sidewalks in accordance with the Tigard Triangle standards. Sidewalks will be constructed along Dartmouth Street at its ultimate location, on both sides of 70th Avenue, and Elmhurst Street. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. Sanitary sewer service to the site will be from existing 6-inch sanitary sewer laterals on SW Dartmouth Street. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The applicant received prior Sensitive Lands Review approval (SLR2010-00002) for the storm drainage system replacement for Red Rock Creek tributary on the subject site, consistent with this standard. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). 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 RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 54 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 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. On site detention is required. The applicant proposes to construct storm water chambers for detention. Facilities for detention are sufficient to meet City of Tigard requirements. Construction of the new culvert crossing 72nd Avenue and all improvements at the inlet and outfall of the new culvert are required, in accordance with City plans for that intersection and culvert crossing. Construction of the outfall improvements at the southwest corner of the 72nd Avenue/Da1_tinouth Street intersection is also required. The design and construction for the culvert needs to take into consideration the 36-inch water transmission line (City of Tualatin) in 72nd Avenue. The applicant needs to coordinate the design and construction work with the City of Tualatin to ensure adequate protection of this major transmission line. Storm drainage easements are required to cover all storm drain facilities transporting the previous creek flow wherever they are placed on the property,including storm drain lines, manholes, and appurtenances. The easements need to be at least 15 feet in width, 7.5 feet on each side of the centerline of the pipe or structure. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. According to the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan,both SW Dartmouth and SW 72nd Avenue are designated bike lanes. Currently, these streets do not include bike lanes as the area is newly developing. The applicant has proposed dedication of the required public rights-of-way for these streets to accommodate bike lane improvements in the future, consistent with this standard. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above- ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site along 72nd Avenue and Elmhurst Street. These overhead lines must be placed underground. Service to the development must also be undergrounded. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 55 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: The water service provider in this area is Tualatin Valley Water District. Water service will be from SW Dartmouth Street. The development is required to connect to the existing 8-inch line at Elmhurst and 70th and extend that line to the west along Elmhurst to connect to the existing line on that street. Coordinate this work with TVWD. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 07-20) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. On-site water quality treatment is required. The applicant proposes to install a storm water vault for water quality treatment discharging into a restored natural area in the west portion of the site. The facility proposed is sufficient to meet City of Tigard and Clean Water Services requirements. However, the facility must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The applicant shall submit a future maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. This future maintenance plan shall include a maintenance agreement between the applicant and a company that demonstrates that they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer for the storm water treatment facility. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall retain a professional engineer to monitor construction and perform visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City of Tigard Development Engineer with written confirmation from that professional engineer that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Prior to building occupancy, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement on City-furnished forms for future maintenance of the water quality and detention facilities. This agreement will be recorded and the City will be monitoring the facilities in the future for compliance with the terms of the agreement. 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. A 1200c permit is required. The permit application shall be submitted to the Development Engineer for review, approval and transmittal to Clean Water Services. This is a DEQ permit, so a fee must be paid to DEQ for issuance of the permit. A 1200c permit was applied for and approved for the installation of the storm line adjacent to Dartmouth Street. The plans submitted for that permit need to either be modified to include the entire area of disturbance, or a new permit application submitted for the entire site. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. An addressing fee in the amount of$50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of permits. For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 56 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 needed so that building permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. If the applicant plans to have more than one tenant per building, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map prior to issuance of site permit so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be addressed. In multi-level structures, ground level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "1", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2", etc. Survey Requirements 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). Traffic Study Findings: Lancaster Engineering prepared a Traffic Impact Study Update dated September 3, 2010 for this project. In this update, Lancaster identified the traffic generation expected from the development, downsized from its original study prepared for the concept approval. An ODOT review determined that the traffic study did not follow the recommendations of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook. The recommended methodology is to use regression equations whenever there are sufficient data points available (minimum of 7 studies). In addition, the study compared the proposed facilities with much larger facilities used in the ITE studies. The facilities are not directly comparable because of disparity in size of facilities. The Lancaster study forecasted a PM peak hour trip generation of 92 trips. The ODOT calculations using the preferred methodology in the ITE manual forecasted 164 trips. Because the ODOT calculations should more accurately reflect the anticipated traffic impact of this project, the ODOT trip generation information will be used in determining the proportionate share contributions to improvements to the public facilities adjacent to the project and for the major street systems impacted by the additional trips. There are two key intersections in the triangle adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of this development: • SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street • SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A simple formula was established based upon the impact from that development. That project had an impact of 1.1% at SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the City Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of $20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68t1 Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00. Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and can be calculated for this project. In order to provide the most fair comparison to the Babies R Us project,it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes (TEV) estimated as a part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site (now the PacTrust Tigard Retail Center) at 72nd/Dartmouth. The Lancaster updated report shows that this project will generate approximately 78 PM peak hour trips to the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a total entering volume (TEV) of 2,555 vehicles, the project impact is approximately 3.05%. Therefore, based on simple proportions, the project contribution to this intersection is $55,506.14. Likewise, the Lancaster report shows that the project will generate approximately 18 PM peak hour trips at the intersection of SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a TEV of approximately 2,660 RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 57 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 vehicles, the impact from this development is approximately 0.68%. Therefore, based on the same proportion used in the Babies R Us development, the project contribution to this intersection is $ 9,022.56. The applicant has stated that the project would be developed in phases. A logical argument can be made that the development should pay towards both signals proportional to the impact of each phase and pay that proportional amount at the completion of each phase. The proration for the phasing is as follows: Dartmouth and 72nd Avenue Dartmouth and 68th Avenue Phase 2 - $22,771.75 Phase 2 - $3,508.77 Phase 3 - $15,655.58 Phase 3 - $2,506.77 Phase 4 - $17,078.81 Phase 4 - $3,007.52 Total All Phases: $55,506.14 Total All Phases: $9,023.06 Funds for both intersections must be paid to the City prior to a final building inspection for each of the phases. Based on a Kittelson and Associates, Inc. report for another project (the Tigard Retail Center), the signal warrants for 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street are met under existing conditions,with the exception of Warrant 1 at SW 68th Parkway/Dartmouth Street. The impact of this development is significantly greater at the 72nd/Dartmouth intersection when compared to the 68th/Dartmouth intersection. However, the ability to obtain needed right-of-way to place the signal system at its ultimate location for the 72nd/Dartmouth signalization is dependent upon other active projects moving ahead with their developments. It does not make sense at this time to require the Red Rock Center to build an interim signal system pending dedication of needed right-of-way in the future for proper placement of the signal poles. Until the circumstances are such that the signal system can be installed at its ultimate location, all new development in the Triangle will continue to contribute to the signalization of this intersection. As a result, the applicant will not be required to install either signal, but will be required to pay into the fund as outlined above. The applicant's engineer also provided data regarding trips generated by this development that would impact the 72nd Avenue/Highway 217 interchange during the PM peak. ODOT likewise has provided data using the preferred calculation methodology. This information is important as the City considers alternatives for improvements to this failing portion of 72nd Avenue. Although no fee assessment has been set up at this time, the developer can contribute to improvements to either this interchange or to some of the other key congestion points based on unmitigated impact, or assessment per trip generated to the congestion spot. In addition, the applicant will be conditioned to either construct or contribute to construction of improvements to the traffic facilities in the vicinity of the Tigard Triangle. FINDING: As demonstrated in the applicant's narrative and plan set, the proposed development complies, or has been conditioned to comply, with the applicable Street and Utility Improvement standards for the subject site. Recommended conditions of approval to ensure compliance have been included under the Conditions of Approval section at the front of this Staff Report. 