Loading...
05/21/2018 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – May 21, 2018 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: May 21, 2018 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. TOPPING CORNER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR2018-00001; SUB2017-00008 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests approval of a Detailed Development Plan and 18-Lot Subdivision of the 1.55-acre subject property located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. The proposed Subdivision includes 18-lots and four private tracts. Each proposed lot will site a future single-family detached dwelling. Proposed open space within Tract A, B and C totals 67,375 S.F. (24.3%) of the subject property. Two existing single-family detached dwellings and accessory structures will be demolished following approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision application. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:05 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m. May 21, 2018 Page 1 of 6 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, May 21, 2018 Location: Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Vice President Feeney Commissioner Brook Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schmidt Alt. Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: Commissioner Middaugh; Commissioner Lieuallen Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher, Project Planner COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Schmidt had attended the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee meeting and had received engineering updates, SW Corridor updates, and Safe Routes to School updates. President Fitzgerald had attended a housing task force and gave a brief rundown of what went on. Commissioner Roberts had attended a CPO-4 Meeting (but not as a representative of the Planning Commission). CONSIDER MINUTES April 16 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the April 16 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING TOPPING CORNER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PDR2018-00001; SUB2017-00008 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests approval of a Detailed Development Plan and 18-Lot Subdivision of the 1.55-acre subject property located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. The proposed May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Subdivision includes 18-lots and four private tracts. Each proposed lot will site a future single- family detached dwelling. Proposed open space within Tract A, B and C totals 67,375 S.F. (24.3%) of the subject property. Two existing single-family detached dwellings and accessory structures will be demolished following approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision application. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave.; Washington County Tax Map: 1S136AC02200, 1S136AC02400, 1S136AC02500 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi -judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions and no stated conflicts of interest; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Whitehurst, Brook, Hu, Fitzgerald, Feeney, Schmidt had visited the site. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Project Planner Gary Pagenstecher went over the staff report. [Staff reports are posted to the City website and available for viewing one week before the public hearing.] He noted that the staff report contained an error on page 4 in that it included a reference to “Bull Mountain Road” when it should have referenced “SW 72nd.” He also noted that someone had told him the posted notice in the field on the property had omitted the time of the hearing, although it did have the date and Gary’s contact information. Someone had called him and notified him of the time omission. Gary went over a slide (Exhibit A) regarding Council direction and open space. He noted that some neighbors had contacted staff with comments. Their main concerns were loss of open space, increased pressures of development, land use process notice and comment. He believes this feedback and testimony for open space at the council meeting influenced the council’s direction favoring access in this case, and for the detailed plan to provide for open space. Gary also used a slide of the site plan and preliminary plat (Exhibit B) when referring to side yard setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed Planned Development Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval and any modifications that may result from this public hearing process and the Commission’s deliberations. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION Ken Sandblast of Westlake Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. He thanked staff for the summary and went on to say the Concept Plan was part of the zone change that the Planning Commission looked at earlier. He said, “the Concept Plan provided the vehicle to allow the certainty both for density and configuration of the project, and looked for those issues then. For example, there was a lot of testimony received about the prominent Oak tree that’s in May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 6 the NW corner of the property, so this application shows a lot of landscaping effort given to the open space to retain that tree and work with it – and protect it. The Detailed Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan – we did not change density, we did not change the location of the street; thought was given to those kinds of things before when we did the Concept Plan. The big difference between the two plans was just refinement of the storm-water. The plan set that was submitted to you has a lot of detailed information about the storm-water and of course, that’s the purpose of the Detailed Plan.” He went over the various Tracts with regard to changes and impact. He said, “We are supportive of the staff recommendation for the setbacks at the 20% - we accept that. The rest of the Conditions of Approval are acceptable as prepared and presented in the staff report. We have no issues with the Conditions of Approval, primarily because we gave a lot of thought to this trying to be compliant when we did the Concept Plan. Regarding the tracts – we understand the Council talked about this and that testimony was received at the Planning Commission and at the City Council. The Tract C we are proposing to give to the city as public space. As I think I heard Gary say, that’s been an offer the city has said they aren’t accepting. Tract D is a private street – it will be maintained privately. There’s a sidewalk alongside of it. Then Tract B is the large open space tract that would be proposed to be private. Tract A is a storm facility and typically, the city takes ownership of storm tracts and does maintenance at those facilities. So Tract B lots are smaller, it’s the R12 zoning and therefore that open space is for these owners. The code says it’s the city’s choice between private open space or public open space. What we’re really not supportive of is some hybrid where this is private space with public access over the top of it. If it’s public, then it needs to be public property. It’s not private property with a public access over it. We would be supportive of a public access easement on the sidewalk because that’s no different than any other sidewalk. So if Tract D had a public easement over it for the sidewalk to get to a public Tract B, then that’s completely understandable. What we’re really not supportive of again, is Tract B being private with public easement over the top of it . We have proposed very elaborate landscaping all over Tract B and we’re willing to do that if it is public – we just don’t want to see the hybrid plan in the middle. So if it’s private, it’s private – and if it’s public then we would request that the Planning Commission’s decision find that it would be public ownership of Tract B – and Tract C for that matter simply because Tract C is right there at the street and it’s going to be used by the public quite a bit.” TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – Nancy Tracy – 7310 SW Pine St., Portland, OR said she regrets that since 2015 the Planning Commission has been against the idea of a neighborhood park for this land. She noted that 200 households had signed a petition for it. She spoke about global warming and bad weather. She thinks this development is atrocious. She believes the economic system is not working anymore. She spoke about fossil fuel. She is for the park. She said Tigard could have bought the land for a neighborhood park, which would have done so much good for many people, but they didn’t. She thinks Tigard is like a smug King Midas. She is concerned for the future of the children who have no safe place to play. May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard – asked for a change in timing as he’s the chair of the local CPO. He was granted additional time, he distributed his testimony to the commissioners and read through it (Exhibit C). He requested a traffic study and a continuance. Christina Hanson 10670 SW 75th Ave., Tigard – spoke about a drainage issue she and her husband have. If they still have a drainage issue after this is built, she wants it on the record that she talked about this issue before. She questioned the positioning of the signs – she wasn’t able to see one because of cars on the road. She believes a traffic study should be done. Tim Peck, 7203 SW Pine – noted this is out of character with the neighborhood so far as the density goes. His biggest concern is the traffic. He would support a traffic study of the impact of having 36 more cars in this small of a section of that neighborhood. He believes it will put a lot of stress on the infrastructure. STAFF RESPONSE Project Planner Gary Pagenstecher gave the response: Regarding Nancy Tracy’s comment about the petition for a park: The PRAB did write a letter in support of a park in this location. They found the area was park deficient and they were sympathetic to the petition, but the city does not have the funds to continue the acquisition of lands at this time - so they were unable to buy the property. Furthermore, it’s in private ownership and we’d require a willing seller - which is uncertain also. Regarding Jim Long who testified that he wished Goal 1 – citizen participation – would be exercised in these land use hearings. Gary noted that on page 45 of the staff report, they met that through the City’s notice procedures – both with written notice (to property owners within 500’) and posted notice on the property. And yes, there was one sign on the property this year. He said, “I had posted two the prior year. I’d made some effort to see which was the most visible.” The principal engineer at Tigard, Mr. Khoi Le, came up to address the request for a traffic study. He explained that this application would generate much less than 15 peak hour trips per day, which is the amount necessary to require a traffic study. APPLICANT RESPONSE Ken Sandblast went over the topics raised. Regarding:  Grass being 5 to 6’ high, he thinks his client has heard that and if there’s something that needs to be cut on the grass out there, it will be taken care of.  Traffic study – he agrees with what Tigard staff has said. He added that the traffic over all was addressed during the zone change – that had to be looked at as part of the traffic consideration when the change went from the previous zoning to the current R12.  Wetland and seagulls and other thoughts from Mr. Long’s testimony as well as questions from Ms. Hanson regarding the water drainage: “Ms. Hanson has been very consistent. We May 21, 2018 Page 5 of 6 have been out to the property to look. First of all, we have no indication of any wetlands; secondly, there’s definitely some sort of an underground source of water there. Suffice it to say for now, one – the developer of the land and additional facilities that are depicted on that exhibit in front of you – the site plan – the development itself will have additional piping around all of those lots, all of the foundations of those lots as well as for the driveways and impervious surfaces that are created. The water is required to be picked up and conveyed into storm-water facilities on the site. There is also the requirement to have adequate drainage in the area south of the Oak tree in the grass area. So it’s our full expectation and understanding that all the development on the site improves the flow of water across the piece of property – especially because it’s required to be – not just collected and conveyed, but treated and detained. We will gladly contact Ms. Hanson and find out more about that during the final engineering. Right now, what we have done is designed and what you see on the slide – we have not gotten to the level of deciding the size of the pipe and the location of those – that’s what happens during the final engineering phase which is after this final land use approval. It’s not uncommon to contact adjacent owners not just for the drainage issue but we’ll be talking about the fencing.”  Vegetation: “Yes, the answer to the vegetation being overgrown along the property line and on the property. All the non-native vegetation will be taken out (typically blackberries). There may be a fence buried and held up by the blackberries; that will be taken out as well.”  