The URL can be used to link to this page

08/29/2016 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – August 29, 2016 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. RIVER TERRACE EAST MULTI-FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00008; SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2016-00005 REQUEST: Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review is requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (case files PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development. LOCATION: 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, east of SW Roy Rogers Road; Washington County Tax Map 2S10600 Tax Lots 01400 and 01401.ZONES: R-25(PD): Medium High- Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 8:05 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m. PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday August 29, 2016 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.050. The Planning Commission’s review is for the purpose of making a decision on the request. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher, garyp@tigard-or.gov) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-718-2434. - RIVER TERRACE EAST MULTI-FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00008 SITE DEVELOPMENT REIVEW (SDR) 2016-00005 REQUEST: Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review is requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (case files PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development. LOCATION: 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, east of SW Roy Rogers Road; Washington County Tax Map 2S10600 Tax Lots 01400 and 01401.ZONES: R-25(PD): Medium High-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 18.730, 18.745, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. (ATTACHED VICINITY MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION) TT PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 4, 2016 VICINITY MAP PDR2016-00008 SDR2016-00005 River Terrace East Multi-Family Planned Development Subject Site Approx. Scale 1:4,000 - 1 in = 333 ft Map printed at 03:19 PM on 22-Jul-16 Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES. THE CITY OF TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN. THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 503 639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov Memorandum L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_CompletenessMemo.docx 808 SW 3rd Avenue Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 The purpose of this memorandum is to address how the completeness items identified in the letter dated May 26, 2016, have been addressed in this resubmittal. Completeness Item #1: Concept Plan • Replace Sheet P2.2 with concept plan for the subject site. • Findings for 18.350.020.D have been added to page 4 of the narrative. • An additional sentence was added to the findings for 18.350.070.A on page 11 of the narrative to describe consistency between the Detailed Development Plan and Concept Plan. Completeness Item #2: Urban Forestry Plan • New Sheet TC.3 Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. • Added reference to Sheet TC.3 in findings for 18.790.030.A.1, page 42 of the narrative. • Added description of trees adjacent to the site in paragraph 2 of page 43 of the narrative. Completeness Item #3: Public Facilities Checklist • Street Issues: o New Sheet P6.1 Street A Preliminary Plan and Profile o Added reference to Sheet P6.1 in findings for 18.660.080.B, page 24 of the narrative. • Water Issues: o Revised Sheet P3.0 Preliminary Composite Utility Plan to add Utility Notes 11 (proposed 4” domestic water), 12 (proposed 8” fire water), and 13 (future Roy Rogers Road drainage) • Storm Drainage and Water Quality Issues: o Confirmed that a new SPL is not required for this application. o Added language to the last paragraph on page 19 of the narrative clarifying that the regional stormwater facility will accommodate proposed runoff from the east side of Roy Rogers Road, Street A, and the subject site. General • Updated references to sheet numbers and titles to reflect revisions. To: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner City of Tigard From: Li Alligood, Senior Planner Copies: File Date: June 16, 2016 Subject: River Terrace East Multifamily Completeness Items Project No.: 17857 River Terrace East Multifamily Tigard, Oregon Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Approval Planned Unit Development Detailed Development Plan Approval Site Development Review Approval Prepared for West Hills Development Prepared by Otak, Inc. Project No. 17857 April 27, 2016 Resubmitted June 16, 2016 River Terrace East Multifamily ii L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak REQUESTS Combined Planned Development Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and Site Design Review approval are requested for the River Terrace East multifamily site, which will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97- acre site. The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). This application is for the development of the multifamily lot of the River Terrace East planned development. SITE INFORMATION SITE: Lot 1 of the River Terrace East Planned Development, addressed as 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, also described as Tax lots 1400 and 1401 of Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 2S106. The site is located on the east side of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the PGE substation. ZONING: R-25. The subject site is within the River Terrace Plan district. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT(S): West Hills Development Co. 735 SW 158th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97006 (503) 641-7342 Contact: Dan Grimberg 503.641.7342 dgrimberg@arborhomes.com OWNER(S): Arbor Road, LLC 735 SW 158th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97006 Contact: Dan Grimberg 503.641.7342 dgrimberg@arborhomes.com PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM PLANNER: Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Li Alligood, AICP 503.415.2384 li.alligood@otak.com River Terrace East Multifamily iii L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak CIVIL Otak, Inc. ENGINEER: 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Mike Peebles, PE 503.415.2354 mike.peebles@otak.com ARCHITECT: Otak, Inc. 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Ben Bortolazzo 503.415.2307 ben.bortolazzo@otak.com LANDSCAPE Otak, Inc. ARCHITECT: 808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 970204 Contact: Steve Dixon, PLA 503.415.2371 steve.dixon@otak.com TRAFFIC Kittelson and Associates, Inc. ENGINEER: 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 Contact: Julia Kuhn, PE 503.228.5230 jkuhn@kittelson.com ENVIRONMENTAL Anchor QEA, LLC CONSULTANT: 6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 333 Tigard, OR 97224 Contact: Greg Summers 503.670.1108 gsummers@anchorqea.com GEOTECHNICAL Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc. ENGINEER: 24560 SW Middleton Road Sherwood, OR 97141 Contact: Scott Hardman, P.E. 503.822.5347 shardman.hgsi@frontier.com River Terrace East Multifamily iv L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak TABLE of CONTENTS Page I. Request ........................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1 III. Compliance with Applicable City of Tigard Community Development Code Provisions ........................................................................................................................ 