18.390—(DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES/IMPACT STUDY): Type III procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain predominantly discretionary approval criteria. Type III-PC actions are decided by the Planning Commission with appeals to the City Council. SECTION 18.390.040.B.e requires that the applicant 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 RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 58 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 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 submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. As shown in the applicant's Preliminary Plat (Sheet C-2.0) and narrative, the applicant specifically concurs with the required real property right-of- way dedications for SW Elmhurst Street, SW 70 Avenue, SW 72n Avenue, and future dedication of a reserve strip along SW Dartmouth Street. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS The Transportation Development Tax (IUT) is a mitigation measure required for new development and will be paid at the time of building permits. Based on Washington County implementation figures for 2010/2011, 'l'DT's are expected to recapture approximately 18.9 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. Based on the use and the size of the use proposed, the applicant is required to pay TDT's of approximately$404,417. Based on the estimate that total TDT fees cover 18.9 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $2,139,772 ($404,417 ± .189). The difference between the TDT paid and the full impact,is considered as unmitigated impact Mitigation Value Assessment: Full Impact ($404,417- 18.9 %) $2,139,772 Less Estimated TDT Assessment -404,417 nLess Estimated Street Dedications for Elmhurst,70th,72nd (d$15 x 26,777 sq. ft.) -401,655 Less Estimated Street Improvements for Elmhurst, 70th, 72n -586,280 Less Estimated Street Dedications for Dathmouth ($15 x 5,172 sq. ft.) -77,580 Less Estimated Street Improvements for Dartmouth (from 69t to 72nd Avenues) -280,000 Less proportionate share of the costs for signalization of the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersections - 64,528 Estimate of-unmitigated impacts $325,312 FINDING: The applicant concurs with the dedication of right-of-way and improvements to address the project's impact for SW Elmhurst Street, SW 70th Avenue, SW 72nd Avenue, and SW Dartmouth Street as shown in the Preliminary Plat (Sheet C-2.0) and as agreed to in discussions with staff on December 14, 2010 (Memo to the Planning Commission, dated 12-27-10). Based on the analysis above, the net value of these dedications, assessments, and improvements is roughly proportional to the value of the full impact. SECTION IX. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS Tigard Police Department commented that they have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. The City Arborist commented on the proposed development, whose findings have been incorporated in the findings for the Landscaping and Screening and Tree Removal Chapters of this Report. The City Development Review Engineer The comments and recommendations of the City's Development Review Engineer with respect to ODOT's comments have been incorporated in the findings for Chapter 18.810, Streets and Utility Improvement Standards. SECTION X. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro Land Use & Planning, Washington County, TriMet, US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality were notified of the proposed development but did not comment. Oregon Department of Transportation commented on the subject proposal in a letter dated January 9, 2009. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 59 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 ODOT found that the applicant's Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Lancaster Engineering was insufficient to determine the impact of the proposed development. ODOT suggests the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kittelson&Associates for the Tigard Retail Center proposal be entered into the record because of the similarities in the applicable trip generation and distribution information. On this basis, ODOT requests the applicant address five conceptual improvements in the vicinity of the 217/SW72nd Avenue Interchange. Further, "At such time that the applicant should resubmit their traffic study or submit a Detailed Planned Development application, ODOT requests that the applicant consult with ODOT traffic analyst Doug Baumgartner and the City to determine the scope of improvements to be analyzed. The updated TIS shall analyze traffic impacts in the year of build out and include growth in background traffic and in process development in order to determine the proper mitigation for this development at the time it is likely to be occupied. In addition, an updated TIS shall address the deficiencies listed in the attached traffic memo." ODOT commented on November 26, 2010 taking issue with the trip generation calculations of the applicant's traffic consultant (should increase to 164 PM peak hour trips) and recommended proportionate share improvements to the Hwy 217/72nd Avenue interchange of$300,000. ODOT commented on December 6, 2010 revising their trip generation calculations to 92 PM peak hour trips, consistent with the applicant's traffic consultant estimate. ODOT additionally commented in an email dated December 20, 2010 from Seth Bromley, ODOT Associate Planner to the City: "Thanks for the call last week. After talking to you it is our understanding that the City did not find a nexus for off-site highway improvements for the proposed Red Rock Center. Based on the amount of trips forecast to be generated from the proposed development ODOT agrees that conditioning improvements on SW Dartmouth St and contributing towards local signal installation is a proportionate contribution. We also understand that the City of Tigard would like to focus on creating a funding mechanism for transportation improvements within the Tigard triangle. The City is addingthis task to their work program and ODOT looks forward to working with the City to identifthe appropriate transportation improvements and associated funding strategy." Response: The comments and recommendations of the City's Development Review Engineer with respect to ODOT's comments have been incorporated in the findings for Chapter 18.810, Streets and Utility Improvement Standards. As indicated in ODOT's most recent comment (above), ODOT is in agreement with the City and the applicant that additional improvements to SW Dartmouth Street rather than the Hwy 2117/72nd Avenue interchange provides the appropriate nexus. In addition, ODOT agrees to partner with the City in developing a funding mechanism for transportation improvements within the Triangle over the next year applicable to future development. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commented in an email dated September 13, 2006 from Devin Simmons, Habitat Biologist with ODFW, to Andy Harris, Harris Stream Services. Mr. Simmons qualifies the stream resource as a very small tributary to Red Rock Creek fed primarily by parking lot runoff that shows little hydrology, is contained in an incised channel with a minimal riparian zone and is very flashy in nature. Mr. Simmons' main concern is to dissipate the energy and velocity of the stream and to provide filtration of pollutants. Mr. Simmons supports the proposed stormwater plan and mitigation elements referred to in the applicant's DSL/CORPS Joint Permit (37247-FP Modified,June 24, 2008). On November 3, 2010, Elizabeth Ruther, District Habitat Biologist with ODF&W provided additional comments including the following. ODFW encourages the applicant to work with the natural resources present on site to comply with the overlay zoning purposes and maintain a matrix of habitats for humans and wildlife. ODFW encourages the applicant to consider an alternative design that preserves the remaining natural resources on the property including several groups of mature trees, especially where Oregon white oaks have become established. ODFW encourages the applicant to consider using eco-roofs for the buildings, using tree preservation incentives provided by the City of Tigard (CDC 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention), and other creative building design to support a matrix of wildlife and human habitats. . . . Retaining clumps of naturally recruited mature trees provides much needed cover, resting, and perch habitat for bird species to a greater extent than evenly spaced single trees. It is important to consider spacing and structure of plants and plant species when considering wildlife, as well as human, uses. It is important to remove vegetation in preparation for the project outside of the nesting RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 60 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 period for migratory birds. Ideally, vegetation removal would occur after September 1st and before February 1st. Absolutely no vegetation should be disturbed after April 15th. Disturbance of an active nest is unlawful. Response: The applicant has been responsive to ODF&W's comments by preserving several trees within the proposed wetland reviewed under Sensitive Lands Review Permit (SLR2010-00002). Further consultation by the applicant with ODF&W is recommended to maximize the site's wildlife potential. Clean Water Services issued a service provider letter dated September 26, 2008 (CWS File No. 08-00669) requiring mitigation for the vegetated corridor encroachment. The required off-site mitigation has been performed in Hiteon Creek under the supervision of the City's Public Works Department. On-site mitigation will occur within the scope of the Detailed Plan, as proposed and as conditioned to ensure compliance with CWS's conditions of approval. In addition, CWS's comment letter dated October 27, 2010 included twelve conditions of approval to be met prior to any work on the site and partition plat recording. Condition "1"requires that any proposed o site construction activities will require an update or amendment to the current Service Provider Letter or this project. Response: The proposed outfall within the right-of-way for the Red Rock Tributary west of 72'Avenue is an off-site construction activity and will require an amended SPL as noted in revised Condition 41. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue commented that they endorse the proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road,is greater than 150 feet. (IFC 503.1.1) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. 2) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (12 feet for up to two dwelling units and accessory buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 26 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more,parking is not restricted. (IFC 503.2.1) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. 3) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. (IFC D103.1) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. 4) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (IFC D103.6) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 61 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 5) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 60,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (IFC D102.1) 6) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (IFC 503.2.4&D103.3) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. 7) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. (IFC 503.3) 8) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC,Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (IFC B105.2) Fire flow demand calculations for the largest proposed building must be submitted to and approved by this office prior to obtaining our endorsement of any site development permits. 9) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C,Table C 105.1. 10) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (IFC C102.1) 11) FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. FDC's shall normally be remote except when approved by the fire code official. (IFC 912.2) This requirement is addressed on Page 41 of the Compliance Narrative submitted by the applicant. 12) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 13) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (IFC 506) December 27, 2010 PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner December 27, 2010 APPROVED BY: Ron Bunch DATE Community Development Director Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map (A1.0) RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 62 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 B. Design Development Site Plan (A2.1) C. Preliminary Plat (C2.0) RED ROCK CENTER REVISED STAFF REPORT(PDR2010-00002) PAGE 63 OF 63 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1/3/2011 Gar achr From: RI.�.......Y Seth I3 ""--a-.i,ABRU 3 ,.FY(Sinigotstate,grusji Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10,12 AN1 To: Dory Ponontansigej Cr: DANIFFSDIS Wash B Subject Re Rook Cantor Decision Hello Gary, Thanks o, the _al las..week, After.. ca.ai,,a is you if !s our understanding,...n ,aY the City+._:,_. not find �;= .€exu-.,for off-site highway improvements foe the proposed Red Ronk Center. Based the 3r dogvim d mss_ pee �T stomas that ��` !badmouth.�€�, improvements.� � � �_a" contribution T � e local signal installation is a.proportionate contribution, We also understand that the City of Tigard would like ..-.1 focus on drentting a funding mechanism .ofa=sandat.o_, improvements"`„_"t. within the Tigard triangle,. The City.s adding th€.s tae.k to their work program d looks forward w ,d _ working!with the City >o identify the appropriate transportation improvements nd associated funding strategy, Thank you, Seth Brumley Associate Planner OFOT Ret`€n _g .ATTACHMENT 3 --Gw33.- Paaenstecher ..........{....F.F,,,...]...T.A.Itfft......W....f.VIVF.,raV,.if.,ip-a...........O.:.i.t...0ie.g*_,..... j. -4M,,,,,,,,,,..-_,*,-,,,,,.„:a.,:*,a** ,,,,,,,,,„,a,„,,,„,,a,„,,,,m,,,,,,,,.„*,a,,,,,,,,,„.„,,,,,,,a, From: Gary Pagenstecher Sent: Vilehnesday, December 22, 2010 2:33 PM To: scald Friewints Co: Ron Bunch; 'Ben Altman'. Subject RE: Red Rook Center, PDR 2010-00002 Jame According to the irdownation you submitted into the record at tine Decerrmer 61 hearing, your comment letter to tne PC did sellerewas sour prior comments to the SIR, -but did not include the eight fisted items reform-tee as an attachment, in your cominent totter to the PC you do, however,elaborate ion the relevant parts ot those previous coirriments, so the balance not included may not be:consequential, I appreciate the information regarding State Land Use Planning Goal 2 and ORS 197,015 that require cooperation with _affected parities and agencies during the development review process, The City's Comprehensive Plan and Deyektoment Code implement these state gots end statutes( Your comment is directed specifically et City coordinadon with ODFSW and Devitt Sirmriond concern for reducing gnu energy and velocity of a flashy Red Rock tributary to protect downstream resources:. The City acknowledged Nth Simmons! comments in its development reviews and noted hip support for the proposed storm wader plan end mitigation elements referred to in the applicants Da/CORPS Mtn Permit (32247-kg istodifienis tine gd„ 2008), lin asaition, the oodlicands engineer has promos a telemoransum„ dates :December 20„ 2010 d deuede the applicant sent you a copy), clariheing bow the proposed mitigation is feasible within the constraints of the project: Notwithstanding your concerns and proposes alternative measures to address this issue, the City agrees with the applicant's engineer that the design is'feasible and consistent with the applicable standards of review: mg gay Wiel gigue a Ragged staff iregorti de, December 2/ prior to the dianning Commission hearths on january 3 -. Please let me;know it you have any questions or points of clarification that I can twig you with in tide meantime: Gary Gary Pagensteoher,augg Associate Planner aka gt Tigard 1112.5 SW Heil Blvd Tigard OR 97223 503-71.8-2434 eg rdp twigs i outriguis From: ighn Fre:wing [malitogfrewingiSteleporticomil Sent Wednesday, December ig, 2010 kt:58 AM o: Gary Pagenstecher Subject: Red Rock Center, PDS 2010-00:002 Thanks for reviewing some of the details for Raid Rock tenter ynsterday, I recognize that the evening was late on December 6„,so I think thew the Planning Commission bleiwing off my comments that evening rrdght be explainaffle„ hut thP comMentsi are in the recsord _and i appreciate you lookling at thP details: Just as an aside„ I would note two'fixes' I would like to see added to the minutes it yOU are talking with Doreen: 1) i incorporated rny earlier comments on the SIR into:my comments of Dec 6(at the start of my remarks)—this is 1 n ., ''-. establishes €" s-c< d the matter Cer of storm drainage was notdad ,.r not a 'done boat as exclaimed y Commissioner .,_ addition to providing _,:d, of OregonUse Goal also provided a copy . ORS 1917,111,5„ f's.which , - r ,,.c 'coordination' ncity. ''. max �,£ edam. el .=? . both. �-, ,., _ _ relate ay, �, �. �. �� ..__ ?: -�development proposal, Now,with respect to my concern regarding storm drainage, I honestly think that my testimony before the Planning Commission says it pretty dearly,and I don't want to provide addition:at evirdence or testimony to , en._the proceeding beyondplanned January 3 date. "appreciate youf observation th perhaps the rock.withal!for the t` am on the wiest side of 72.. St .s a feature which will dissipate the energy nd velocitythe stream; but the stream under high flowconditions wills have the same volume .: water at that location. � o a# will l i re r _ h .� narrowchannel is =t�ext _ �z " : � z „� a 't �� Et the velocity or erwirdy o, he stream .l he reduced, Moreover, he onergia a..d -,...vc.ty.ohe stream under peak , conditions i,” have been increased try its flow ,.,the smooth 30-inch concrete culvert t"t asof he north side of the site, .don't even .e h the amity cordid evaluate this feature with I_s details pith Class s 2 ` .- € , Drawing C C2.3, :Detailnot even in h record€_t this roceec ,g„t jointly observed .,sterd s I understand the design o, rock cottons, a desiti -onlye,,x uwe the impingementforces en the stream eat the exact location -outlet dissipation of energy and.-velocity takes an°pitfall with:mare area and length along the stream—neither of these features snow on diens or are possible,with the outfall limited to the current.t ighti.7P 'a for SW 72,11°, believe you hear ,P .say. -< that 1 don't caai er that the low flow bypass y^the wetland reserve v �dissipate the onergy and velocity the stream elm ing times o high{fl d since at such times,the bulk offlow7 weedr reap t submitted) will still j-; hoo ' down the h cin.:culvert and even the flow diverted n the small t ' ?a.. reserve will ` tum'o he buried_ l as if passes ender Svc 72.da As'est ' Dec 6 3 believe common feature dissipate energy n =` locit y` F sirs¢`te water „Tiis€pos__bl --thetree of a vault to caditure peak flows. Even withhe stream presently t, sins= in the culvert, a peak flew vault can and should be added to development plans for Red Center',capturing -ppeak flow t stream uncal foremoving. r._. �n a on to the site -near its northeast corner,�==r�s _�� -.� the a €.-ue.«. which _'� _ .