The out of character with the neighborhood comments: “The character was talked about extensively during the zoning – that was one of the reasons why we did the Concept Plan – to show what this would be with three zoning and the single family housing is what this is for detached housing. So that was consistent with the area. Obviously, the lots are smaller – the zoning is different; it’s R12 – the others are R5 and R6 – which are five or six units to an acre.” Andrew Stamp, Land use attorney and Hearings Officer in various jurisdictions spoke about private versus public access. He said he had worked on the Concept Plan of this case at LUBA, so he’s somewhat familiar with the case. He spoke to them about private ownership of open space tracts vs public dedication – or this middle ground, which would be private ownership with public access. From his standpoint, the most fair and sensible approach would be to simply have this be private ownership and non-public space that would be maintained by an HOA. He said they were surprised even that this issue of public access came up because they walked away from the Concept Plan approval thinking that this was a settled issue; that it would simply be private pedestrian access through Tract A. He noted one of the commissioners had asked about losing lots and wanted to address that. He spoke about the Concept Plan vs the Detailed Plan. He explained that after the Concept Plan approval, the main concept is understood, and it would be very unusual to come back at a Detailed Plan phase and then say, “Let’s rehash the Concept Plan.” For that reason, he would discourage the idea of thinking about losing lots. He thinks rehashing the concept plan is not what should be done at this point. He noted that “in a project such as this, the margins are very thin between profit and loss. Losing a lot means a loss of profit to the developer. This is a transitional product providing a buffer between commercial and the more traditional residential areas. The City made those findings earlier so again, revisiting density goes against all the work that went into this project two years ago.” C I T Y O F T I G A R D Council Direction: Neighborhood to talk to Parks and PRAB about using site for a park November 17, 2016 PRAB letter states support for a public park on the subject site, but identifies lack of funding. PD Open Space requirements can provide opportunity for compromise, e.g.: Tract A multi-use Tract B through path Tract C dedication and improvements Tract D integration EXHIBIT A © PRELIMIN A R YAA BBCCEXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 1 OF 45 Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date: May 21, 2018 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = July 21, 2018 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Planned Development Review PDR2018-00001 Subdivision SUB2017-00008 FILE TITLE: TOPPING CORNER DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company, LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 OWNER: Richard Topping & Kathrine Kemp 1726 SE Umatilla Street Portland, OR 97202 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Detailed Development Plan and 18 -Lot Subdivision of the 1.55-acre subject property located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. The proposed Subdivision includes 18 Lots and four Private Tracts. Each proposed lot will site a future single- family detached dwelling. Proposed open space within Tract A, B and C totals 67,375 S.F. (24.3%) of the subject property. Two existing single-family detached dwellings and accessory structures will be demolished following approval of the proposed Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision application. The detailed plan must be consistent with the Concept Plan approved by City Council under PDR2016-00012, on January 24, 2017. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #’s: 1S136AC02200, 1S136AC02400, 1S136AC02500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (R-12) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 2 OF 45 SECTION II STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the proposed Planned Development Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in Section VI of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE the proposed Planned Development Detailed Development Plan and Subdivision subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval and any modifications that result from the public hearing process and the Commission’s deliberations. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ANY PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 1. The City of Tigard is responsible for the approval of new street names and assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. Contact Oscar Contreras with Engineerin g Division at 503-718- 2678 to ensure new street names are approved and addresses are assigned. Prior to permit submission pay the addressing fee. The address fee shall be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING GRADING, EXCAVATION AND/OR FILL ACTIVITIES: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans, that address the following requirements to the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: GARY PAGENSTECHER at 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 2. Prior to any site work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 3. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non- compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. 4. Prior to site improvements, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond in the amount of $10,836 (21 planted trees x $516/tree, per 17/18 Fee Schedule). 5. Prior to site improvements, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan in the amount of $744 [$156 + $588 ($28/tree x 21 trees), per 17/18 Fee Schedule]. 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: KHOI LE at 503-718-2440. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 3 OF 45 6. Improvements associated with public infrastructures including street and right of way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions shall be designed in accordance with the following codes and standards: • Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards • Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards • Tigard Community Development Code and Municipal Code • Fire Codes • Other applicable County, State, and Federal Codes and Standard Guidelines Tigard codes and standards are available at City Hall and on the City’s webpage at www.tigard - or.gov. 7. Improvements associated with public infrastructures including street and right of way dedication, utilities, grading, water quality and quantity facility, streetlights, easements, easement locations, and utility connection for future utility extensions are subject to the City Engineer’s review, modification, and approval. 8. Prior to commencing site improvements, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit is required for this project to perform all infrastructure work including stormwater Water Quality and Quantity Facilities and any other work in the public right-of-way. Four (4) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. An Engineering cost estimate of improvements associated with public infrastructure including but not limited to street, street grading, utilities, stormwater water quality and quantity facilities, sanitary sewer, streetlights, and franchise utilities shall be required at the time of PFI Permit submittal. When the water system is under the City of Tigard jurisdiction, an Engineering cost estimate of water improvements shall be listed as a separate line item from the total cost estimate. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 9. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit 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 con tact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 10. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for review and approval. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided onsite. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 11. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall provide a photometric analysis for review and approval. New LED streetlights are required based on the photometric analysis; The Applicant shall submit plans showing the streetlight location and type and color of streetlight poles and light fixtures for review and approval. 12. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall submit plans showing the following items for review and approval: SW Spruce St shall include and shall be shown to have: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 4 OF 45 • 60-foot right of way • 8-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) • 16-foot from centerline pavement improvement with structural section meeting the City of Tigard Neighborhood Route cross section • Curb and gutter • 8-foot planter • 5-foot concrete sidewalk • Driveway and shared driveway approaches meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements • Streetlights as recommended from the approved photometric analysis • Storm drainage improvement meeting Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards • Underground utilities • Street signs, names and traffic control devices meeting the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the City of Tigard Standards • Street profile and center line radius meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Intersection radii meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Intersection curb ramp meeting the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) • Mail boxes • Street pavement taper and street and sidewalk barricades meeting the City of Tigard Standards. SW Bull Mountain Rd shall include and shall be shown to have: • 60-foot right of way • 8-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) • 16-foot from centerline pavement improvement with structural section meeting the City of Tigard Neighborhood Route cross section • Curb and gutter • 8-foot planter • 5-foot concrete sidewalk • Driveway and shared driveway approaches meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements • Streetlights as recommended from the approved photometric analysis • Storm drainage improvement meeting Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards • Underground utilities • Street signs, names and traffic control devices meeting the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the City of Tigard Standards • Street profile and center line radius meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Intersection radii meeting the City of Tigard Standards • Intersection curb ramp meeting the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) • Mail boxes • Street pavement taper and street and sidewalk barricades meeting the City of Tigard Standards. Private Street (Tract B) shall include and shall be shown to have: • 20-foot pavement improvement with structural section meeting the City of Tigard Local Street cross section • Commercial Driveway meeting the City of Tigard Drawing No. 143 • 5-foot concrete curb tight sidewalk on one side of the street • Street trees STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 5 OF 45 • Private streetlights • Private catch basin(s) • Storm drainage improvement meeting CWS Design and Construction Standards 13. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. The storm drainage report shall be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Des ign and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Standards. 14. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall submit site plans as part of the PFI permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and detained for review and approval. 15. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI Permit. Plans shall be submitted to the City for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. 16. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. 17. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant will be required to provide written approval from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue for fire flow, hydrant placement, and emergency vehicular access and turn around. 18. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall provide an erosion control plan as part of the PFI permit. The plan shall conform to the "CWS Erosion Prevention and Sedime nt Control Design and Planning Manual” (current edition). 19. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit a final grading plan showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to ensure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. 20. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots wil l have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information is needed to determine if special grading inspections or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 21. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit evidence that the water improvements have been reviewed and approved by TVWD as part of the PFI permit. 22. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall submit evidence that coordination between the Applicant, Washington County, and the property owner of TL 1S136AC1600 for the relocation of the existing fence out of the right of way has occurred as part of the PFI permit. Evidence shall indicate that adequate sight distance on SW 72nd Ave is provided in accordance with the recommendation from the Access Management Report prepared by Lancaster Engineering dated December 15, 2017. 23. Prior to commencing site improvement, the Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding the existing overhead utilities located across the right of way on SW Spruce St. The fee shall be calculated in accordance with the City of Tigard Fees and Charges. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 6 OF 45 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATIFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT 24. Prior to final plat approval, all improvements associated with public infrastructures including but not limited to street improvement under the City of Tigard jurisdiction shall be completed. The Applicant shall obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 25. Prior to final plat approval, all public utility facilities including but not limited to storm drainage, water quality and quantity, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electrical, comm unication, and wireless shall be completed. Public storm water quality and quantity facilities shall be provided with 3 years of maintenance. 26. Submit four (4) paper copies of the draft final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. 27. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. 28. The final plat shall include signature lines for the City Engineer and Community Development Director. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive notice from the Engineering Department indicating that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the Applicant’s surveyor. 29. After the City and County have reviewed the final plat and any required changes have been made, submit one mylar copy of the final plat for City Engineer and Community Development Director signatures. 30. Submit a check in the amount of the current final plat review fee (Contact Planner on Duty, at 503718-2421) 31. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department the Final Sight Distance Certification on both Spruce St and 72nd Ave for review and approval. 32. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall place the existing overhead utilities along the site frontage on SW 72nd Ave underground. 33. Prior to final plat approval, provide evidences that the HOA has been established and maintenance agreement for the Private Street has been in place. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and/or plans that address the following requirements to the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: GARY PAGENSTECHER at 503-718-2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans showing that individual dwellings include an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet. 35. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plans showing side yard setbacks no less than four feet in width. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 7 OF 45 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: 36. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall contact the project planner for a final planning inspection to ensure consistency with this land use decision. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST. 18.430.080 Improvement Agreement: Before final plat approval, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Applicant shall:  Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and  Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the Developer. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.430.090 Bond: As required by Section 18.430.080, the Applicant shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following:  An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon;  A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or  Cash. The Applicant shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The Applicant shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.430.100 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the Applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the Applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.430.070 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 8 OF 45  All centerline-centerline intersection points;  All cul-de-sac center points; and  Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, culde-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finishe d pavement grade. 18.810.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface -mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the Developer shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.810.180. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, ligh ting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefore have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.810.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.810.200 Engineer's Certification The land Developer's Design Engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR SEVEN YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 9 OF 45 SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History The subject property (three parcels totaling 1.55 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003), which changed the County zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City’s Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County’s plan map designation. Subsequently, at the applicant’s request, on January 24, 2017 the Tigard City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from C-P to R-12, and a Planned Development Concept Plan for the subject property (Case File No. CPA2016-00002 / ZON2016-00001 / PDR2016- 00012). The current application is for a detailed plan review. The Planning Commission must find the proposed plan consistent with the approved Concept Plan and City Council’s direction to the applicant in preparation of the detailed plan. Site Description The subject site is located across Spruce Street from a Fred Meyer and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. The subject property is relatively flat, sloping approximately six percent from northeast to southwest. Existing vegetation on the subject property is a mixture of trees and groundcover. There is an existing oak tree of prominence in the northwest corner of the subject property. There are currently two single -family detached dwellings sited on the subject property. The subject property fronts on a local street and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R- 4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower classification streets and low density residential zone makes the property suitable for medium density residential use as a transition from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the south. Proposal Description The Applicant requests approval of a Detailed Development Plan and 18-Lot Subdivision of the 1.55-acre subject property located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. The proposed Subdivision includes 18 Lots and four Private Tracts. Each proposed lot will site a future single-family detached dwelling. Proposed open space within Tract A, B and C totals 67,375 S.F. (24.3%) of the subject property. SECTION IV. ISSUES SUMMARY City Council’s direction to the applicant on approval of the Concept Plan The proposed detailed development plan is subject to the Council’s direction to the applicant on approval of the Concept Plan. At issue is the degree of public access to open space tracts provided by the development. See discussion below in Section VI. Neighborhood Concerns Neighbors have expressed concerns in neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and comment letters submitted to the city over the past several years in connection with the prior zone change and planned development concept plan review for the subject property. Neighbors’ comment letters received for this land use case have been included in the Commission packet for the May 21, 2018 hearing and the record for the land use case, and are substantively addressed in the findings contained within this staff report. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 10 OF 45 SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA The following summarizes the applicable Tigard Development Code criteria chapters. (City Council Direction on Concept Plan Approval) 18.350 Planned Developments 18.430 Subdivision 18.510 Residential Zoning districts 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation 18.715 Density Computations 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.765 Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan 18.795 Vision Clearance Areas 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards SECTION VI. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City Council Direction on Concept Plan Approval As stated in the Final Order for PDR2016-00012, this proposal is subject to City Council’s direction: . . . to include public access to the corner Tract C open space, pedestrian access through Tract A, two-story housing type limit, pedestrian friendly transition access through the private street, and address the drainage issues. In addition, the Council’s deliberation, as recorded in the approved minutes for January 24, 2017 included the following: Councilor Anderson said he would like to see neighborhood access to the gre en space as shown on the left-hand side of the slide (below). Mayor Cook concurred and also suggested keeping the tree. He asked that the developer ensure that where the arrows appear on the concept drawing there will actually be access. He said a chain across the private drive would keep cars from driving there but would also keep out bikes and kids, defeating the purpose. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 11 OF 45 Councilor Goodhouse asked that the green space be kept accessible to the neighbors. He asked for the drainage issues to be examined. Councilor Anderson asked if there was a slope on the property and Associate Planner Pagenstecher said there is a six percent slope from east to west. Councilor Anderson said opening it up to playground equipment can lead to liability issues with the HOA so he recommended leaving it as a green space. In the applicant’s response to the city’s completeness review letter, the applicant addressed Council’s direction in a letter dated January 25, 2018, as detailed below. The enclosed narrative has been revised to address direction provided by the City Council’s meeting minutes of their January 24, 2017 approval of Ordinance No. 17-01, as follows:  Pedestrian access is provided to open space tract, Tract C (see Sheet No. L-1 of Exhibit G).  Pedestrian access through Tract A is not possible, as Tract A is a stormwater tract, and there is not enough space to provide pedestrian access adjacent to the stormwater swale. Alternatively, as depicted by Sheet No. L-1, pedestrian access is proposed through Tract B, connecting the proposed private street, Tract D, to the existing SW 72nd Ave. public right- of-way (see Sheet No. L-1 of Exhibit G).  Building height will be further reviewed for compliance during the building permit review and approval process.  The proposed pedestrian access through Tract B, connects the proposed sidewalk on the east side of the proposed private street, Tract D, to the existing SW 72nd Ave. public right- of-way. Thus, allowing for a “pedestrian-friendly transition access through the private street” (see Sheet No. L-1 of Exhibit G).  Stormwater Drainage is addressed by the Preliminary Stormwater Report provided as Exhibit J. FINDING: Staff finds that Council’s deliberation clearly expressed interest in “neighbor,” or public, access to and through all four tracts, Tract’s A, B, C, and D. However, the motion to approve was explicit to public access only through Tracts A (water quality facility) and C (intersection corner). While the applicant proposes public access to Tract C, they represent that any access through Tract A is precluded by the site constraints and design parameters for water quality facilities. The applicant does not otherwise comment on public access through the open space, Tract B, or the private street, Tract D. Although private streets are typically for access by abutting residences and maintained by an HOA, there is nothing to preclude a public access easement over a private street. Perhaps more problematic is the question of public use of the open space in Tract B, where it is unclear by its location and configuration that it would be suitable for public use. As an alternative to taking the sidewalk around the site, the distance through Tract B would be about the same, although a more pleasant experience. That Tract B could be used by the public, for example, as a destination for a picnic in the vicinity of the oak tree, raises questions of maintenance and safety that may be a disproportionate burden on the HOA. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission may wish to explore the Council’s public access guidance and any potential conflicts with the applicant’s proposal before determining whether the detailed plan is consistent with the guidance provided by Council. 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements C. Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions, with the following modifications: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 12 OF 45 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. As depicted by the Detailed Development plan set provided as Exhibit G, perimeter lot s, Lot 1 through Lot 9 and Lot 14 through Lot 18, are at least 2,440 square feet, satisfying the 80 percent requirement of the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size in the R-12 zoning district. This standard is met. 2. Site coverage. The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such as streets and sidewalks. Open Space Tracts B and C, and Storm Tract A total 16,375 S.F., or 24.3 percent of the subject property. This standard is met. 3. Building height. In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base zone will require that the structure be set back from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2 times the height of the building. The applicant states that the proposed building heights will not exceed the 35-foot requirement for single- family dwellings in the R-12 zoning district. However, the applicant has not specified building heights in the application. The City Council’s Final Order No. 17-01 restricts building heights to two stories. Building height will be verified at the time of building permit submittal. 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; Perimeter lots including Lot 1 through Lot 9 and Lot 14 through Lot 18, satisfy all front yard, front yard to garage, and rear yard setback requirements applicable to single-family detached dwellings in the R-12 zoning district, as governed by Table 18.510.2 Development Standards in Residential Zones. As depicted by the Detailed Development plan set included as Exhibit G, and as detailed by the Lot Area Table provided as Exhibit I, the Applicant requests a reduction in side yard setbacks of perimeter lots from five feet to three feet (40 percent reduction), and a reduction to street side yard setbacks of Lot 9 and Lot 14 from 10 feet to eight feet (20 percent reduction). 18.360.080.A.1 Exceptions to Standards, includes exceptions to setback requirements that are not greater than 20 percent. Therefore, the street side yard setback reduction of 20 percent can be granted, but the side yard setback reduction of 40 percent cannot be granted, as provided by Chapter 18.360. b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply except that: i. All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; This Application acknowledges that setbacks required by the R -12 base zone are not applicable to interior lots within the proposed planned development. As depicted by the Site Plan (P300) of the Detailed Development plan set included as Exhibit G, and as detailed by the Lot Area Table provided as Exhibit I, proposed interior lots including Lot 9 through Lot 13 include three-foot side yard setbacks, which satisfies applicable Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements. This standard is met. ii. 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; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 13 OF 45 As depicted by the Site Plan (P300) of the Detailed Development plan set included as Exhibit G, and as detailed by the Lot Area Table provided as Exhibit I, all lots include 20 -foot garage to front property line setbacks. This standard is met. iii. 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. This standard is not applicable because attached dwellings are not proposed. 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. As depicted by the Site Plan (P300) of the Detailed Development plan set included as Exhibit G, this Applicant requests a reduction in sideyard setbacks of perimeter lots from five feet to three feet, and a reduction in sideyard to street setbacks of Lot 9 and Lot 14 from 10 feet to eight feet. The Lot Area Table provided as Exhibit I details proposed setbacks on a lot by lot basis. As determined above, the street side yard setback reduction of 20 percent can be granted, but the side yard setback reduction of 40 percent cannot be granted, as provided by Chapter 18.360. 