2 A. Chapter 18.350 Planned Development ............................................................................ 2 B. Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review ................................................................... 15 C. Chapter 18.390 Decision-Making Procedures .............................................................. 15 D. Chapter 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts ................................................................ 15 E. Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District .................................................................. 16 F. Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress, and Circulation .......................................................... 22 G. Chapter 18.715 Density Computations ......................................................................... 24 H. Chapter 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards ......................................................... 24 I. Chapter 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards ............................................. 27 J. Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening ................................................................. 29 K. Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage ....................................... 31 L. Chapter 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements ................................ 33 M. Chapter 18.790 Urban Forestry Plan ............................................................................. 36 N. Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas ......................................................................... 38 O. Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards ........................................ 38 P. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements .......................................................................... 40 IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 40 V. Appendix A. Warranty deeds confirming ownership of subject properties – Washington County Record #2006-000102 B. January 12, 2016. Pre-application conference notes by the City of Tigard staff C. Clean Water Services Water Quality Sensitive Areas Service Provider Letter No. 15-001056 issued July 9, 2015 D. Urban Forestry Plan dated April 22, 2016, prepared by Otak, Inc. E. Request for 500’ Property Owner Notification and Neighborhood meeting documentation (notice letter, affidavits of mailing and posting notices, neighborhood meeting notes, and meeting attendance list) VI. Impact Studies A. Geotechnical Engineering Multifamily Report dated March 25, 2016, by Hardman Geotechnical, Inc. B. Memorandum “Transportation Analysis” dated March 15, 2016, by Kittelson Associates, Inc. C. Impact Assessment Report dated April 21, 2016, by Otak, Inc. D. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan dated April 26, 2016, by Otak, Inc. River Terrace East Multifamily v L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak VII. Reduced Size Plan Set Civil P0.0 – Cover Sheet with Vicinity Map P1.0 – Existing Conditions Plan P1.1 – Existing Conditions Plan with Aerial Photo P2.0 – Detailed Development Plan & Site Plan P2.1 – Preliminary Access Plan P2.2 – Planned Development Concept Plan P2.3 – Site Setback Plan P2.4 – Shared Outdoor Space Plan P3.0 – Preliminary Composite Utility Plan P4.0 – Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan P5.0 – Preliminary Site Cross Sections P5.1 – Preliminary Site Cross Sections P6.0 – Preliminary Street Cross Sections P6.1 – Street A Preliminary Plan and Profile Landscaping L1.1 – Preliminary Landscape Plan L1.2 – Preliminary Landscape Plan L1.3 – Preliminary Landscape Plan L2.1 – Planting Notes and Details L2.2 – Landscape Site Details L2.3 – Landscape Site Details L2.4 – Landscape Site Details LS1.1 – Water Quality Facility Planting Plan LS1.2 – Water Quality Facility Planting Notes & Details Tree Canopy TC.1 – Tree Canopy and Soil Volume Plan TC.2 – Tree Canopy and Soil Volume Plan TC.3 – Tree Preservation and Removal Plan Architectural A1 – 22-Plex Floorplans-Uphill A2 – 22/21-Plex Floorplans-Uphill/Downhill A3 – 21-Plex Floorplans-Downhill A4 – 22-Plex Elevations-Uphill A5 – 21-Plex Elevations-Downhill A6 – 22/21-Plex Sections-Uphill/Downhill River Terrace East Multifamily vi L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak A7 – 21/22-Plex Perspectives-Uphill/Downhill A8 – 12-Plex Floor Plans-Uphill/Downhill A9 – 12-Plex Floor Plans-Downhill A10 – 12-Plex Elevations-Uphill A11– 12-Plex Elevations-Downhill A12– 12-Plex Sections-Uphill/Downhill A13 – 12-Plex Perspectives-Uphill/Downhill A14 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Floor Plans-Uphill A15 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Elevations-Uphill A16 – 7-Plex/Clubhouse Sections & Perspectives-Uphill Note: All plan sheets are also separately bound in a larger format within the development application submittal. River Terrace East Multifamily 1 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak I. REQUESTS Concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan, Detailed Development Plan, and Site Development approval is requested for the proposed River Terrace East multifamily development, which includes 141 multifamily residential units in nine buildings on the multifamily site within the River Terrace East planned development, which consists of two legal lots of record (Tax Lots 1400 and 1401). The Tigard Planning Commission approved the River Terrace East planned development conceptual plan on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015- 00006, SUB201-50009, and SLR2015-00007). The approved River Terrace East planned development concept plan established the maximum number of units for the multifamily site at 150 multifamily units, and established accesses to the subject site from the neighborhood route street (“Street B”) to the east of the site, and from the future local street (“Street A”) east of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the site. Per the Final Order for the River Terrace East planned development, direct access to SW Roy Rogers Road from the site is prohibited. The currently proposed multifamily development project takes its public street access from Streets A and B as approved by the concept plan. A refined Concept Plan for the multifamily site and concurrent Detailed Development Plan and Site Design Review approval is necessary prior to development of the site with multifamily dwellings. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. See Sheets P1.0 Existing Condition Plan and P1.1 Existing Conditions Plan with Aerial Photo for details. The existing dwelling will be removed and replaced with nine buildings. The proposed buildings include four 12-plexes, two 21-unit buildings (with garages on the south side), and two 22-unit buildings (with garages on the north side). Generally, the residential buildings will include four stories of residential units on their north sides and three stories of residential units over ground level garages on the south sides of the buildings. The ninth building is two stories and will contain a clubhouse and a leasing office, as well as seven upper-level residential units. A pool and pool deck will be located adjacent to this building. Together, the proposed buildings contain 55 one-bedroom units, 64 two-bedroom units, and 22 three-bedroom units. See Sheet P2.0 Detailed Planned Development Plan & Site Plan for details. The site slopes from approximately 330 feet at its northeastern corner to 277 feet at the site’s southwestern corner. Based on building access requirements, ADA requirements, and parking lot aisle gradient limitations, it is necessary for the buildings to step down the site from north to south with driveway aisles between garages and parking spaces to be oriented east-to-west with connecting driveway areas to run down the slope. In general, the east-west sections of the driveways will step down approximately 10 feet in elevation between segments with north-south segments of the driveways sloping downward at 10 - 15%. The vertical separation between the northern-most east-west driveway segments is 20 feet. River Terrace East Multifamily 2 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak It is the project team’s intention that the proposed development plans will receive the necessary planning level approvals from the City of Tigard in summer 2016. It is hoped that grading permits will be issued in late summer 2016, with site grading to begin in fall 2016. Building construction is intended to begin in spring, 2017. Completion of buildings and all site improvements is planned for summer or fall 2017. III. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISIONS A. CHAPTER 18.350 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Response: The proposal includes a 141-unit multifamily project located on a lot within an approved planned development, and includes a request for concurrent concept plan and detailed development plan approval for the subject site. As such, the application is subject to the City of Tigard’s Planned Development application process and the standards of Chapter 18.350. 18.350.010 Purpose A. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: 1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard’s Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the city; and 2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and 3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and 4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and 5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the city; and 6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. River Terrace East Multifamily 3 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 18.350.020 Process A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. Response: The Tigard Planning Commission approved application of the PD Overlay Zone to the site through casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007. B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan; and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. Response: The Planning Commission approved Elements 1 and 3 for the River Terrace East planned development through casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007. Element 2, approval of the detailed development plan, was approved for the remainder of the River Terrace East planned development but was deferred for this multifamily parcel. The current application is for Element 1, a Concept Plan, and Element 2, Detailed Development Plan approval, for the multifamily parcel of the River Terrace East planned development. City staff has indicated that a concept plan for the multifamily site must be included as part of this application, although a separate Concept Plan Review application is not required. C. Decision-making process. 1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. Response: The River Terrace East planned development concept plan was approved by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2015 (casefiles PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007). The approved concept plan did not address the multifamily site, which is being addressed through this application. 2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan. Response: Concurrent Detailed Development Plan approval is requested through this application. The multifamily site concept plan and consistency of the plans for the multifamily project with the concept plan is addressed below. 3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan. Response: The PD Overlay Zone was applied to the entire River Terrace East planned development through casefile PDR2015-00006. The multifamily parcel is Lot 1 of the River Terrace East planned development. D. Concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed plan. In the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning River Terrace East Multifamily 4 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the planned development application (i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval); however each required action may be made at the same hearing. (Ord. 06-16) Response: The applicant is requesting approval for a concept plan and detailed development plan, and requests that each action be made at the same hearing. The Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2 and the approval criteria of 18.350.050 are addressed below. The Detailed Development Plan is included as Sheet P2.0 and the approval criteria of 18.350.060 are addressed below. 18.3 50.030 Administrative Provisions A. Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after 1-1/2 years unless an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a preliminary plat approval or request for extension is filed. Response: The application concept approval for casefile PDR2015-00006, SUB20150009, and SLR2015-00007 was granted on August 15, 2015. This application was submitted for approval on April 27, 2016 and resubmitted on June 16, 2016. This is consistent with the time limit provided for by this section. 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional information required by subsection B of this section. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: Response: This application contains all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as specified by Section 18.390.050, plus the additional information required by subsection B of this section. The Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2. 1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include: a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant; Response: The applicant’s objective is to develop a multifamily site that combines well- designed, complementary buildings connected with attractive open spaces and pedestrian pathways. The mix of units and types of open spaces, including a pool, passive open space, and a tot lot, are intended to appeal to a range of residents, from individuals to families to seniors. The proposed access drives, sidewalks, and pathways will provide convenient and safe access within and to/from the site for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed; Response: Innovative site planning principles and techniques include the mixing various building types in a coordinated development plan, distribution of open space throughout the site, and mitigation of site slopes through a curvilinear site access design. Accessible pedestrian pathways provide north/south linkages along the eastern boundary of the site, while sidewalks provide those linkages along the western boundary of the site. Proposed site grading will preserve the predominant southern trending slope of the site. Some River Terrace East Multifamily 5 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak retaining walls and daylight building foundations will be utilized to minimize grading impacts