-, a a � .. it s drape_to seer that the development proposes vaults fatstorm.drainage originatingontsite, such should , augmented to resolve .he ODRAI comment which las timely made regar'jE ig the stream along the north rth pr s line. MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2010 To: Gary Pagenstecher From: Andrew Reiter Subject: Red Rock Business Center— Public Storm Drainage Gary, We've analyzed the discharge of the 48" x 33" cmp crossing SW 72nd Avenue. The computer program HydroCAD 9.10 was used to determine the velocity of the flow as it discharges. The average velocity is 4.5 fps and the peak velocity is 8.1 fps. These velocities are based on a Type 1A 24-hr 25 year storm event. The peak velocity of 8.1 fps was used to determine the type of protection. Clean Water Services (CWS). Chapter 5 of Clean Water Services (CWS) manual (R&O 07-20) has two tables that we based our protection on. Table 5-4 states the minimum size of Riprap based on design flow velocity and table 5-5 gives the dimensions of the Riprap. Table 5-4 recommends an ODOT Class 200 Riprap and Table 5-5 recommends the width to be the diameter of the pipe plus 6 feet and the length be 4 x diameter of the pipe. As mentioned above the pipe is an arched 48"x 33"cmp. The 48"dimension was used to size the Riprap apron. This would produce a Riprap section of 10 feet wide and 16 feet long. The Riprap apron being proposed will be 16 feet wide and 19 feet long. We reduced the slope of the 48"x 33"pipe as compared to the 30"pipes upstream to help reduce the velocity. The slope of the 48"x 33"pipe is 2.79%. In addition the pipe is oversized to further reduce the velocity. We are also reducing the velocity by incorporating 5 horizontal bends in the upstream alignment. The design has a 45° bend in the alignment at the manhole where the 48"x 33" pipe connects. This horizontal bend helps reduce velocity. We believe these design consideration satisfy the concerns of the City of Tigard, Clean Water Services and OFWD. If you have any questions, please call. •\�-�NGI EFS Ss Andrew Reiter, P.E., P.L.S. 4c 147 8P Attachments: 1. HydroCAD summary printout of the 48"x 33"culvert OREGON �c� 2. Table 5-4 from Chapter 5 CWS manual 26 F?y 23,N��`�� 3. Table 5-5 from Chapter 5 CWS manual FW A. 4. 11"x 17" Plan & Profile sheet of the public storm EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31- P:\P10\10838 2-31-P:\P10\10838-Red Rock Creek Business Center-Detailed Plan Submittal\Correspondence\Memo-Gary Pagenstecher 2010-12-20.doc PACE Engineers, Inc. PACE 5000 Meadows Road, Suite 345 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Phone: 503.597.3222 Fax: 503.597.7655 Red rock 12-20-2010 Post-Development Type IA 24-hr 25 yr Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 12/20/2010 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05225 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 7R: 48 x 33 cmp [52] Hint: Inlet/Outlet conditions not evaluated [79] Warning: Submerged Pond 12P Primary device# 1 INLET by 1.14' Inflow Area = 50.150 ac, 61.07% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.80" for 25 yr event Inflow = 31.68 cfs @ 7.98 hrs, Volume= 11.719 of Outflow = 31.63 cfs @ 7.98 hrs, Volume= 11.716 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 8.12 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min Avg. Velocity =4.56 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.4 min Peak Storage= 428 cf @ 7.98 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.14' Bank-Full Depth= 2.75', Capacity at Bank-Full= 75.45 cfs 48.0"W x 33.0" H, R=25.0"/77.0" Arch Pipe n= 0.025 Corrugated metal Length= 110.0' Slope= 0.0279 '/' Inlet Invert= 206.24', Outlet Invert= 203.17' hinder the flow characteristics of the channel, will be allowed. Channels connections shall be designed to prevent scouring. All pipe connections shall match side slopes and incorporate a headwall. 6. Open channel designs shall be based on the minimum level or protection shown in Table 5-4. TABLE 5-4 PROTECTION FOR NEW CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION Velocity at Design Flow(fps) Less Min.Ht.above Greater Required Thickness than or Design Water than Protection (ft) Equal Surface(ft) 0 5 Vegetation Not 0.5 Lining Applicable Bioengineered Not 5 8 lining Applicable 1 ODOT Class 50 1.5 Riprap* 8 12 ODOT Class 2.5 2 200 Riprap 12 20 Slope Mattress, Varies 2 etc. 20 Engineer designed * - The District or City may require ODOT Class 100 Riprap in areas with a likelihood of vandalism. 5.07.6 Culverts (Storm only) a. Application 1. This section shall apply to culverts placed across streams and drainageways. Culverts pass water under or through obstructions. 2. For culverts with diameters of 36 inches or greater or for driveway culverts which are part of a roadside ditch system,the County or City is the jurisdictional entity and their road design standards shall apply. 3. Culverts within FEMA floodplains shall be reviewed and approved by the local FEMA designated authority. 4. For culverts which convey flows from or through water quality sensitive areas; a local representative of Oregon Department of Fish R&O 07-20 CONVEYANCE DESIGN June 2007 Chapter 5 -Page 17 TABLE 5-5 ROCK PROTECTION AT OUTFALLS Discharge Velocity at Minimum Required Protection Dimensions Design Flow (fps) LessLength Height Greater Thickness than than or Type ( )ft Width (use Over Equal greater of) Crown ODOT Diam. +6 8 ft. 0 5 Class 50 1.5 ft or 1 ft Riprap* 4 x diam. ODOT Greater of: 12 ft. 5 10 Class 200 2.5 Diam. + 6 or 1 ft Riprap ft 4 x diam. 10 Engineered Energy Dissipater Required * - The District or City may require ODOT Class 100 Riprap in areas with a likelihood of vandalism. 5.07.8 Headwalls (Storm only) Pipe headwalls or other approved end protection shall be required where pipe material other than concrete or ductile iron is exposed in the design of an outlet or inlet pipe or where required to stabilize slope. Details of all headwalls and end protection shall be included in the construction drawings. 5.07.9 Trash Racks and Debris Barriers (Storm only) If trash racks or debris barriers are required by the District or City for pipe or culvert systems,the Engineer shall submit the trash-rock-debris barrier system design to the District or City for approval. 5.08 Other Requirements for Public Conveyance Systems 5.08.1 Surveying The Owner's Engineer or Surveyor shall be responsible for establishing the location of the sanitary and storm sewer system by means of construction stakes offset along the center lines prior to commencement of construction. Moving upstream,there shall be a construction stake placed within 25 feet of each manhole, and at no more than 100-foot intervals along the mainline. Each lateral location shall be staked. 5.08.2 Railroad Crossings R&O 07-20 CONVEYANCE DESIGN June 2007 Chapter 5 - Page 20 is L• JJ{)1 % Y • y [( .%..: rfW..."? 1G `741,:rI II I • f: v Q ' _ iJ i11f r//' r."''f f T- T _ - - - - - % %i, a'. f/rrI 1 • !i r 1r ■ T _ T _ - - - - - - f"r s o., 11: r - _ T T-57::- - ----0-7---- - - -- �i?I ia:r. .'6., n • "f.® ...f.4: J rbc .P F ID P P , -P 1' _T T -19-____===.1r_.71_ _ _ - - , i :sf.: r r 7.-/...:,:,,: ' _ -. - . P P p T �`.yr:,,..., :JJ1 r9•r r 1J �'`1r i° .. , = - ---^ - r -p- --F' --L P L�=T-.•. ..�,°qF.. 22+01 23+Od f J r J r!. rrr s i,f JJ,, .. l'' '� • • .e . y' d : .S't�:DAk n'!3H .i ..CR;E E:Te:: 4. ' e :' 77:77'7-'17-;.;;':::.4 r ,.;..,,," s._� : '� F-- - - - ;.f,f ; ,,..- 8$ 25+� a•• Q d. i a d L 1` jiy'��';,.rr.,,,.�yU'<C;:., Ji <t. ._,_ d SS'' 6S �� . � d r�J rr•Jr ...::'.1li.I.I ' ANHOLE 2 72' � SS S N ?7• •� � . - a< ice. # . .. -.eIIII...i_. '.1,�.,/r/I. . ,%..TA, 12+73,68 d ..�. .d .. o a .SSS : .SS ., rs %f ai },J;:r.:�! r • "' �-- SS` -g �5% ;; .r }/ ,+t • yo.3. ; - qf•.5.4 �& � d' d d d•. �.. Z � .� F/•?••• ,+;<:j':•:/:M':.•?:"":':••./:'' _W._ • "� :i4 sW`- ,W a ad d' rryrl r�:.ij 1.�:�.. .f :.I�,> •::,y '�'��__ -'�- _--y/' '•'W• :.d.. � � s '�J . , ;X.`•:'' . 1rjY : fitilfr s5 so' :T 4/ -W , s- µ, �i�.:-_ O' _ .�" 1,:a.00 a` a' .a35`LF 30"•CON• a W.r:. �.%.`% 'r %f \�'sry' - - - •��?� X201 LF 30'CONC_ .�p� 1 ��§ v)■ J f.� i'%"_ =-/ a - a_,_i.c rl= --'__. _ - --~_ -- `49' �T 30" CON _ 17+00 E°:( i-- -. 5 !:,'':c _ __ __ _ _ - Lu,� :'.. J/�i / i! • �'t - . n1- - \ 11 •� -_CULVE' " .';rJ,, '1� St _ -� ;l_ -- .� � ` _ �67 IF 48"X33'ARCH PIPE ;!ri � :'31c ��! +Os/ .i -6 ;-;� E B..ASS E - -- - �-�-'-- -- - �,A, - --, / res"'_ tem �. V� s,42 11^ .<. is --'j', - 84 LF 10' PV 11 LF 10" .,_.�' Ihim 10+00 ) .i_-57•" J J y r '/ , OW FLO BYPASS UNE ! STAN 17+52.61ole#5 0 4 ` i ,..2��' r 1 •" FLO" El"-ASS `E \ • 1�J r JJJI r: • : DIA MANHOLE 48" DIA MANHOLE I ( I g I STR STA 29+61,00 30.00 RT ` Jf. /, r r�&pi • I i� it •TA. 12+80.09 TA. 13+64.16 I { �;�d D n n n 1 ,. 30" CO rr J J. . I ONCE MAIN UNE IS ACCEPTED BY CIT 1 -1,J r �_ / c I" A 88. s.9 '1 STR STA 25+72 55 40.91 RT .. I 1 `� \ FUTURE OUTLET FOCAL POINT WA lit 1 • THE EXISTING DISCHARGE PIPE IS TO BE i \til STA. 10+55.45 /'r fr: r: I 1s ;YPASS UNE REMOVED AND FLOWS REDIRECTED TO THE NEW STORM LINE.010 SIR STA 22+77,19 72.61 RT W&H PAC 72ND rt•�r •tr . \ - . r"� " .._ 0" V. '.. EXISTING 12"HPDE IS TO BE CUT BACK 3'TO THEN EXTENDE• I MANHOLE #6 60" 'n CULVERT FOR :.:?..,:f4:,?; ;r . ? r s I AT UNE AND GRADE(0.4%)TO THE MANHOLE /, STA. 17+81.14 y L.. ��' LO FLO DISCHARGE TO WETLAND r 'ft r 11 STA. 12+65.16 15.25 RT d g STR STA 29+89.53 50.84 RT FUTURE 72ND J J J I z J Ori S S A 2,87.32 •.67 RT d I ONCE ALL STORM IS DIRECTED TO NEW UNE,REMOVE EXISTIN r• IMPROVEMENTS P:': 4 ::(0..):::„ I --] ',j ,_ ___-_-_ WETLANDS PER EXISTING DSL PERMIT AND , , ' JJWETLAND I g 40 705 x 6 x 80 inch Concrete Rectangular Headwal JiJ, r ,: L- 1, I FILL DITCH PER THE GRADING PLAN I Co"' STA, 11+22,61 ,f,:..,. r. _-. + �CS RVE c -- �,Im ,_.., - - _ _ i2a; I� -, Qr- fl_I -�/ aSTR STA 23+44.19 67.80 RT U1 Jl.ii.;,; � ) � � . I g l �i1r --I fa I �J J: `\ I: .,. r : I , II , 1,1.111 : V. g'1 _11rn. I I I s 1 r, 1 og '8 �ARTMOUTH STORM I INF PI AN VIEW I d n DARTMOUTH CL STATIONING BASED ON WH PAC PLANS STORM STATIONING BASED ON WH PAC CULVERT STATIONING SCALE: 1"= 30' ° sv 6° c p - u83 ri U n 38 LF 30" CONC 235 255 235 s=s.ss 255 PCS CRUSHED ROCK BEDDING CLASS B BACKFILL TOP 12"NATIVE CRUSHED ROCK BEDDING CLASS B BACKFILL TO SURFACE � SHAPE AND ROLL AS GRAVEL PATH MANHOLE#6 60' 230 250 230 STM STA 17+81.14 (>i RIM 248.92 C/ lE 240.41 30"CONC(NW) / )„, 250 � 3 IE 2IE 240.75 CONN (E) /- Q O LOW FLOW BYPASS UNE I FINISH GRADE OVER / 48' DIA MANHOLE ROPOSED PIPE ALIGNMENT f o -STM STA 13+64.16 10.907 RT STR STA 29+86.70 0 225 ,RIM 219,00 245 �, 225 245 m v LOW FLO BYPASS UNEIE 211.60 10"PVC(W) / LO" FLO" 13.--A 1 T a IE 211.50 10"PVC(N) . // 0 - ra 48" DIA MANHOLE / / M STM STA 12+80.09 10.907 RT 11 LF 10" PV• --- / H o RIM 214.83 S= 58d ---/. e� 220 XISTING CENTERLINE // 240 N 220 FINISH GRADE OVE' IE 210.60 10 PVC(5) i-v- / �n PROPOSED PIPE SW- IE 210.80 10"PVC(E). •" 0" B'••SS I E ---- E / / 1=- E c 84 LF 10 PV• i/ SW DARTMOUTH ST w j 110 LF 48"X33" ARCH PIPS LOW FLOW BYPASS UN S=0.95 II / S=-2.79' 6 LF 10" PV. _- ' 3p CONC // m 215 s=1.70. -joi s-As3� 235 215 // 235 X EMOVE EXISTIN_.. -..... _ ' .....--2,0 /o / Q "r CULVERT, 101 _ G 0 r N �"' j .P TIER MA •U / ON -- _ - i'.TM SIA 3 60' / _ // �O STM STA 17+52.6 -35 LF 30" CONC nFUTURE GRADE OVE _ ExrcrowER / CP 5-7.53x'73 a o 210 PROPOSED PP 247.04 �-- ..- - �cTG 0.. IE vew ' ; 91LF86% CONC, EE 212 40 30" CONC CONC(W)E230+64.22 2�0. //' / ,�a IE 237.65a30oIC0ANH #5 60' _ 230 IOU. o EXISTING GRADE OVE STA 11+46 P , .TM STOMA 2+73.68 2 72 ',E 212.00 10 PVC(S) // IE 237.75 30"RIM (SE) PROPOSED RPE ALIGNMENT ---i M ., ' "IM 214.71 1 S A 25 75. 225. --2o5.-.. STR STA 29+58.17 225 0 205 _ 93% w D S'-3' - -... E207.90 30"CONC(SW) _ cc o MANHOLE EXISTING INLET MANHOLE 59LF 36 CMP(?) E 208.00 30"CONC E W 1 H S-0 61% EXTG 12'WATER IR STA 24+85.41 () STM ST RIM 252,46_ F Z STA .