5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified by this chapter. (Ord. 12-09 §1; Ord. 06-16) As demonstrated by this Application and supporting Exhibits, the proposed development complies with all other applicable requirements of the R-12 zoning district. 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the following criteria are met: A. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless: 1. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces the amount of parking; The proposed detailed development plan does not increase density, increase lot coverage, or decrease the amount of parking approved by the concept development plan. The concept development plan approved a maximum density of 18 Lots. This detailed development plan proposes 18 Lots in compliance with the density requirements of the R-12 zoning district. The concept development approved lot coverage in satisfaction of all applicable requirements of the R -12 zoning district; this detailed development plan remains in compliance with applicable lot coverage standards of the R-12 zoning district. The approved concept plan permitted off-street parking on each lot in garages and driveways, as well as on- street parking on the adjacent rights-of-way. This detailed development plan proposes off-street parking on each lot in garages and driveways, as well as street improvements to allow for on -street parking on adjacent rights-of-way. This criterion is met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 14 OF 45 2. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping; The proposed detailed development plan increases the amount of open space approved by the concept development plan. The concept plan approved 15,997 S.F. (23.8%) of the subject property to be preserved in Tracts A, B and C. This detailed development plan proposes 16,375 S.F. (24.3%) of the subjec t property to be preserved in Tracts A, B and C. This criterion is met. 3. The change involves a change in use; The approved concept plan permitted 18 single-family detached dwellings. This detailed development plan proposes 18 single-family detached dwellings. No changes in use are proposed. This criterion is met. 4. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard; and The approved concept plan permitted 18 single-family detached dwellings. This detailed development plan proposes 18 single-family detached dwellings. Minor changes have been made to the site design of the proposed detailed development plan to ensure compliance with applicable City standards. However, this Application does not propose to develop land which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a potential hazard. This criterion is met. 5. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots, landscaping or other site improvements. The proposed detailed development plan is substantially similar to the approved concept plan. This Application does not propose a major shift in the location of proposed dwellings, streets, landscaping or other site improvements. This criterion is met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed detail plan is generally consistent with the approved concept plan consistency criteria. B. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420, Partitions, and 18.430, Subdivisions, shall be met if applicable; The application includes a request for Subdivision Review As shown in the findings for Chapter 18.430, below, the applicable standards for subdivisions are met. C. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the commission that promotes the purpose of this chapter. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed below. The applicant shall respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and clearly identify where their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application of the standards. For those chapters not specifically exempted, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 15 OF 45 The applicant has not requested any exceptions to standards provided for in this section and has not requested any variance or adjustment to standards. As shown in the applicant’s narrative, the applicable standards in Title 18 have been addressed. This requirement is met. D. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. The commission may require the applicant to provide an alternate site plan to demonstrate compliance with this criterion; The approved Concept Plan was found by City Council to be designed to preserve existing topography, vegetation, and natural drainage to the greatest extent feasible. As shown above, the proposed detailed development plan is generally consistent with the Concept Plan. This criterion is met. b. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation; and A Geotechnical Report is included in Exhibit K of the application. The final grading plan for the project will ensure that each lot will permit the construction of homes upon stable ground. This criterion is met. c. Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible. The proposed site layout is designed to provide solar access where feasible, while maintaining compliance with the density requirements of the R-12 zoning district. Eleven lots (61 percent of the proposed lots), including Lots 4 through Lot 9 and Lots 14 through Lot 18, run north to south with front and rear yard setbacks providing ample distance between homes for solar access. Of the 18 proposed lots in the subdivision, only seven lots will have side lots with limited solar access to the south due to their east/west orientation. This criterion is met. 2. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses; e.g., between single- family and multifamily residential, and residential and commercial uses; The subject property abuts the SW 72nd Ave. public right-of-way to the east, and the SW Spruce St. public right-of-way to the south. To the north and west of the subject property are single-family detached dwellings under the jurisdiction of Washington County. To the northwest of the subject property is a single- family detached dwelling in the R-4.5 zoning district. As shown in Table 18.745.1, Buffer Matrix, the proposed single-family detached dwellings, that abut existing single-family detached dwellings, do not require buffering or screening. This criterion is met. b. In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.745: i. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; ii. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; iii. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; iv. The required density of the buffering; and Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 16 OF 45 The applicant proposes to meet the buffer and screening standards required under Chapter 18.745. This criterion does not apply. c. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: i. What needs to be screened; ii. The direction from which it is needed; and iii. Whether the screening needs to be year-round. The proposed single-family detached development does not include service and storage areas, parking lots, or mechanical devises on rooftops. This criterion does not apply. 3. Privacy and noise. Nonresidential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Nonresidential structures are not proposed for the subject site. This criterion does not apply. 4. Exterior elevations—Single-family attached and multiple-family structures. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a. Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; b. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and c. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height. The applicant proposes single-family detached residences. This criterion does not apply. 5. Private outdoor area—Residential use: a. Exclusive of any other required open space facility, each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet; b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space. The applicant states that yards, building envelopes, and the layout of the proposed lots permit the future construction of outdoor private areas for each lot, which would satisfy the 48 square foot requirement. However, the buildings for the proposed lots have not been included in the application. Therefore, to ensure compliance with this Section, as a condition of approval, the applicant’s building permit submittals for individual dwellings shall include an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet. As conditioned, this criterion is met. 6. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas—Residential use: a. Exclusive of any other required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: i. Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; ii. Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 17 OF 45 b. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; c. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: i. Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities; ii. Additional outdoor active use open space facilities; iii. Indoor recreation center; or iv. A combination of the above. This criterion applies to multi-family development. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. Access and circulation: a. The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; The proposed private access tract, Tract D, provides access to Lots 10 through Lot 13. Table 18.705.1 Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements: Residential Use (Six or Fewer Units) requires one access point for four lots, and an accessway with a minimum paved width of 20 feet. The proposed private access tract, Tract D, has 26 feet of right-of-way width, and 20 feet of pavement. This criterion is met. b. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles; and As shown in the Site Plan (Sheet P300), the proposed private street is 150 feet in length and 20 feet wide, designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles. All other lots are accessible from Spruce Street or 72nd Avenue. This criterion is met. c. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the project site. There are no existing or planned bicycle ways identified by the City of Tigard Transportation System Plan which abut the subject property. The proposed development includes the extension of the existing sidewalk network along the subject property’s frontage on SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave., as well as on the east side of the proposed private access tract, Tract D. This criterion is met. 8. Landscaping and open space—Residential development. In addition to the buffering and screening requirements of paragraph 2 of this subsection D, and any minimal use open space facilities, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped. This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for such landscape installation. The proposed development includes 16,375 S.F. of open space (24.3% of the subject property) preserved within Open Space Tract B and Tract C, as well as Storm Tract A. A Landscape Conc ept Plan is provided as Sheet No. L-1 through L-4 Exhibit G of the application. Proposed landscaping totals 24.18% of the subject property. This criterion is met. 9. Public transit: a. Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a quarter mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: i. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and ii. The size and type of the proposed development. b. The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as: i. A waiting shelter; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 18 OF 45 ii. A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and iii. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area. c. If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the development and the requirement. There is existing public transit located within the vicinity of the subject property. Tri-Met bus Line 12 Barbur to Tigard TC runs along SW Pacific Hwy to the southeast of the subject property. Stop ID No. 4329 located at the corner of SW Pacific Hwy and 71st is approximately 0.2-miles from the subject property, and provides service at least every 20-minutes between peak hours (10:00AM and 2:00PM) Monday through Friday. This criterion is met. 10. Parking: a. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765; b. Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space. Applicable parking requirements of Chapter 18.765 are satisfied by the proposed development as demonstrated by this narrative and supporting documentation. No common parking lot areas are proposed by this Application. This criterion is met. 11. Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from the use of such means as green streets, porous concrete, or eco roofs. Proposed stormwater management is designed in accordance with applicable provisions of chapter 18.810. A Preliminary Stormwater Report is provided as Exhibit J of the application. This criterion is met. 12. Floodplain dedication. Where landfill and/or development are allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the city shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. This standard is not applicable. 13. Shared open space facilities. These requirements are applicable to residential planned developments only. The detailed development plan shall designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as a shared open space facility. The open space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following: a. Minimal use facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by reserving areas for minimal use. Typically, these areas are designated around sensitive lands (steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or 100-year floodplain). b. Passive use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use. c. Active use facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use. d. The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat or covenants. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 19 OF 45 The proposed development is a residential planned development and these requirements are applicabl e. The residential site is 1.55 acres in area (67,518 square feet). As shown on the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat (SheetP300), open Space Tracts B and C, and Storm Tract A are a combination of passive and active use facilities that total 16,375 square feet, or 24.3 percent of the subject property. This criterion is met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, not all of the applicable Detai led Development Plan Approval Criteria are met, but can be met with the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant’s building permit submittals for individual dwellings shall include an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet. 18.430 - SUBDIVISION 18.430.040 Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat A. Approval criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; Applicable sections of the Tigard Development Code (and other related regulations where appropriate) are quoted and addressed in numerical order below. Based on the evidence and findings provided by the Applicant, this criterion is satisfied. 