to the site’s natural topography. The architectural style of the proposed development is shown in Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15. The architectural style has been designed to be consistent with the applicable standards of the River Terrace Plan District. c. An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the planned development chapter as expressed in Section 18.350.010; and Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single-family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the “Planning Commissioner’s Toolbox.” Response: The proposal respects responds to the unique topography of the site by stepping the buildings down the slope and connecting the various “levels” with wide staircases. The site design utilizes a modified curvilinear circulation system for vehicles, which allows it to respond to the slope of the site. Proposed architecture is shown on Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15. The proposed architecture is consistent with the River Terrace Community Plan District as described in the response to 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. Many of the recommendations contained in the “Planning Commissioner’s Toolbox” have been codified in the Tigard Community Development Code, specifically in Chapter 18.350 Planned Development as revised by Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District. Compliance with the standards of these chapters is addressed throughout this narrative. 2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed. Response: It is the project team’s intention that the proposed development plans will receive the necessary planning level approvals from the City of Tigard in summer 2016. It is hoped that grading permits will be issued in late summer 2016, with site grading to begin in fall 2016. Building construction is intended to begin in spring, 2017. Completion of buildings and all site improvements is planned for summer or fall 2017. 3. A statement of the applicant’s intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall River Terrace East Multifamily 6 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak include the applicant’s intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders. Response: It is the intent of the applicant to sell the multifamily site to another developer. Any subsequent land developer and/or home builder will be required to construct consistent with the proposed concept plan and detailed development plan, or to submit revisions to the approved plans. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the director: 1. Existing site conditions; Response: Existing site conditions are illustrated on Sheets P1.0 and P1.1. 2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and their general arrangement on the site; Response: The River Terrace East multifamily site concept, including the types of proposed structures and their general arrangement on the site, is shown on Sheet P2.2. The concept plan proposes multifamily attached residential housing in 9 buildings, as well as public and private open space uses. A clubhouse is located at the western boundary of the site. 3. A grading concept; Response: Existing topography is shown on Sheets P1.0 and P1.1. Proposed site grading is illustrated on Sheet P4.0 Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, and site cross sections are shown on Sheets P5.0 and P5.1 Preliminary Site Cross Sections. The site is proposed to be graded in a manner that will preserve the naturally gentle slope of the site. 4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s); Response: Proposed shared open space and landscaping is shown on Sheet P2.2 and Sheet P2.4 Shared Outdoor Space Plan. The site includes a landscaped buffer, usable open space, and a clubhouse with a pool and community room. 5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790; Response: An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790 is provided as Appendix D and Sheet TC.3 Tree Preservation and Removal Plan, and described in detail in the response to Chapter 18.790 below. The minimum required 33% site and parking lot tree canopy standards of Chapter 18.790 will be satisfied through a combination of street tree plantings and tree plantings in open spaces. 6. Parking concept; Response: A preliminary parking plan is included on Sheet P2.0. Each dwelling unit has at least 1 off-street parking space, and additional parking is available on site. In addition, visitor parking and ADA-compliant parking spaces are indicated. River Terrace East Multifamily 7 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 7. A sign concept; Response: No signs are proposed at this time. 8. A streets and utility concept; and Response: The vehicular circulation concept is shown on Sheet P2.2. The utility concept is provided on Sheet P3.0 Preliminary Composite Utility Plan. The proposed utility systems are described in this application narrative as well as in the Impact Assessment Report C in Section VI of this report. Clean Water Services plans on constructing a sanitary sewer lift station in the southwestern portion of a companion subdivision by West Hills Development on the west side of Roy Rogers Road. Sanitary sewage from River Terrace East and from the South Cooper Mountain area of Beaverton will drain to this lift stations, and then be pumped up in a force main to the existing Barrows Road sanitary sewer trunk line. The locations of stormwater treatment facilities are shown on Sheet P2.0. The regional stormwater facility to the east of the Roy Rogers right-of-way will serve the multifamily site and will be conveyed south to an existing drainage crossing under Roy Roger Road and discharge to the drainage course south of the proposed River Terrace Northwest subdivision. Stormwater from Street A and the eastern half of Roy Rogers Road will be conveyed to the regional stormwater facility within the Roy Rogers Road right-of-way. 9. Structure setback and development standards concept, including the proposed residential density target if applicable. Response: Sheet P2.0 shows the proposed location of the structures, Sheet P2.2 shows the proposed building placement on the site, and Sheet P2.3 Site Setback Plan illustrates setbacks from property lines and between structures. The approved 211 attached and detached single-family units and the proposed 141 multifamily units falls within the minimum/maximum housing opportunity range of 340 to 424 units calculated according to the Density Calculation standards of Section 18.715. No modifications to the multifamily site’s dimension standards for are proposed. C. Allowable uses. 1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are allowed with planned development approval: a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district; b. Single-family detached and attached residential units; Response: The proposed development will include 8 multifamily residential buildings and 1 clubhouse with 7 dwelling units above. “Multifamily residential” is an allowed use in the R- 25 zone per table 18.510.1 of the Community Development Code. 