-- T MANHOLE #4 60' co x -Ie`I f IE:VERIFY 41 LF 30' CONC - IE 244.35 30"CONC(SW) 6 O STM STA 15+64,88 U' Z :�� ( O O =4.069: 220 20® IM 230.50 IE 246.41 EXIST 18'PVC(E) 220 W 5 L 200 �. ANHOLE-#t 72". STR STA 30+17,10 -.. 0 Ce IE 222.40 30 CONC(W) w �EXTG1a'SAWTAHYSEWER -M 21350+TM STA 2+32.53 IE 222,50 30"CONC(E) 0 L STR STA 27+76,11 p sTAii 61 ZLn a s AGaswAreR IE:vEwFY E 206,24 48'X33"ARCH PIPE(W) m 186 IE VERIFY .TR STA 24E 206.23 0+57..1150(NE) 215 185. 215 Q tag 24" CLASS 200 RIPRAP 40 105 x 6 x 80 Inch Concrete Rectangular Headwall ® P tz 0 16' NIDE X 19' LONG TR STA RT DART 3'DEEP & LINED W/- TM STA 11+22.61 0.000 RT 7 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC -IM 207.01 o x DTL 5/C2.3 "E 203.09 48"X33'ARCH PIPE(W) cc m La N BAR IS ONE INCH ON DATE: �1nQ m I N`Nd' S C'l� 0 0 0 0 0 0 l9� U U C7 U' 1. w LI t7 �� U w w w IA- w 1,. w w w w w tL w w w w w w ORIGINAL DRAWING CO I O 1- 8/27/2010 2oow' DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: ooWl co o��co 22+50 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 AAR BDL ^4o JOB NUMBER d.--cx li NAME: 10838 www ,;; FF44'1 ' �A DARTMOUTH STORM I INF PROFIT F, STRFFT CL STATIONING DW0 P10838-06.0 DART La=VOLat5. SCALE: HORZ. 1'= 30'; VERT. 1"= 5' PRELIMINARY C6.0 -0QJ47re Etno_ox SHEET tft..,L4t-it§*W40#ir_I --- - - - ..,,- __ pL -,_NIN 1E-- R ---.- _ _ 10-ar lin __ _ , __ ... . = ' - - ' a na - -m-rissiori . - - - e-------7.--er- i-fsastr- If%Trio would like tri speak ati tills denk, please itilL„ a-Awl- TilY PRzliN, dis Voi 1 -ur name, address, aria zip code oelou . , - 1L'roponent; FOR ths I-peerless:le i)n-no-fient IAGz. NST the propciese eanits- _ +ad - - a .1dadrsassa ttsts - tt = d --- --- . ., ‘ddreas, aAidads,-. „- -— — — - Nit MC I\Ytn,f- _kddress- kddrcss: Name: tids,,fra,-, Address,: kddrasa: . , --- - --, _ Naand t _ ,x,dciretsts ',dards-. itain,_ dtase. tap-, t,_las, da.-1„saAfdp: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 3, 2011 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Hasman; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Rogers; Commissioner Ryan; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey; and President Walsh. Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Gus Duenas, Development Engineer. Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; and Darren Wyss, Senior Planner COMMUNICATIONS —President Walsh congratulated Commissioner Doherty on her reappointment to the commission. He briefly introduced the newest Commissioner,Jason Rogers, and said they would chat with Commissioner Rogers a bit at the end of the meeting. He reminded the commissioners that their signed Code of Conduct form needed to be turned in. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES December 13th Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the December 131h minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM 12/6/10 (PDR) 2010-00002/MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 2010-00002 RED ROCK CENTER President Walsh opened the public hearing and explained that this is a continuation of a prior hearing [held December 6, 2010]. He reminded the commissioners that at the prior meeting the commission had approved all the conditions of Red Rock Center with the exception of three conditions. He read the I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PH Red Rock&EOA Mtg\"1 PC i\4inutes 1-3-11.doc Page 1 of 6 motion made by Commissioner Vermilyea, seconded by Commissioner Shavey, from the minutes of that prior meeting (passed unanimously): "I move for approval of application PDR2010-00002/MLP2010-00002 with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report, subject to the following: 1) Adoption of findings consistent with the evidence that was developed at tonight's hearing to be undertaken at the January 3,2011 Planning Commission meeting and 2) With the understanding/proviso that conditions 41, 42, and 62 will be revisited by the Planning Commission if the applicant, the City, and ODOT are able to reach agreement on modification of those three conditions." REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Planned Development Detailed Plan approval for an approximately 39,125 square foot general/ medical office and retail development in three buildings on a 4.09-acre site. The Detailed Plan proposal also includes approximately an acre of open space with a quarter of that in enhanced wetlands, substantial improvements to the public streets abutting the property's four frontages, 145 surface parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, and access and utility infrastructure improvements. A three-lot minor land partition is also requested. The Planning Commission previously approved the Concept Plan under PDR2008-00003. Sensitive Lands Review and approval was obtained for the associated Red Rock Creek drainage and wetland enhancements approved under Red Rock Center Planned Development Concept Plan Approval. LOCATION: 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S101AB, Tax Lots 00100 and 00300. The property is located south of SW Dartmouth Road and east of SW 72nd Avenue, within the Tigard Triangle. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None Site visitations: Commissioner Muldoon & President Walsh. No challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner, entered into the record John Frewing's written comments and Steve Pfeiffer's printed email. The commissioners were handed copies of each. {Frewing comments (Exhibit A), Pfeiffer's comments (Exhibit R)]. He went over the revised staff report (staff reports are available, by request, to the public one week in advance of the scheduled meetings.) The Revised Staff Report to the Planning Commission includes revised findings and conditions of approval based on the Planning Commission's deliberation on December 6, 2010 and subsequent negotiations with the applicant. These revisions are summarized below: Revised Findings Findings for Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria (page 25-26), Street and Utility Improvement Standards (page 49-50), Traffic Study (page 56-57), and Rough Proportionality (page 58) have been revised consistent with the evidence available at the hearing and the subsequent negotiations with the applicant. The revised findings led to the following revised conditions of approval. Revised Conditions l:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PH Red Rock&EOA MtgV"1'PC Minutes 1-3-11.doc Page 2 of 6 The applicant, City, and ODOT reached agreement on the modification of Conditions 41, 42, and 62: Conditions 41(ODOT recommendation to require $300,000 in off-site improvements to Hwy217/72nd Avenue intersection) and 42 (restrictive covenant for unmitigated impact) have been deleted. Instead, of these exactions, Conditions 37 and 38 have been revised to include additional improvements to SW Dartmouth between 69th and 72nd Avenues. These alternative exactions meet both the nexus test, as they directly benefit the project, and the proportionality test, as shown in the Rough Proportionality Analysis. Condition 62 has been revised to reflect a reduced trip generation count for proportionate share contributions to the signalization funds for the intersections at Dartmouth and 68th and 70th, consistent with the figures agreed to by the applicant and ODOT. Questions/Comments: Do the changes comply with Tigard City regulations?Yes. Attachment 4 from the applicant (memo) shows the design is feasible. There was a request for a description of the improvements. President Walsh asked the commissioners if anyone had concerns regarding the traffic study. No one expressed concern. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Ben Altman, of the SFA Design Group, said he represented the applicant. He wanted to state for the record that they had worked with the staff as expected by the commission from the last hearing and they concur with the revised staff report and modified conditions. Altman asked the commissioners if they had any questions of him. There were no questions. PUBLIC COMMENT President Walsh prefaced the public comment time asking that any comment be restricted to just the new findings and primarily to the three conditions that they'd been discussing. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR: None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION John Frewing, before going over his written material questioned the commission as to procedure, and whether the commission had already spoken about something that was outside the scope of what should have been discussed. He raised some technical points about what's in the record and what's not in the record. Gary Pagenstecher was asked to provide comment on this. He told Mr. Frewing that the revised new condition #41 was in response to the comments that Frewing made during the public hearing. He said that although the motion didn't address the comments, Pagenstecher addressed them in the staff report to provide clarity—but no new information. it was agreed upon by the commissioners that ,_stewing would have 3 minutes to give the highlights of his written testimony (Exhibit A) —which he did. I:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PII Red Rock&EOA MtgV'IPC.Minutes 1-3-11 doc Page 3 of 6 John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane,Tigard —Frewing briefly went over his written material— he noted his main concerns are Nos. 1, 2, & 3 in the written material. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Ben Altman, SFA representing the applicant, said Mr. Frewing had raised some technical points about what's in the record and what's not. He wanted to clarify. His understanding was that the record is based on the Dec 6th hearing. He said additional revisions to the staff report related to the 3 conditions (41, 42 & 62) are what are relevant tonight. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING @ 7:45PM At this point, President Walsh opened the meeting up for deliberations. DELIBERATIONS Some of the comments from the commissioners: ® It looks fairly complete to me and addresses most of our concerns. ® It brings things into a local context and addresses most of the concerns we had on the rough proportionality. o It makes things adjacent, it's an easier connection. o I'm pleased to see what I considered to be "overreaching" conditions were removed and brought back to the site. ® The traffic study was revised to fit this size of a development. There was no further discussion and a motion was made. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Hasman: "I move we approve the application PDR2010®00002 & MLP2010-00002 and adopt the recommendations of the planning staff which includes the three issues that we left open from the December 6th hearing." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Ryan; Commissioner Schmidt, Commissioner Shavey, and President Walsh NAYS: None. ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Rogers ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson I:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PH Red Rock&BOA Mtg\TPC Minutes 1-3-11.doc Page 4 of 6 WORK SESSION—ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS (EOA) COMMITTEE Darren Wyss, Senior Planner, and Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, were there to follow up on the previous month's EOA meeting. Hartnett told the commissioners that an update on the work program& projects Matrix is in the works and will be distributed to the commissioners sometimes towards the end of this month. President Walsh mentioned that the commission would like to have some sort of a primer at one of the future meetings on the issue of the "Nexus Test" and "Proportionality." Hartnett said she would work with the City Attorney and Planning Commissions' schedule to figure out what might work. Darren Wyss reminded the commission that he and Susan Hartnett were there as a follow-up to the last meeting they'd had. He reminded them that there had been questions that they'd promised to get back to them on. He said they would discuss those questions tonight and talk about the next steps in the process for the Planning Commission. At this point, he turned the meeting over to Hartnett who did an overview of the expectations and obligations for the City during this EOA process. Hartnett said they'd made some observations at the last meeting. She said they'd noted some possible frustration with the level of specificity and detail in the data. Also there appeared to be concern among the commissioners that recommendations either lack sufficient policy basis or may not be specific enough to meet the desired outputs. She spoke about the scope of the EOA and the grant funding that is coming along with that work-scope. She noted the work-scope is fairly narrow. She said the EOA is an element in the periodic review work program. Hartnett told the commissioners staff would like to provide the commissioners some additional information by way of a non-affiliated economist who can discuss with the commission ways that a small suburban city can be successful in influencing economic development outcomes within the regional and state (or even national & international)) context that exists. President Walsh asked the commission if they would be interested in something like that. The consensus was that yes, they would be interested in that. Hartnett will pursue that and get back to the commissioners as to when that might happen. There was a question as to the timeframe —Darren Wyss said the conditions of the grant are that the EOA needs to be through the legislative process (which would be Council adoption) by the end of May. He said there will be a Planning Commission Public Hearing on this in April and then to the Council in May. Wyss then went through a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C) and also referred the commissioners to some of the materials they'd received in their earlier packets that answered some of their questions. OTHER BUSINESS — (Update on Assignment of CCI Responsibilities & Officer Elections) Susan gave a brief update— She said so far as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) responsibilities, the High Capacity Transit (HCT) Land Use plan will be coming before them very soon. A letter,has been sent to the DCI) in fnt ming there of this change 'Plea Planning Cf,trirnsine is officially the CCI and will be acting in that capacity next month. The bylaws will be updated to reflect the change. I:ALRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PH Red Rock&EOA Mtg.\1'PC Minutes 1-3-11.doc Page 5 of 6 The newly appointed Commissioner Jason Rogers briefly gave his background to the commission and the commissioners welcomed him aboard. ELECTIONS Commissioner Doherty moved to nominate Commissioner Dave Walsh for another term as President. Commissioner Hasman seconded the motion. The nomination was approved unanimously by the Commissioners. Commissioner Ryan moved to nominate Commissioner Tom Anderson for Vice President. Commissioner Hasman seconded the motion. The nomination was approved unanimously by the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm. Doreen Laughlin,Planning C4,mmission Secretary ATTEST:'President David Walsh I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2011 PC Packets\1-3-11 PH Red Rock&EOA Mtg\"IPC Minute,1-3-11.doc Page 6 of 6 From: John Frewinq To: Doreen Lauohlin Subject: Frewing Testimony,Jan 3 Planning Commission, Red Rock Center, PDR 2010-00002 Date: Monday,January 03,2011 3:01:27 PM Doreen, As I hoped, I can send to you for Planning Commission review, if appropriate, an advance copy of my testimony for this evening. John Frewing RED ROCK CENTER, FREWING TESTIMONY OF JANUARY 3, 2011 PDR 2010-00002 ET AL BEFORE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION First, I want to thank each of you and city staff for your interest and effort to make this application comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations so as to make Tigard a great place in the future. I recognize that your effort is voluntary, so I believe that your interest is truly that of the citizens of Tigard as a whole—you are interested in livability, property value, transportation, natural features, economy, etc. There is little more valuable than to look out for the future of our area,whether it be in efforts at education, resource protection, economic development, public budget vigilance,transportation planning or any of other public activities which you oversee. My comments below are aimed at this same future, and I hope that you see them as such. I have no general opposition to the Red Rock Center as a whole and I don't fault the applicant for trying to minimize his front end costs. My concerns relate to the Red Rock Center impact on Tigard and compliance with applicable standards. I do, however, believe that development should generally pay for itself; in the present case, we have both unmitigated known impacts and unspecified externalities which the citizens of Tigard will be paying for decades from now. A Unmitigated Impacts. Recall that the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was originally set, as a matter of policy, to collect about one third of the traffic impact costs from a developer; over time, and because of cost increases and urbanization, that fraction has been reduced to about one sixth—so, thru the TIF, the public would pay five-sixths of the traffic impact costs for Red Rock Center already. The applicant desires to not pay for remaining unmitigated traffic impacts. Condition 42 of the first staff report should be reinstated, adding an upper limit to the extent of applicant responsibility under a yet-to-be-determined traffic funding mechanism for all of the Tigard Triangle. I would suggest an upper limit for this project of ten percent over the total calculated impact of the Red Rock Center development (which would be the upper limit of'roughly proportional'). See TDC 18.390.040 B.e. Such limit would provide a fixed maximum financial exposure for the applicant, which is what was requested on December 6. The second staff report notes that there remains a considerable amount of'unmitigated impact' which, in my view of the public interest, as a minimum should be available to the city when a funding mechanism for all of the Tigard Triangle is decided. Other developments in the area sign a promise of non- remonstrance against a LID or similar commitment; here we have zero commitment to help with future area development offsite. I note further that there is no deadline established for Tigard to decide on a transportation funding mechanism for the Tigard Triangle --you should recommend to the city that such a deadline be established, with a proviso that no development permits will be granted after a given date unless a funding mechanism is approved and in effect. By completely eliminating Conditions 41 and 42,the city staff has effectively caved in to this particular developer; give your staff some backbone by speaking for Tigard residents. B Canopy Cover. In its review of the concept plan for Red Rock Center,the Planning Commission asked applicant to meet with the Tree Board and review the Red Rock Center canopy coverage plans to see if these natural resources are protected/preserved to the required "maximum" extent. See TDC 18.350.050. On December 6, the applicant explained their response to this Planning Commission request. Applicant responded that the 'total canopy coverage for the parking field would be approximately 76%' (my emphasis added). The Tigard Urban Forestry Master Plan studied canopy cover for its parking lot areas and found only 6 percent is presently covered. The UFMP at page 14 gives some detail on how parking lot areas were delineated; the applicants' use of a different term (parking field) leaves uncertain how much of its 'parking lot area'would be under tree canopy. The Tigard 'parking lot area' does not include islands and peripheral landscaped areas such as those shown on applicant's drawing (no number)simply titled 'Tree Canopy'. The term 'parking field' on the internet refers to 'parking fields' at New York City's Flatbush/Caton Parking Field, Flushing Meadow#1 Parking Field, Broome and Ludlow Municipal Parking Field and Nassau County's Parking Fields No. 2 and No. 4—within these larger areas there appear to be 'lots'. You may think that this is nitpicking over words— I would simply remind you that the applicant in this case consists of experienced professionals— I believe carefully using words to minimize their commitment to Tigard and its citizens. The diplomatic rule which applies here and is most commonly known among nations is "Trust but Confirm" —as in nuclear weapon treaties. The city should include a condition of approval for this Red Rock Center that the parking lot areas (as delineated by Tigard in the UFMP) must have at least 66 percent canopy cover in 30 years (this time stated by applicant at the December 6 Planning Commission hearing). This will provide a basis for enforcement, as was possible for the Costco parking lot within the past couple years. Better yet would be a condition stating a canopy cover requirement at the 15 year mark, so some correction can be made if necessary. Making this a Condition of Approval will give meaning to the verb 'met' as stated in TDC 18.350.050 A., where the 'maximum' wording is used for natural resource protection/preservation. C Mitigation of Stormwater Channelization. I still don't believe that Tigard has met its obligation to 'coordinate'this development with ODFW and citizen cited needs for fish and wildlife habitat protection, as required by state law and rule and Tigard regulations (See TDC 18.120.030 A.45.c. and TDC 18.390.050 C.1.a.