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; The Applicant has obtained approval of the proposed plat name, “Topping Corner” from the Washington County Surveyor’s Office. Documentation of the County Surveyor’s approval is provided as Exhibit O of the application. This criterion is satisfied. 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the city determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and The proposed development will include half-street improvements to existing public rights-of-way, SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave., along the frontage of the subject property in satisfaction of all applicable Public Works design standards. This criterion is satisfied. 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. In addition to street improvements, the proposed project will extend City services (water and sanitary sewer) to the proposed lots; will provide franchise utility services such as electrical, natural gas, telephone , and cable television to all the lots; and will include the construction of a stormwater facility that will accept runoff from roofs and paved surfaces, including driveways, and streets. This criterion is satisfied. B. Conditions of approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 20 OF 45 carry out the comprehensive plan and other applicable ordinances and regulations and may require reserve strips be granted to the city for the purpose of controlling access to adjoining undeveloped properties. The Applicant acknowledges the City’s authority to impose conditions of approval where appropriate to assure compliance with applicable standards in the final plat and construction phases of the development process. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed development meets the applicable Subdivision approval criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision. 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.030.B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. The site is zoned R-12, with a medium-density residential designation. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Table 18.510.1 of the Community Development lists permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the residential zones. “Household Living” is listed as permitted uses in the R-12 zone. 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum and maximum densities in each residential zoning district. To ensure the quality and density of development envisioned, the maximum density establishes the ceiling for development in each zoning district based on minimum lot size. To ensure that property develops at or near the density envisioned for the zone, the minimum density for each zoning district has been established at 80% of maximum density. B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of minimum and maximum densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. C. Adjustments. Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or other constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum density as required by 18.715.020.C and still comply with all of the development standards in the underlying zoning district, as contained in Table 18.510.2 below. Such an adjustment may be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria in 18.370.020.C.2. As shown in the Density Computations Chapter, below, the applicant has demonstrated the proposed density is between the minimum and maximum allowed. 18.510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapter 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 21 OF 45 This staff report ensures compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. This standard is met. B. Development standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2 below: TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 STANDARD Proposed SF DU** Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit - Attached unit - Duplexes - Boarding, lodging, rooming house 2,444 – 2,914 sq.ft.per unit 3,050 sq.ft. per unit Average Lot Width None None Minimum Setbacks - Front yard - Side facing street on corner & through lots - Side yard - Rear yard - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - Distance between property line and garage entrance 15 ft. 8 ft. 3 ft. 15 ft. NA 20 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] 15 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Height 2 stories [3] 35 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage [2] 76% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 24% 20% [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] 2-story height limit set by City Council’s Final Order No 17 -01 ** Single-family dwelling unit FINDING: The subject property is zoned R-12. According to Table 18.510.2 the single-family detached units shall have a minimum lot area of 3,050 S.F. As the proposed subdivision is part of a planned development, provisions for minimum lot sizes do not apply to interior lots (Lots 10 through Lot 13). Perimeter lots of the proposed development, including Lots 1 through Lot 9, and Lots 14 through Lot 18, are a minimum of 2,440 square feet (80 percent) of the 3,050 S.F. minimum lot area requirement of the R-12 zoning district. Perimeter lots including Lots 1 through Lot 9 and Lots 14 through Lot 18, satisfy all front yard, front yard to garage, and rear yard setback requirements applicable to single -family detached dwellings in the R-12 zoning district. As depicted by the Detailed Development plan set included as Exhibit G of the application, and as detailed by the Lot Area Table provided as Exhibit I, this Application requests a reduction in sideyard setbacks of perimeter lots from five feet to three feet, and a reduction in sideyard to street setbacks of Lot 9 and Lot 14 from 10 feet to eight feet. As determined above, the street side yard setback reduction of 20 percent can be granted, but the side yard setback reduction of 40 percent cannot be granted, as provided by Chapter 18.360. A Landscape Concept Plan is provided as Sheet No. L-1 through L-4 Exhibit G of the application. Proposed landscaping totals 24.18% of the subject property. Provisions regarding maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and minimum landscaping requirements will be further reviewed during the building permit review and approval process. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 22 OF 45 CONDITION: At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit site plans showing side yard setbacks no less than four feet in width. 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.360.050), and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. The proposal is for 18 single family detached dwellings; therefore, these standards apply. 18.705.030 General Provisions D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in 18.705.030.H and I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. All proposed lots are provided access onto either the proposed private access tract, Tract D, SW Spruce St., or SW 72nd Ave. This standard is met. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N. The applicant states that as shown in the Detailed Development plan set, Exhibit G of the application, curb cuts are consistent with Section 18.810.030.N. The engineering department will ensure compliance at the time of PFI review. This standard is met. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments. 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multifamily developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. 4. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, other pervious paving surfaces, etc. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Sidewalks are proposed along the subject property’s frontage on SW Spruce St., and SW 72nd Ave., as well as the east side of the proposed private access tract, Tract D. Sidewalks will be designed and built to City Public Works Standards, and will satisfy all applicable conditions of the Community Development Code. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 23 OF 45 Required walkways will be reviewed and approved under the Public Facilities Improvement Permit. This standard is met. H. Access management. 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). The proposed development is an 18-lot subdivision and a Traffic Impact Study is not required. However, the Applicant submitted an Access Management Report dated December 15, 2017 by Lancaster Engineering. Out of the proposed eighteen lots, four will take access from a private street; three will take access from SW 72nd Ave, a Local St; and the rest will take access from SW Spruce St, a Neighborhood Route. The report indicates all proposed accesses along Spruce St will have adequate sight distance in excess of 400 feet in both directions, to the east and west. Sight distance on 72nd Ave will be limited due the neighbor’s fence located in the right of way. Sight distance will be adequately provided in excess of 400 feet once the obstructing fence is relocated onto private property. The Applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent neighbor, and Washington County to relocate the fence onto private property and out of the line of sight. Prior to commencing site improvement, the Applicant shall submit site plans showing the fence located along the frontage of TL 1S136AC01600 on SW 72nd Ave to be relocated behind the right of way line. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division the Final Sight Distance Certification indicating that sight distances are adequately provided to all acc esses on both SW Spruce St and SW 72nd Ave. As conditioned, these standards are met. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from city engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The provisions of this Section are not applicable as this Application does not propose driveway access within an influence area of a Collector or an Arterial, or driveways within 150-feet of a Collector or Arterial. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The provisions of this Section are not applicable as this Application does not propose driveway access to a Collector or Arterial. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. The proposed private access tract, Tract D, is located approximately 191 feet to the west of SW 72nd Ave., and approximately 363 feet to the east of SW 75th Ave, both local streets. This standard is met. I. Minimum access requirements for residential use. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 24 OF 45 1. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multifamily residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Tables 18.705.1 and 18.705.2. As shown in Table 18.705.1. Vehicular Access/Egress Requirements: Residential Use (Six or Fewer Units), the proposed private access tract, Tract D, which provides access to a total of four lots, being Lots 10 through Lot 13, must be a minimum of 15 feet of right-of-way, and 10 feet of pavement. The proposed private access tract includes 26 feet of right-of-way, and 20 feet of pavement. This standard is met. 2. Vehicular access to multifamily structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. This standard is not applicable to single family dwellings. 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. There are not private residential access drives proposed. This standard does not apply. 4. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: a. A circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from center point to outside edge of 35 feet; b. A hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet; c. The maximum cross slope of a required turnaround is five percent. The proposed private access tract, Tract D, is 150 feet in length, and is designed to satisfy all applicable emergency access requirements. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has stated in an email dated May 14, 2018, that the proposed private street access in Tract D is consistent with TVF&R access standards and does not require a turnaround. This standard is met. 5. Vehicle turnouts, (providing a minimum total driveway width of 24 feet for a distance of at least 30 feet), may be required so as to reduce the need for excessive vehicular backing motions in situations where two vehicles traveling in opposite directions meet on driveways in excess of 200 feet in length. Vehicle turnouts are not required. The proposed private street in Tact D is 26 feet wide with 20-foot paved vehicle access, which provides adequate width for vehicles to pass. 6. Where permitted, minimum width for driveway approaches to arterials or collector streets shall be no less than 20 feet so as to avoid traffic turning from the street having to wait for traffic exiting the site. This standard is not applicable as this Application does not propose driveway approaches to Arterials or Collectors. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the applicable Access, Egress an d Circulation standards are met. 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18.715.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to implement the comprehensive plan by establishing the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 25 OF 45 18.715.020 Density Calculation A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site acres: 1. All sensitive land areas: a. Land within the 100-year floodplain, b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%, c. Drainage ways, and d. Wetlands, e. Optional: Significant tree groves or habitat areas, as designated on the City of Tigard “Significant Tree Grove Map” or “Significant Habitat Areas Map”; 2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes; 3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not available, the following formulas may be used: a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage, b. Multifamily development: allocate 15% of gross acreage or deduct the actual private drive area; 4. All land proposed for private streets; and 5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is to remain on the site. B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable zoning district. C. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section 18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in subsection B of this section by 80% (0.8). FINDING: Detailed residential density calculations are provided as Exhibit H of the application. There are 16.64 minimum allowable units in the net developable area, and 20.80 maximum allowable units in the net developable area. This Application proposes 18 units, consistent with the density permitted in the R-12 zone. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.040 Street Trees A. Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for Conditional Use (Type III), Downtown Design Review (Type II and III), Minor Land Partition (Type II), Planned Development (Type III), Site Development Review (Type II) and Subdivision (Type II and III) permits. The Detailed Development Plan is subject to Type III land use review and street trees are required. B. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by rounding to the nearest whole number. Street tree plantings are required along the private street Tract D, SW Spruce St., and SW 72nd Ave a total of 833 lineal feet requiring 21 street trees. The spacing of driveways, utilities, and on-street LIDA facilities within the proposed development provides limited opportunities to plant street trees adjacent to rights-of- way. Therefore, the street tree planting locations are shown in the Tree Canopy Plan (Sheet P501) back of sidewalk with six feet of the right-of-way. This requirement is met. C. Street trees required by this section shall be planted according to the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 26 OF 45 Street trees will be planted according to the street tree planting standards as outlined in the Arborist Supplemental report. This requirement is met. D. Street trees required by this section shall be provided adequate soil volumes according to the Street Tree Soil Volume Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. According to the Arborist Supplemental report, all street trees will be provided over 1,000 cubic feet of soil volume. The street tree soil volume requirements are met. E. Street trees required by this section shall be planted within the right of way whenever practicable according to the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than 6 feet from the right of way according to the Street Tree Planting Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual when planting within the right of way is not practicable. According to the Arborist Supplemental report, all street trees will be planted within six feet of the right-of- way. This requirement is met. F. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: 1. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right of way immediately adjacent to the subject site; 2. The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the Street Tree Planting and Soil Volume Standards in the Urban Forestry Manual if it were newly planted; and 3. The tree is shown as preserved in the Tree Preservation and Removal site plan (per 18.790.030.A.2), Tree Canopy Cover site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and Supplemental Report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a concurrent urban forestry plan and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. No existing trees are proposed to meet the street tree standards. 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the director’s approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. The subject property abuts the SW 72nd Ave. public right-of-way to the east, and the SW Spruce St. public right-of-way to the south. To the north and west of the subject property are single-family detached dwellings under the jurisdiction of Washington County. To the northwest of the subject property is a single - family detached dwelling in the R-4.5 zoning district. According to Table 18.745.1 Buffer Matrix, the proposed single-family detached dwellings which abut existing single-family detached dwellings do not require buffering or screening. Thereby the provisions of Section 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening are not applicable to this Application. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 27 OF 45 FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the applicable Landscaping and Screening standards are met. 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off- street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. The proposal is for the development of residential uses. The provisions of this chapter are applicable. 18.765.030 General Provisions A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling(s). Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum Required Off-Street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements. FINDING: Single-family detached dwellings must be provided a minimum of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. Furthermore, maximum off-street parking, and bicycle parking requirements are not applicable to single-family detached dwellings. The proposed development provides at least one off-street parking space per dwelling on driveways and in garages. 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual (UFM); 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. The applicant has retained Terragan Associates, a professional consulting arborist, to evaluate existing trees on the property and make recommendations for tree retention and replanting. An Urban Forestry Plan is provided as Exhibit L of the application. The Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan (P500 of Exhibit G) includes the locations and generalized types and trunk sizes for on-site existing trees. Furthermore, P500 of Exhibit G identifies trees to be retained during construction and the locations for placement of protective fencing. Consideration was taken in the development of the site plan to preserve existing trees. Based upon the Urban Forestry Plan provided as Exhibit L, the preservation of existing trees and planting of new trees will satisfy the canopy coverage and soil volume requirements. A Landscape Concept Plan is provided as Sheet Nos. L-1 through L-4 Exhibit G. These requirements are met. 18.790.060 Urban Forestry Plan Implementation STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 28 OF 45 B. Tree Establishment. The establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (per 18.790.030 A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of the previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed and required according to the tree establishment requirements in Section 11, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Section 11, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual requires the establishment of all trees shown to be planted in the tree canopy site plan (18.790.030 A.3) and supplemental report (18.790.030.A.4) of the previously approved urban forestry plan shall be guaranteed. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond in the amount of $10,836 (21 planted trees x $516/tree) that meets the requirements of the Urban Forestry Manual Section 11, Part 2. As conditioned. This requirement is met. D. Urban forest inventory. Spatial and species specific data shall be collected according to the urban forestry inventory requirements in the Urban Forestry Manual for each open grown tree and area of stand grown trees in the tree canopy site plan (per Section 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per Section 18.790.030.A.4) of a previously approved urban forestry plan. Section 11, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual states that prior to any ground disturbance work, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan. The plan includes 22 trees (1 retained + 21 planted). Therefore, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan in the amount of $744 ($156 + $588 ($28/tree x 21 trees)). As conditioned, this requirement is met. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the applicable urban forestry plan, urban forestry tree inventory and establishment standards have been met. To ensure compliance, the following conditions are applied: CONDITIONS: Prior to any site work, the project arborist shall perform a site inspection for tree protection measures, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the city manager or designee within one week of the site inspection. The project arborist shall perform semimonthly (twice monthly) site inspections for tree protection measures during periods of active site development and construction, document compliance/non-compliance with the urban forestry plan and send written verification with a signature of approval directly to the project planner within one week of the site inspection. Prior to site improvements, the applicant shall provide a tree establishment bond in the amount of $$10,836 (21 planted trees x $516/tree) Prior to site improvements, the applicant shall provide a fee to cover the city’s cost of collecting and processing the inventory data for the entire urban forestry plan in the amount of $744 ($156 + $588 ($28/tree x 21 trees 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements A. At corners. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Obstructions prohibited. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 29 OF 45 exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. FINDING: Visual clearance triangles between the proposed private acce ss tract, Tract D, and the existing SW Spruce St. public right-of-way are depicted by Sheet P300 of the Detailed Development Plan provided as Exhibit G of the application. This standard is met. 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS: 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. All lots except for four taking access from a private street will take access from either Spruce St or 72nd Ave. They are both public streets. The Applicant’s site plans show that the rights of way on both Spruce St and 72nd Ave along the proposed development are 60 feet wide and meet the standard right of way of the Neighborhood Route and Local Street respectively. The site plans also show that half-street along the development frontages on Spruce St and 72nd Ave will be improved. The improvement will include 16-foot from centerline pavement reconstruction and installation of curb and gutter, 8-foot planter to provide for adequate stormwater, and 5-foot sidewalk. Street trees and streetlights will also be installed accordingly. No new public street is proposed or deemed necessary. 5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the city engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following condition exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorist or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 30 OF 45 The narrative and site plans indicate that the street improvements will be provided. The Applicant does not propose to pay a fee in lieu for street improvements. B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic condition. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. c. The street is located within the downtown mixed use central business district and has been identified on Figure 5-14A through 5-14L of the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which area necessary to preserve the standards of this title. 3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name “the public” as grantee. The existing rights of way along the proposed development on Spruce St and 72nd Ave are 60 feet wide and meet the City of Tigard Standard cross street section of the Neighborhood Route and Local Street. No additional right of way dedication is proposed or deemed necessary. The proposed private street will be dedicated via a tract. C. Creation of access easement. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can be created. 1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207. 2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.705.030.H and I. The proposed private street will be located in a tract with an access easement over its entirety. The access easement will be 26 feet wide to accommodate a 20-foot pavement for two-way travel lanes and a 5-foot sidewalk as required by section 18.705.030.H and I. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 31 OF 45 The private street shall be maintained privately. A maintenance agreement will be required to submit to the Engineering Division prior to commencing site improvement for review and approval. The maintenance agreement shall be recorded prior to final plat approval. D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the purposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with subsection N of this section; and The proposed development is adjacent to Spruce St and 72nd Ave. The street grades on both of the existing streets will remain unchanged. 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street pattern because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. All the existing streets and the proposed private street are shown on the plan. E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown District, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1 1. The decision-making body shall make its decision about desired right-of-way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: a. The type of road as set forth in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter-functional street classification. b. Anticipated traffic generation. c. On-street parking needs. d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements. e. Requirements for placement of utilities. f. Street lighting. g. Drainage and slope impacts. h. Street tree location. i. Planting and landscape areas. j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. k. Access needs for emergency vehicles. The narrative and site plans indicate that the proposed development is going to construct street improvements along both Spruce St and 72nd Ave. The street improvements will include half-street 16-foot wide pavement STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 32 OF 45 reconstruction, curb and gutter, 8-foot planter, and 5-foot sidewalk. Streetlights and street trees will also be provided. Additionally, the Applicant will also provide storm drainage system associated with all street improvements. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request, the city may prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are submitted. No new street or street extension is proposed or deemed necessary. b. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. The proposed development is not adjacent to a bus route. The nearest bus route is on Pacific Hwy, more than 530 feet from the site. 2. Where 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. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul- de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. b. 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. c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length. No new public street or street stub is proposed or deem necessary. I. Intersection angles. Street shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 75° unless there is special intersection design, and: No new intersection is proposed or deem necessary. 1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; The profile of both existing streets, Spruce St and 72nd Ave will remain unchanged. 2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right of way line of the acute angles; No new intersection is proposed or deemed necessary. 3. Right-of-way lines intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 33 OF 45 The proposed development is adjacent to Spruce St and 72nd Ave. They are Neighborhood Route and Local Street, respectively. This standard is not applicable. J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. Both Spruce St and 72nd Ave have 60-foot wide rights of way. No additional right of way dedication is proposed or deemed necessary. K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when adjoining property developed. No partial improvement is proposed. L. Cul-de-sac No cul-de-sac is proposed. M. Street name. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area and as approved by the city engineer. No new public street name is proposed or deemed necessary. The Applicant shall submit a street name for the private street to the Engineering Division for review and approval. N. Grades and curves. 1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet); and 2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer. The proposed development is adjacent to Spruce St and 72nd Ave. The street grades on both of the existing street will remain unchanged. The grade of both streets are less than 12%. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and: 1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except: 2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with city engineer approval; and 3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to city configuration standards. Curbs, curb cuts, and driveway approaches are shown on the submitted site plans. P. Street adjacent to railroad right-of-way. The proposed site is not adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. This standard is not applicable. Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 34 OF 45 proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following: 1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector; 2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate buffering with frontage along another street; 3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or 4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection; 5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access should be from the lower classification street. The proposed development is not adjacent to either an Arterial or a Collector Streets. R. Alleys, public or private. The site does not propose any alleys, public or private. S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. The Applicant’s narrative indicates that the Applicant’s registered Land Surveyor will provide certification to the City that all boundary, internal monuments, and street monuments will be established, reestab lished and protected in accordance with the City’s and County’s requirements and standards when required. T. Private streets. 1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the city engineer; and 2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement. 3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential developments. A Private Street is proposed meeting the City’s standards. Streetlights will be required on private street. U. Railroad Crossing. The proposed site is not adjacent to any railroad crossing. This standard is not applicable. V. Street Signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the city engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicants shall submit site plans showing location of street signs, names, and traffic control devices to Engineering for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, all street signs, street names, and traffic control devices shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied by the Applicant. W. Mail Boxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 35 OF 45 1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to road curbs; 2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designed on a copy of the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the city engineer/U.S. post office prior to final plan approval; and 3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for approval by the city engineer/U.S. post office prior to final approval. Mailboxes are not shown on the site plans. Mailbox locations must be submitted for review and approval prior to commencing site improvement. X. Traffic Signal. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approval street plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approval specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. No traffic signal is required. This standard is not applicable. Y. Streetlight standards. Streetlights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the city’s direction. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall provide Engineering Division a photometric analysis of the proposed development frontages for the review and approval. Photometric analysis will follow the recommended values and requirements per ANSI/IESNA. New streetlights are required based on the photometric analysis. If required, the Applicant shall submit plan showing the location of streetlights to Engineering for review and approval. Type and color of pole and light fixture shall also be incl uded on the plan for review and approval. Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicants shall submit site plans showing location of street signs, names, and traffic control devices to Engineering for review and approval. Prior to final plat approval, all street signs, street names, and traffic control devices shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied by the Applicant. AA. Street cross-section. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later than when 90% of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less. 1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; 2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphalt concrete; 3. The final lift shall be place on all new construction roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway; however, no before 90%of the structures in the new development are completed unless three years have elapsed since initiation of construction in the development.; 4. The final lift shall be Class C asphalt concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standards specifications; and 5. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness. The Applicant’s site plans show the structural cross section of the streets. Street structural cross sections shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division prior to commencing site improvement. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 36 OF 45 BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the city engineer, the proposed development will create negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become necessary once the development is occupied and the city engineer will determine the amount of funds required, and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat. The funds will be held by the city for a period of five years from the date of issuance of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat approval. Any funds not used by the city within the five-year time period will be refunded to the developer. No traffic calming measures are proposed or deemed necessary. The standard is not applicable. CC. Traffic Study. 1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high collision intersections identified by Washington County. b. Trip generation from development onto the city street at the point of access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges: Existing ADT ADT to be added by development 0-3000 vpd 2,000 vpd 3,001-6,000 vpd 1,000 vpd >6,000 vpd 500 vpd or more c. If any of the following issues become evident to the city engineer: i. High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect movement into or out of the site. ii. Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the prosed access drive(s). iii. Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points. iv. The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or intersections is a potential hazard. v. The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive through operation. vi. The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes on adjacent local streets. 2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or developments under any of the following circumstances: a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facilities; and/or b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per day to an ODOT facility; and/or c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an ODOT facility. Traffic Impact Study is not required. 18.810.050 Easements A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainage way, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantial with the lines of the watercourse. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 37 OF 45 B. Utility Easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make arrangement with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to the development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable district, or city engineer. The proposed development is not traversed by a watercourse or drainage way. The site plans indicate that an 8-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) along all rights of way for the placement of franchise utilities. An 8-foot PUE shall be provided along all the rights of way and recorded with the final plat. 18.810.70 Sidewalk. A. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting the city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. No industrial street is proposed or deemed necessary. 5-foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along both the existing streets, Spruce St, 72nd Ave and the Private Street for pedestrian connection. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,0 00 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian route within ½ mile of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off-site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). The proposed development does not generate an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day. There is no sidewalk gap within 300 feet of the development. C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: There is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration of exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. The site plans indicate that a 5-foot planter will be provided along all streets adjacent to the development meeting the standards. However the rights of way are wide enough to provide an 8-foot planter which is better for the proposed stormwwater treatment. D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 38 OF 45 The narrative indicates that it is the adjacent property owner’s obligation to continue maintaining the adjacent sidewalks, curbs and planter strips. E. Application for permit and inspection. If the construction of a sidewalk is not included in the performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond has lapsed, then every person, firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks as provided by this chapter, shall be before entering upon the work or improvement, apply for a street opening permit to the Engineering Department to so build or construct: 1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the provision of this section is satisfied. 2. The city engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provision of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time. b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk. c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on one or both sides of the street; or, d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible. 3. The city engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. Prior to commencing of site improvements, the Applicant shall submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the location of sidewalk to Engineering for review and approval. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the sidewalk shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. Sidewalk in the public right of way or proposed public right of way will be inspected and approved by the City of Tigard Engineering Division. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service. C. Over-sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan. D. Permit Denied. Development permits may be restricted by the commission or hearing officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. The Applicant’s narrative and site plans indicate that all the lots in the proposed development will be serviced and connected to public sanitary sewer system via service laterals. The site plans also show a new public sanitary sewer system consisting of manholes and 8-inch main is proposed in the Private Street to serve the proposed lots 10 to 13. The rest of the lots are served off the existing sanitary sewer mains in either Spruce St or 72nd Ave. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 39 OF 45 Prior to commencing of site improvements, submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing the proposed sanitary sewer system and associated facilities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Tigard and CWS Design and Construction Standards. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the proposed public sanitary sewer system and associated facilities shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. No over-sizing of sanitary sewer is proposed or deemed necessary. A.810.100 Storm Drainage A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; The site plans show that both public storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems are proposed. They are separate and independent from one another. 