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria Response: Per city staff, the concept plan approved by casefile PDR2015-00006 for the River Terrace East planned development did not adequately address the multifamily site. Although a River Terrace East Multifamily 8 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Concept Plan Review application is not required, a Concept Plan and findings for these approval criteria are necessary to make findings of consistency between the Detailed Development Plan and the Concept Plan. A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural features of the site. Response: The concept plan approved by PDR2015-00006 includes specific designations for open space within the River Terrace East planned development. The concept plan for the multifamily development is shown on Sheet P2.2 and identifies areas of open space on the subject site and their intended level and type of us. There are no natural features on the subject site. This criterion is met. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Response: The subject site does not contain any natural resources. Due to the site topography, significant grading will be required and preservation of the existing trees is not possible. Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3 Preliminary Landscape Plan and Sheet TC.3 show the existing trees on and adjacent to the site, protection measures, and the number and type of replacement trees to be planted on the site. 3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. Response: Sheets P2.0 and Sheet P2.2 illustrate how the proposed development will integrate into the approved River Terrace East planned development by providing a transition between the single-family lots to the east and the lower-density development to the west of Roy Rogers Road. This transition will be provided by a gradual intensity of uses as well as landscaped buffers. The architectural style of the buildings is intended to complement the planned townhouse and single-family development to the east. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. Response: Sheet P2.2 illustrates a proposed pedestrian circulation system that connects pedestrians from the northern/upper area of the site to the southern/lower area of the site through pathways along the western and eastern boundaries as well as through the center of the site. Pedestrian connections are also provided to Roy Rogers Road and the future local street to the south. These pedestrian pathways are shorter than vehicular routes on the site. The site is located more than a mile from transit and does not include pedestrian connections to transit. River Terrace East Multifamily 9 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. Response: Sheet P2.2 identifies the proposed multifamily uses on the site and the location of individual buildings on the site. All of the proposed dwellings are located within attached multifamily buildings as shown. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. Response: The approved development plan for the River Terrace East planned development provides for the long term preservation of wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the site and the tree grove in the southern portion of the site; provides for active open space; and provide for a complementary pattern of development of single- family attached and detached dwellings and multifamily dwellings interspersed with active and passive open space facilities. The proposed multifamily development incorporates open space and other amenities for the residents of the site and the planned development at large, including active and passive recreational areas and a pedestrian pathway along the northern boundary of the site. The flexibility allowed by the planned development overlay allows for creative site design, including a curvilinear vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, and the ability to site the buildings in a way that responds to the significant topography of the site. 18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. Response: The applicant has submitted an application form and supporting plans and this application narrative containing all of the general information required for a Type III procedure as required by Section 18.390.050; the additional information required by 18.350.040.B; and responses to the approval criteria under Section 18.350.070. This requirement is met. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information: 1. Contour intervals of one foot, unless otherwise approved by the director, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed. Response: The Detailed Development Plan & Site Plan is included as Sheet P2.0. Sheets P1.0 and P1.1 include site topography with 2-foot contour intervals and spot elevations at breaks in grade, and as needed. 2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, building construction, and landscaping for each phase. River Terrace East Multifamily 10 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Response: The proposed multifamily development will be developed in one phase. Site construction is expected to be initiated in late summer 2016. Site construction will include demolition, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, and public improvements. Building construction is expected to be initiated in spring 2017 and is expected to be completed within one year. Landscaping will occur concurrently with building construction. 3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants. Response: No restrictions or covenants are proposed. C. Compliance with specific development standards. The detailed development plan shall show compliance with base zone provisions, with the following modifications: Response: The specific standards of Section 18.350.060.C are superseded by Code Section 18.660.070.B. See the response to that section below. The specific standards of Section 18.350.060.C are not included in this report. 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. Response: The approved planned development concept plan did not provide details regarding the multifamily site design. The proposed Concept Plan is included as Sheet P2.2, and the proposed Development Plan is included as Sheet P2.0. The building placement, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation, and usable open space demonstrated on Sheet P2.0 are consistent with the Concept Plan. This criterion is met. B. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420, Partitions, and 18.430, Subdivisions, shall be met if applicable; Response: No land division is proposed. This criterion is not applicable. C. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines… 1. Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, are not applicable to planned development reviews. The detailed development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as the site development review. Response: The application is being submitted for Detailed Development Plan review approval. Chapter 18.360 is not applicable. 2. Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.705 is detailed below. 3. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district, using the minimum lot size established for that district. Response: The permitted maximum density for this site is 150 units, as approved by casefile PDR2015-00006. 141 units are proposed. This criterion is met. River Terrace East Multifamily 11 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 4. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.745 is detailed below. 5. Chapter 18.765, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.765 is detailed below. 6. Chapter 18.780, Signs. Response: No signs are proposed. This criterion is not applicable. 7. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. Response: Compliance of the detailed development plan with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.795 is detailed below. 8. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks, and 18.810.060, Lots. Response: No exceptions to the Street and Utility Improvement standards of Chapter 18.810 are requested. This criterion is met. D. In addition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. Response: The subject site slopes significantly from the northwest to southwest corner, and substantial grading is required to prepare the site for development. The existing trees on the site will be removed and will be replaced per Sheet P4.0. This criterion is met. b. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation; and Response: The proposed structures will be located on structural fill designed to accommodate the load of the buildings. The underlying ground is stable and not severely sloped. A geotechnical study has been prepared for the proposed development by Hardman Geotechnical Services, Inc. That study is included as Report A in Section VI of this application. The recommendations of the study will be utilized in developing the final grading plan for the project. This criterion is met. c. Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible. Response: As illustrated on Sheet P2.0, each of the buildings has been situated so that the long axes of the buildings have east-to-west orientations to maximize solar gain. This criterion is met. River Terrace East Multifamily 12 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 2. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses; e.g., between single-family and multifamily residential, and residential and commercial uses; Response: The site is located adjacent to a vacant site in the R-7 Zone. Per Table 18.745.1 Buffer Matrix and the pre-application conference notes, a 10-ft buffer is required around the perimeter of the site. The applicant proposes a 10-ft buffer as illustrated on Sheet L1.2. This criterion is met. b. On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: i. What needs to be screened; ii. The direction from which it is needed; and iii. Whether the screening needs to be year-round. Response: The proposed multifamily development will include four trash and recycling enclosures located in distinct areas: the northwest corner of the site; the central eastern edge of the site; the southwest corner of the apartment area; and to the west of the recreation building. These enclosures will be constructed of CMU walls with steel gates. The location relatively deep into the parking area and site will provide adequate screening from adjoining properties. Proposed parking areas are interior to the site and are minimally visible. Visitor/ADA parking in the southeast corner of the site will be visible from the southern-most lots of the adjacent site and will be screened by landscaping. This criterion is met. 3. Privacy and noise. Nonresidential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; Response: No nonresidential structures which will abut existing dwellings are included within the project. This criterion is not applicable. 4. Exterior elevations—Single-family attached and multiple-family structures. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a. Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; b. Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and c. Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height. Response: As illustrated in Sheets A4, A5, A10, A11, and A15, the proposed multifamily dwelling design includes offsets at a minimum of every 30 feet. The offsets are provided by a combination of 10-foot wide private patios or balconies for each unit and breaks in roof elevations of 4 or more feet in height. This standard is met. 5. Private outdoor area—Residential use: River Terrace East Multifamily 13 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak a. Exclusive of any other required open space facility, each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with a minimum width dimension of four feet; b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space. Response: Per Section 18.660.070 Planned Developments, this provision applies to multifamily development, and is applicable to the proposal. Each ground-level residential dwelling unit has an outdoor private area of 60 square feet with depths of 6 feet and widths of 10 feet. The private outdoor spaces are recessed 5 foot and extend 1 foot beyond the façade, which provides enclosure on three sides. 6. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas—Residential use: a. Exclusive of any other required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: i. Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; ii. Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. b. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; c. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: i. Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities; ii. Additional outdoor active use open space facilities; iii. Indoor recreation center; or iv. A combination of the above. Response: Per Section 18.660.070 Planned Developments, this provision applies to multifamily development, and is applicable to the proposal There are no minimum “outdoor passive” or “outdoor active” use open space facility requirements for sites within the River Terrace Plan District, and all shared outdoor recreation space applies to this requirement. Sheet P2.4 illustrates the type and size of the proposed shared open space. The proposed 141 residential units will be a mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units. Therefore, the proposed development is required to provide 30,400 square feet of shared usable outdoor recreation areas to satisfy subsection (a) of this standard. The proposed development plans provide for the following areas to be provided as shared usable outdoor recreation areas: Recreation Area Minimum Required Provided Pool, deck, and pool lawn area 5,781 square feet Clubhouse recreation room 912 square feet Outdoor space 26,148 square feet Total Usable Active Open Space provided 30,400 34,213 square feet The shared outdoor recreation spaces consist of a selection of small plazas, lawn areas, active areas for badminton and bocce, and trails. All shared spaces are located adjacent to River Terrace East Multifamily 14 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak residential units, which will provide for passive surveillance of the area. The interior amenity room of the clubhouse will be visible from the pool deck area. Outdoor recreation areas are dispersed throughout the development and include lawn areas, a “tot lot”, terraced seating areas, and a lawn area between the two northernmost buildings. All of the areas are faced by at least one building façade, and in some cases many. The pedestrian path connecting the River Terrace East subdivision with SW Roy Rogers Rd is located along the northern edge of the site and is within sight of the northernmost units. 7. Access and circulation: a. The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705; b. All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles; and c. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the project site. Response: The proposed development requires a minimum of two access points, and two access points are provided. The site plan has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. The project development team submitted the site plan to the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (TVFRD), and they confirmed that the site plan meets its access requirements. 