(3)). This is the same comment I provided at the December 6, 2010 Planning Commission hearing. I will incorporate here by reference my comment there, but extend my explanation and reference new material in the file for this development. 1. There is no finding and no evidence up to and through the December 6 Planning Commission meeting that the need identified by ODFW and local citizens (ie me) for 'dissipating the energy and velocity of the stream' (referring to the Red Rock tributary flowing through the site adjacent to Dartmouth Street) has been met, resolved or found not possible. Such is a requirement of state law and rule. In accordance with the Planning Commission motion to keep the hearing open until January 3, only evidence in the record as of December 6 is to be considered tonight. The second staff report adds new information, mentioning agency agreement with an ODL/Corps permit at the time of SLR; such review and approval was not of a 'detailed development plan' and thus it was not timely to object to the total ignoring of this need. Only now, with submittal of the detailed development plan, is it possible to see and object that the need for 'dissipating the energy and velocity of the stream' has not at all been met. In fact, Tigard staff at the time of SLR review advised me that details of the energy and velocity dissipation would 'come later'. The Tigard SLR review was limited to ONLY Tax Lot 100, not upstream or downstream areas of the small tributary. If Tigard contends that the Planning Commission approved some mitigation for energy and velocity dissipation at the time of concept review or at the time of SLR, it is no where in the record. The second staff report notes that outfall development at the southwest corner of SW 72nd/Dartmouth "is subject to engineering review under the PFI permit process" but such deferral of review and approval to an administrative action when a specific issue has been properly raised in the prior application process does not meet the definition of 'coordination'. I am heartened to see that in Engineering review of this application, Tigard staff initially proposed including the provision in Condition of Approval 43 that the culvert under SW 72nd "must be designed and constructed with energy dissipaters to effectively control storm water discharge velocity and quantity into the downstream area." However, this provision does not appear in the final staff report, having been deleted, with the accompanying handwritten note: "Remove —too much discretion —scope of work in accord with PFI and CWS signoff. Issue will be addressed Applicant response to document it is feasible. Applicant — explain why they can get PFI and CWS: feasible to do so." While the note removing the requirement for energy dissipaters is not really understandable, it tells me that there is less than a firm commitment to do what ODFW asked from the beginning. 2. My solution to the aforementioned need, a detention swale or underground vault for the small tributary, is possible, because the same solution, appropriately sized, is proposed for onsite drainage detention. The record shows no site conditions which would make an underground vault not possible. 3. Not in the record, and not in evidence at the December 6 Planning Commission hearing, but in the present Red Rock Center file, is a December 20 letter from applicant's representative claiming that a rock outfall on the southwest corner of the Dartmouth/72nd intersection will adequately reduce the energy and velocity of the stream for habitat protection by meeting CWS design standards. There are several arguments and evidence that such claim is inadequate for Tigard to find 'coordination': a. The December 20 letter (and all previous applicant materials) makes no claim that a detention swale or vault is not possible, which is the standard for incorporation of ODFW and citizen needs. b. CWS design standards do not address energy and velocity mitigation necessary for habitat protection, but only for immediate area channel scouring. Additional design features such as stilling basins, drop pools, hydraulic jump basins, corrugated tee sections, gabions, baffled aprons and bucket aprons are available and possible for reduction of velocity and energy for habitat protection and mitigation of the buried culvert stream at this site; see CWS D&C standards, internet and standard engineering design texts. c. CWS design standards require stormwater conveyance designs to assume full buildout of upstream basin areas. See CWS D&C Standard 5.05.1. Such assumptions are not in the record for this development, and would require identification of upstream impervious areas such as additional and widened streets. So the culvert proposed is not 'oversized'. The inclusion of more impervious areas upstream will have the effect of increasing peak stormwater volumes, energy and velocity, with resulting changes in stormwater design for this development. d. The proposed outfall extends at least 16 feet wide and 19 feet in length downstream from the culvert, both dimensions extending beyond the easement and dedicated r/w for SW 72nd at Dartmouth, hence is not possible without acquisition or easement of additional space, not now under control of applicant. The Tigard Land Use Application requires identification of property under control of the applicant and limits development to such areas. See TDC 18.390.050 B.1. The proposed culvert and outfall do not extend to the ultimate width of SW 72nd, thereby making a future lengthening of the culvert and excavation and development of a new outfall or other exit structure necessary, both of which produce additional impact to the stream and its surroundings, and which could be avoided by a single construction plan and activity. Therefore the impact to local natural systems is not 'minimized' in this development. e. The December 20 letter asserts that the grade of the culvert was reduced to help reduce velocity. Contrary to this assertion, the grade of the culvert cannot be made any steeper because it would interfere with a 30" City of Tualatin water main which lies beneath SW 72nd St at Dartmouth. See Drawing C6.0 attached to the December 20 letter (lower left hand corner) which shows this water main obstruction. Hence, the applicant has not, by virtue of his intentional design, contributed at all to velocity reduction in the culvert. Similarly, the existence of horizontal bends in the upstream 30" culvert are not made necessary by any velocity considerations, but instead are created in order to avoid the stream flowing underneath Pad A and to accommodate the widening of Dartmouth St. Neither of these design features reduce peak flow, which is the principal driving element of velocity and energy in the small tributary, which by Tigard rules and ODFW comment are to be 'minimized'. f. My email of December 15 to Gary Pagenstecher points out that the energy and velocity of the stream in fact is INCREASED by the design of the buried culvert on the Red Rock Center site, namely the smooth inside of the 30" concrete culvert which extends almost the entire length of the site along Dartmouth Street, as compared with the prior/existing open rock lined channel. As noted in that email, applicant's 'Detail 5, Drawing 3.2', regarding the design of the 72nd St culvert outfall were not available to the city nor approved by the city as of December 6, despite such claim by applicant's Ben Altman at the December 6 hearing (and still are not in the file today). I won't call Mr. Altman a liar, (his claim was 'jaw dropping' to me) but will say that at best, he 'misspoke' in response to my stormwater concerns for the small tributary along Dartmouth St (see minutes). g. The 'low flow' bypass to the wetland area will have no effect on the energy and velocity of stormwater in the small tributary of Red Rock Creek at this site and its provision is therefore irrelevant to the issue of energy and velocity in the small tributary. Mitigation in the small tributary must address times of extreme high flow as shown on the hydrograph which I submitted (from the application) on December 6. Applicants' letter of December 20 is in agreement, making no claim that the wetland reserve will affect the high flows in the tributary of Red Rock Creek at this site. h. The second staff report notes that the culvert and outfall design for the intersection at SW 72nd/Dartmouth, are subject to a future revised CWS Service Provider Letter for offsite improvements; this additional permitting action is a new development not in evidence at the December 6 hearing and in direct opposition to the understanding of Commissioner Anderson as stated at the December 6 hearing, saying, "CWS has signed off on it". i. While a revised CWS Service Provider Letter now appears to be required, there is no corresponding note that a new Oregon DSL Fill and Removal Permit is required and has been obtained, or that a City of Tigard Sensitive Land Permit is required and has been obtained for the proposed work in waters of the state and sensitive lands of Tigard. Both appear necessary in my view: The removal of existing culverts, excavation, and installation of a much enlarged culvert under 72nd will involve more than 50 cubic yards of material, and the expansion of this culvert is not 'routine maintenance or replacement' of the culvert which might exempt it from the Tigard SLR requirements — it is an enlargement, shown as such on the city's CIP Plan, designed to 'relieve flooding and stop creek incision.' j. CWS standards for culverts such as proposed under SW 72nd St require "For culverts which convey flows from or though water quality sensitive areas; a local representative of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) or other applicable state or federal agency shall be contacted to determine if fish passage is required and to identify site specific design criteria. All culverts shall be designed for fish passage in accordance with ODFW guidance for fish passage unless otherwise exempted by ODFW and the District or City." See CWS D&C Standards 5.07.6 a.4. The tributary of Red Rock Creek which flows through this site and the wetland reserve area on the site are both shown as a water quality sensitive area on Tigard maps. By virtue of its IGA with CWS, City of Tigard is responsible for enforcing the CWS standards, and as the governing land use body for this development is responsible for ensuring that the aforementioned consultation and coordination take place. The record shows that it has not yet occurred. 