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and The site plans indicate that a public drainage system including manholes, inlets, and a 12-inch main are proposed along the back of lots 4 to 18 and in the Private Street to serve all the lots. A water quality/quantity facility is also proposed in a storm tract (Tract A) located at the southwest corner of the development. Surface water is not be carried across the intersection and allowed to flood the streets and adjacent properties. Prior to commencing of site improvements, submit site plans as part of the PFI Permit showing how run- off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated, and detained to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The design of storm drainage improvement shall be in accordance with CleanWater Services Design and Construction Standards. 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. A grading plan was submitted showing contours associated with the proposed street and lots. The Applicant’s site plans also included the proposed storm system and location of the catch basins and the water quality facility indicating how surface water drainage patterns will be after development. B. Easement. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. The site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream. The site plans show that a storm tract (Tract A) is proposed for the purposes of storm water quality and detention. The storm tract (Tract A) shall be dedicated to the City at final plat. Additionally, a proposed public storm system is located along the back of lots 4 to 18 in a 15 -foot public storm easement. The public storm easement shall be recorded at the final plat. Alternatively and preferably that the storm system can be designed to located in the public right of way for future repair and maintenance purposes. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. A culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and the city engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 40 OF 45 adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). There is no upstream basin that flows across the subject site. D. Effect on downstream drainage. Where it is anticipated by the city engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the director and engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). A preliminary storm drainage report was submitted as part of the land use submittal. The report and site plans indicate that a public storm drainage facility located in Tract A is proposed for treating and detaining run-off generated from the both the public and private streets and sidewalks. An individual LIDA facility is proposed on lots 1 to 3, 9, and 10 to 14 to treat and detain run-off generated from impervious area on the lot. Prior to commencing site improvements, submit a final storm drainage report as part of the PFI Permit indicating how run-off generated by the development will be collected, conveyed, treated and de tained to Engineering Division for review and approval. The storm drainage report shall be prepared and include a maintenance plan in accordance with CWS Design and Construction Standards and the City of Tigard Design Guidelines. Prior to commencing of site improvements, submit site plans as part of the PFI permit indicating how run- off generated by the development to be collected, conveyed, treated and detained to Engineering Division for review and approval. Prior to Final Plat Approval, all public stormwater drainage system, including water quality and detention facilities shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the city engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1. 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city’s adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. The proposed development is not adjacent to bicycle route. 18.810.120 Utilities A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: 1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; 2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 41 OF 45 3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and 4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. The narrative and site plans indicates that all new utilities including storm, sanitary, water, and dry utilities are going to be placed underground. B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all underground facilities, and: 1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval; 2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. The site plans show all proposed storm, sanitary, and water as well as associated services and facilities will be placed underground. The site plans do not show location of the dry utilities. However, the site plans indicate that a PUE will be provided along all right of ways for dry utilities. C. Exception to undergrounding requirement. 1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under- grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. 2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant’s property shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 4. The exceptions in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this subsection C shall apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. There are existing overhead utilities located directly adjacent to the development on 72nd Ave. Those overhead utilities shall be placed underground prior to final plat approval. D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding. 1. The city engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code. 2. The city engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-foot basis. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 42 OF 45 3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The city engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for credit. 4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding utilities within the city at large. The city engineer shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the city. The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project. The list shall be submitted to the city council for their review and approval annually. Additionally, there are also existing overhead utilities located across the right of way on Spruce St. The Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated in accordance with the City of Tigard Fees and Charges. The fee shall be paid prior to commencing site improvement. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study: Traffic impact study is not required. Access Management Report: Prior to commencing of site improvements, submit as part of the PFI Permit evidences that coordination between the Applicant, Washington County, and the property owner of TL 1S136AC1600 for the relocation of the existing fence out of the right of way has occurred. Evidences shall indicates that adequate sight distance on SW 72nd Ave is provided and in accordance with the recommendation from the Access Management Report prepared by Lancaster Engineering dated December 15, 2017. Private Street: Private street, inlets and streetlights located within the private street shall be maintained either by the Homeowner Association (HOA) or by the property owners who are directly adjacent to it. A maintenance agreement will be required and recorded prior to final plat approval. When the HOA is established, submit to Engineering Division the evidences that the HOA is formed and the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) document is in place with language in regards to the maintenance of the Private Street prior to final plat approval. Tracts Recordation: All proposed Tracts are required to be recorded on separate documents per the Washington County Surveyor Office. Tract A to be owned and maintained by the City of Tigard. Tract B, C, and D to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Fire and Life Safety: Emergency vehicle turn around, location of fire hydrants, and fire flow must be reviewed and approved by TVF&R prior to commencement site improvements. Public Water System: The existing public water mains surrounding the proposed development are under the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) jurisdiction. The site plans indicate that services will be provided to serve the lots off the existing water mains located in either Spruce St or 72nd Ave. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 43 OF 45 Prior to commencing site improvements, submit as part of the PFI Permit evidences that the water improvement has been reviewed and approved by 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 N o. 00-7) 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. Prior to commencing site improvements, the Applicant shall obtain a CWS Stormwater Connection Authorization prior to issuance of the City of Tigard PFI permit. Plans shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for review. The city will forward plans to CWS after preliminary review. Tract A shall be dedicated to the City at final plat. Prior to Final Plat Approval, all public stormwater drainage system including water quality and detention facilities shall be constructed, completed, and/or satisfied. LIDAs on private lots can be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of the house’s certificate of final occupancy. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of all lots, and show that they will be graded to insure that surface drainage is directed to the street or a public storm drainage system approved by the Engineering Department. For situations where the back portions of lots drain away from a street and toward adjacent lots, appropriate private storm drainage lines shall be provided to sufficiently contain and convey runoff from each lot. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard. Prior to final plat approval, pay the addressing fee. The address fee shall be assessed in accordance with the current Master Fee Schedule. Survey Requirements: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 44 OF 45 The applicant’s final plat shall contain State Plane Coordinates [NAD 83 (91)] on two monuments with a tie to the City’s global positioning system (GPS) geodetic control network (GC 22). These monuments shall be on the same line and shall be of the same precision as required for the subdivision plat boundary. Along with the coordinates, the plat shall contain the scale factor to convert ground measurements to grid measurements and the angle from north to grid north. These coordinates can be established by:  GPS tie networked to the City’s GPS survey.  By random traverse using conventional surveying methods. In addition, the applicant’s as-built drawings shall be tied to the GPS network. The applicant’s engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard’s Development Services Division (Engineering) provided a comment letter dated May 10, 2018. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations have been incorporated within this staff report to the Planning Commission. The City of Tigard Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and requested that the water quality facility planting replace the Cluster Rose/Rosa pisocarpa with Thimbleberry/Rubus parviflorus and that the thimbleberry count be reduced to avoid crowding at maturity. In addition, the Stormwater Pond Landscape Plan (Sheet L4) must specify an underground irrigation system. Water is provided by Tualatin Valley Water District. Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and had no objections to it. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Oregon Department of Transportation, TriMet Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation reviewed the application and did not provide any conditions. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated April 12, 2018 addressing basic approval standards. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with the provisions of the letter. In addition, an email dated May 14, 2018 clarified that no turn around is required on the proposed private street, Tract D. Tualatin Valley Water District commented that plans must be submitted to the agency for review and approval. Contact Sarah Alton at 971-327-6304; sarah.alton@tvwd.org. Clean Water Services reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated April 3, 2018 addressing basic approval standards, with which the applicant must comply. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with the provisions of the letter. Comcast reviewed the proposal and commented that they do have overhead facilities on the east side of the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PDR2018-00001 TOPPING CORNER PAGE 45 OF 45 project, which will need to be undergrounded. Contact Alexander Silantiev at 503-596-3733; Alexander_Silantiev@comcast.com SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 9, 2017. Documentation is provided in Exhibit E of the application. Five attendees discussed the proposed the planned development detailed plan. Issues discussed included open space and parks, streets and utilities, housing type and design, and land use process. The city received written comments from three neighbors located within 500 feet of the subject properties regarding the proposed detailed development plan. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, is concerned about the availability of project information, and suggested that after review of the proposal, he may provide more specific comments. Christopher Glawe, 7130 SW Pine Street, expressed his feelings that the proposed development will add congestion and parking issues on SW Spruce Street, that 18 lots is too dense, a preferenc e for a public park, and a concern that the development would lower his property values. Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, worries about the loss of open space, drainage of surface water, blocked sidewalks, health of the preserved oak tree, safety of the narrow open space preserved on the northern edge of the property, the prospect of rental housing, and increased traffic. RESPONSE: Staff has followed the development code’s land use notice procedures including mailed and posted notice of public hearing. The application materials have been available online on Tigard Active Permits and at the Permit Center office since March 22, 2018. Traffic, parking, density, open space, stormwater management, public facilities improvements, and tree preservation have been addressed in the findings within this staff report to the Planning Commission. May 14, 2018 PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner DATE May 14, 2018 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director DATE