4. At the December 6 hearing, Planning Commission members agreed to conclude their consideration of this development at tonight's meeting. Their conclusion and reasoning was in response to applicant statements that site work must proceed almost immediately in order to retain unnamed 'anchor tenants' for the proposed buildings. The applicant did not note that for start of Phase 2, which includes initially the public facilities and instream work at SW 72nd, Oregon DSL rules for instream work limit such work to the period of July 15 to September 30 of each year, with minor extensions sometimes allowed. Hence, there is no construction need for approval tonight. In conclusion, I ask you to require that the Red Rock Center development comply fully with Tigard regulations, that Tigard complete and coordinate its review with agencies and citizens in accordance with state law and rules and that you protect the interests of Tigard citizens against the sometimes different interests of the applicant here. The appropriate action in my view is to find that the application lacks sufficient information to review (eg there lacks any evidence of necessary sensitive land permits) and deny, without prejudice,this particular permit request. A later and complete application can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Perkins Cole 1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor Portland,OR 97209-4128 Steven L.Pfeiffer PHONE 503.727.2000 PHONE:(503)727-2261 FAX:503.727.2222 FAx: (503)346-2261 www.perkinscoie.com EMAIL: SPfeiffer@perkinscoie.com January 3, 2011 VIA EMAIL David Walsh, President Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Red Rock Center- PDRIDPR Review PDR 2010-00002 Dear President Walsh and Fellow Commissioners: This office represents Tigard Corporate Center Limited Partnership,the owner of the Tigard Corporate Center lying immediately east of the above-referenced project now before the Commission. As I indicated during public testimony at the December 6, 2010 public hearing before the Commission,the Tigard Corporate Center is a developed property which enjoys full access via existing developed streets serving the site. On the other hand, the proposed Red Rock Center under review will require the construction of SW 70th Avenue south of SW Dartmouth Street to ensure full vehicular access to the proposed project, and such full improvement of SW 70th Avenue, including necessary right of way dedication, is required by conditions 33 and 39, respectively as recommended by City staff. Further, we believe that it is important to note that such required improvements are receiving full credit under the rough proportionality analysis set forth on page 58 of the Staff Report to the Commission. Pursuant to our earlier testimony, the purpose of this letter is to reiterate our request for the imposition of a condition of approval which serves to preclude reliance upon a local improvement district to finance the acquisition of necessary right of way and the construction of public street improvements on SW 70th to serve the subject project. Such a condition could read as follows: "The acquisition of right of way and improvements to SW 70th Avenue shall not be subject of a local district improvement." 28286-0008/LEGAL 19900367.1 ANCHORAGE BEIJING BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER • LOS ANGELES MADISON MENLO PARK • PHOENIX PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates David Walsh, President Planning Commission City of Tigard January 3, 2011 Page 2 Since the Tigard Corporate Center is fully served by existing public access via other adjacent public streets, we believe that the development of SW 70th Avenue as required to serve the proposed Red Rock Center project cannot be of any benefit, substantial or otherwise,to the Tigard Corporate Center as required to support a local improvement district for this specific improvement. While we fully support the proposed project and do not oppose the full development of SW 70th as a condition of such development, we also believe that it is reasonable to impose such a condition at the time of development approval. Thank you for your consideration of our request, and we look forward to your final decision with regard to this submittal. Very truly yours, - Ste L. Pfeiffer SLP:crl Cc: Tigard Corporate Center (via email) Gary Pagenstecher(via email) Ronald Bunch(via email) 28286-0008/LEGAL 199003 67.1 Planning Commission Meeting Tigard Ficonomic Opportunities Analysis January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA City of Tigard - Economic Opportunities Analysis Task 1:Preparation Task2:Trends Analysis • Community Economic • Forecast lob Growth by Sector Development Objectives(CEDO's) • Identify Employment Clusters that Align with CEDO's I Task 6:implementation Task 3:Site Suitability Analysis(Demand) • Floor Space Needed to • Recommendation on Accommodate Growth Policies and Strategies • Vacant Land Needs I Task 5:Assessment of Potential Task 4:Inventory of Suitable Sites (Supply) • Reconciliation of Demand vs. • Buildable Lands Analysis Supply • Redevelopment Potential • Growth Scenario Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 1: Preparation • Community Economic Development Objectives (CEDO's) Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Community Kconomic Development Objectives (C1--'',DOs) 1 . kncourage family-wage jobs 2. Develop existing industry clusters 3. Promote efficient development of employment lands 4. Ensure flexible and adaptive regulatory practices 5. Focus growth in designated centers and corridors 6. Limit retail and service uses in industrial areas; support neighborhood commercial areas 7. Fncourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 2: Trends Analysis • Forecast Job Growth by Sector • Identify Employment Clusters that Align with CEDO's Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA On the industrial zoned lands, what are the uses that are really there? Use of Industrial Zoned Land - City of Tigard, OR Properties Acres Land Use Number Percent Number Percent Industrial Improved 112 41.33% 357.3 35.87% Commercial Improved 88 32.47% 243.5 24.44% Vacant 31 11.44% 55.5 5.57% Government Owned 32 11.81% 331.7 33.29% Residential 4 1.48% 3.2 0.32% Fraternal Org. 2 0.74% 4.9 0.49% Church 1 0.37% 0.1 0.01% Misc. 1 0.37% 0.1 0.01% Total 271 100.0% 996.3 100.0% Source:Washington County Tax Assessment Property Code Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA How do the clusters identified in the I-4,OA align with the state's targeted cluster strategy? Organization Targeted Cluster State of Oregon Advanced Manufacturing Businesses Regional Stakeholders Advanced Manufacturing OR Business Development Dept. Clean Tech Portland Business Alliance Athletic & Outdoor Portland Development Comm. Software Durable Goods Manufacturing Education City of Tigard Financial Services Information Technology Professional and Tech Services Wholesale Trade Health Care Advanced Tech Manufacturing & Research Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA What percentage of current commercial uses are lower wage retail/service employment vs. some higher use? Type 11111== Number Employees Avg. Pay Retail Trade 329 7621 $25,407 Arts, Entertainment, & 23 184 $16,241 Recreation Accommodations 10 131 $20,072 Food Services & Drinking 171 2703 $16,433 Places Other Services 230 1120 $36,618 Totals 763 11,759 Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Why are industrial lease rates high in Tigard? ■ Overall industrial rates are on par with suburban average ■ Flex space rates are higher than average ■ Due to Pac Trust Business Center ■ Excellent design and building aesthetics and good access ■ Information on lease rates can be found in Appendix B. Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 3: Site Suitability Analysis (Demand) • Floor Space Needed to Accommodate Growth • Vacant Land Needs Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA What are the assumptions about the percentage of new businesses that select a vacant site versus those that select a redevelopment site? ■ Redevelopment/ Kxisting Vacant Building Assumptions (see Appendix C) ■ Retail — 70% ■ Service/Office — 50% ■ Industrial — 40% ■ Government — 40% ■ Account for vacant building inventory and are consistent with Metro urban growth assumptions and the City's redevelopment objectives. Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 4: Inventory of Suitable Sites (Supply) • Buildable Lands Analysis • Redevelopment Potential Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA What is the nexus between the identified clusters and the land needs? ■ Kmployment forecast uses general assumptions found in Appendix C to estimate land needs ■ Some of the need will be accommodated by redevelopment ■ The Clusters Analysis (Table 11 and Appendix F) shows the needs of identified clusters ■ The City's redevelopment potential and vacant lands has the capacity to accommodate identified cluster need Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 5: Assessment of Potential • Reconciliation of Demand vs. Supply • Growth Scenario Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA What does the "low growth scenario" really mean? ■ Metro 2035 growth assumptions were used for the medium growth scenario ■ Decreased by 25% for the low growth scenario ■ Increased by 25% for the high growth scenario ■ Metro 2045 anticipates growth assumptions reduced for Tigard — consistent with "low growth scenario" ■ Not required to use Metro numbers, but generally good assumptions and helpful to be consistent with regional forecasts. Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA "Low growth scenario" requires less land. Will it preclude us from pursuing certain economic development opportunities? ■ No, will not preclude opportunities, but rezoning of large, vacant parcels will need a new assessment • Available vacant land is greatest factor • City currently has 2.3 jobs/household • Redevelopment is acknowledged as essential strategy & "low growth scenario" supports this • HCT lines show consistent pattern of development being tied to them Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Task 6: Implementation • Recommendation on Policies and Strategies Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA Are the targeted clusters consistent with the Comp Plan? ■ Policy 9.1 .2. The City shall actively encourage businesses that provide family-wage jobs to start up, expand, or locate in Tigard. ■ Policy 9.1 .7. The City shall limit the development of retail and service land uses in Metro-designated industrial areas to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs. ■ Policy 9.1 .11 . The City shall develop industry clusters by encouraging the retention, expansion, and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. Planning Commission -January 3, 2011 City of Tigard - EOA ext Steps ■ February 7 — Task 6: Implementation ■ March 7 — Final Review of Draft MA ■ April 4 — Public Hearing for Draft F,OA Planning Commission -January 3, 2011