1 Sheet P2.1 Preliminary Access Plan demonstrates site access and fire access. 8. Landscaping and open space—Residential development. In addition to the buffering and screening requirements of paragraph 2 of this subsection D, and any minimal use open space facilities, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped. Response: The proposed development plans call for 53,485 square feet of landscaped area on the site, or 24.5% of the 218,100 square foot development site area. This area will include trees and shrubs which will provide screening and buffering for the parking area. The landscape plan is included as Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3and was prepared by and under the direction of Steve Dixon, PLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. 9. Public transit: Response: There currently is no public transit available adjacent to or within a quarter mile of the project site. This standard is not applicable. 10. Parking. All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765: Response: Sheet P2.0 illustrates the layout of the parking areas on site. The proposed parking areas within the project have been designed consistent with the applicable design standards of Chapter 18.765. Each dwelling is provided with a dedicated off-street parking space. See the response to Chapter 18.765 below. 1 E-mail from John Wolff, Deputy Fire Marshal II, received March 23, 2016. River Terrace East Multifamily 15 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 11. Drainage. All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.810. Response: The proposed storm drainage system within the site has been designed consistent with the applicable standards of Chapter 18.810. See the response Chapter 18.810 below and the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan included as Impact Study D in Section VI of this report. 12. Floodplain dedication. Where landfill and/or development are allowed within or adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the city shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. Response: The project site does not include any 100-year floodplain. This standard is not applicable. 13. Shared open space facilities. These requirements are applicable to residential planned developments only. The detailed development plan shall designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as a shared open space facility. Response: Per 18.660.070.E, the shared open space facility requirements of paragraph 18.350.070.D.13 shall not apply and the open space requirements and development enhancements of 18.660.070.E.1-3 apply in their place. See the response to Chapter 18.660 below. 14. Open space conveyance: Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a plan adopted by the city is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. Response: No open space conveyance from the subject site is anticipated at this time. This section is not applicable. B. CHAPTER 18.360 – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Response: The standards of Subsection 18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria supersede the standards of this chapter. This chapter is therefore not applicable. C. CHAPTER 18.390 – DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES Response: This application is for Planned Development Concept Plan approval and Detailed Development Review, each of which is subject to Type III land use review. The application includes the information requested on the application form; addresses the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; and is accompanied by the required fee. A Request for 500’ Property Owner Notification has been submitted, and the required impact study is included in Section VI. D. CHAPTER 18.510 - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 18.510.030 Uses Response: The site is zoned R-25, which is a Medium High-Density Residential designation. River Terrace East Multifamily 16 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Table 18.510.1 of the Community Development lists permitted, restricted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the residential zones. “Household Living” and “Multifamily Units” are listed as a permitted uses in the R-25 district. Table 18.521.2 provides a tabulation of minimum development standards for each of the commercial districts. Some of these standards are superseded by the standards of section 18.660.070. See Table 1 for an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the standards of the R-25 Zone. Table 1: Analysis of Proposal Compliance with R-25 Zone Standards. Standard Required Proposed Minimum lot size MF: 1,480 sq. ft. Not applicable Average lot width None Not applicable Minimum/maximum setbacks • Minimum front yard • Minimum side yard • Minimum rear yard • Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district • Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. Not applicable Maximum building height 45 ft. Not applicable Maximum site coverage 80% 75.5% Minimum landscape requirement 20% 24.5% Minimum density 23.54 du/ac 29.56 du/ac Maximum density 29.43 du/ac The proposal will comply with all applicable standards of the R-25 Zone, with the exception of the maximum density. The proposal includes 141 dwelling units, at a density of 29.56 dwelling units per acre. Casefile PDR2015-00006 approved between 120 and 150 dwelling units on the multifamily site, which was within the total number of units permitted within the River Terrace East planned development. These standards are met. E. CHAPTER 18.660 - RIVER TERRACE PLAN DISTRICT 18.660.020 Applicability A. This chapter applies to all property that is located in the River Terrace Plan District…The standards and requirements in this chapter apply in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other applicable provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC). Response: The River Terrace East planned development, including the subject site, is located within the River Terrace Plan District boundary, and regulations of this chapter are applicable. 18.660.030 Provision of Adequate Public Facilities B. Approval Standard. Land use applications for Subdivisions, Partitions, Planned Developments, Site Development Reviews, and Conditional Uses may be approved when the applicable standards in Subsection 18.660.030.E are met by the applicant … River Terrace East Multifamily 17 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Response: This application is for a planned development detailed plan review, and this standard is applicable. Compliance with the applicable standards of 18.660.030.E is addressed below. C. Deferral of Compliance. Response: Per the Final Order for casefile PDR2015-00006, compliance with the requirements of this Chapter has been deferred until final plat approval. Polygon Northwest and the applicant will work with the City to develop a development agreement that addresses the items listed in Condition 62 of the Final Order. D. Exception. Response: No exceptions are requested. This section is not applicable. E. Additional Standards. 1. Infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation systems, including but not limited to pump stations and trunk lines, shall be located and designed to serve the proposed development and not unduly or unnecessarily restrict the ability of any other property to develop in accordance with the applicable River Terrace Infrastructure Master Plan. Response: As illustrated in Sheet P3.0 Preliminary Composite Utility plan, the proposed infrastructure improvements will be located and designed to serve the proposed development, and the proposal does not restrict the ability of any other property to develop in accordance with the applicable River Terrace Infrastructure Master Plan (RTIMP). This standard is met. 2. Infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, and stormwater shall be placed in easements that are located, wherever possible, within existing or future rights-of-way. Easements and rights-of-way shall extend through and to the edge of the development site at such locations that would maximize the function and availability of the easement and right-of-way to serve adjacent and surrounding properties. Response: As illustrated in Sheet P3.0, the infrastructure improvements will be located in rights-of-way or easements. This standard is met. 3. Development in water pressure zone 550 shall either provide or demonstrate that there is sufficient water capacity in water pressure zone 550 to serve the proposed development, or that it can be served by another water pressure zone that has sufficient capacity, to the satisfaction of the city engineer and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue during the land use review process. Response: This development will be served by the 410 water pressure zone. This standard is not applicable. 4. Development in the north and south sewer sub-basins shall demonstrate, where applicable, that there is sufficient pump station capacity and associated force mains to serve the proposed development, or that it can be served by other system improvements, to the satisfaction of the city engineer and Clean Water Services during the land use review process. Response: The approved plans for the River Terrace East planned development indicate that sewer mains will be constructed throughout the development to convey flow to the south and west, crossing Roy Rogers Road and connecting to the proposed gravity sewer River Terrace East Multifamily 18 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak located in the River Terrace Northwest Subdivision, and continuing on to a new CWS sanitary sewer pump station. This site is located within the River Terrace East planned development and will be served by these mains. This standard is met. 5. If compliance with stormwater management standards is dependent upon an off-site conveyance system or an on- or off-site regional facility that has not yet been provided, the applicant may propose alternative and/or interim systems and facilities as described in the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan. Response: The stormwater management system for the River Terrace East multifamily development is proposed in a regional facility located southwest of the site in a portion of the existing Washington County “additional” right-of-way on the east side of Roy Rogers Road. See Sheet P3.0. The design of the facility will accommodate the proposed runoff from the east side of the proposed roadway improvements on Roy Rogers Road (MSTIP project), Street A, and the subject site. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility and will outfall to the existing drainage to the south. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design is currently proposing some modifications to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and the approved River Terrace East Planned Development stormwater management plan to combine/revise some proposed regional facilities and account for detention of basin flows in the existing wetland/pond that is south and east of the multifamily parcel. The final stormwater plan for the area may lessen the detention volume requirements of the multifamily storm facility if there is additional storage volume available in the regional facility. Additional coordination and modelling will be completed with final design and resolution of regional stormwater facilities. F. Other Provisions 1. Unless expressly authorized in a development approval, no person shall impose a private fee or any charge whatsoever that prohibits, restricts, or impairs adjacent or surrounding properties from accessing a public facility, easement, or service. 2. For the purposes of this section, an ordinance or resolution adopting an SDC, utility fee, or other charge to fund public facilities and/or services described in this section shall be deemed effective if it has taken effect and the time for any legal challenges has expired or any legal challenge has been finally decided. Response: The applicant does not intend to impose a private fee or any charge that prohibits, restricts, or impairs an adjoining property from accessing a public easement, facility, or service or denies access to such an easement, facility, or service. The applicant understands that any ordinance or resolution adopting charges will be deemed effective if it has taken effect. This standard is met. 18.660.040 Approval Criteria A. Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Site Development Review Approval Criteria. In addition to the approval criteria in Section 18.330.030, Sections 18.350.050 and 070, and Section 18.360.090, the following approval criterion shall apply to all Conditional Use, Planned Development, and Site Development Review applications in River Terrace. 1. Unless the applicable approval authority determines it is in the public interest to make modifications, the applicant shall design construct all streets, street extensions, and intersections to conform to: a. The River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum; and b. The street spacing and connectivity standards of this chapter, the TCDC, and Washington County, where applicable; and River Terrace East Multifamily 19 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak c. The approved plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions of abutting properties, if any, as to width and general direction. 2. The development shall not impede the future use or development of adjacent property in River Terrace not under the control or ownership of the applicant proposing the conditional use, planned development, multifamily, or commercial development. Response: The applicant requests Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Plan Review approval and Site Development Review approval. These criteria are applicable. A preliminary plat for the River Terrace East planned development, which includes the subject site, was approved through casefile PDR2015-00006. The proposed street connections are designed consistent with that approval. The site is bounded to the north by the developed PGE substation site, to the west by the SW Roy Rogers Street public right-of-way, and to the south by the future Street A public right-of-way. The plans for the River Terrace East multifamily project will not impede development or use of adjacent properties. This criterion is met. 18.660.070 Planned Developments The requirements of Chapter 18.350 shall apply to all planned developments in River Terrace, except as modified below. Response: The subject site is located within the River Terrace East planned development, which was approved through casefile PDR2015-00006, and this section is applicable. A. Density Calculation. Response: The River Terrace East planned development contains 5.61 acres in the R-4.5 zone, 25.37 acres in the R-7 zone, and 12.94 acres in the R-25 zone. The PDR application proposed 211 single-family dwellings and 120-150 multifamily units. The Planning Commission found that the proposed unit count of 331-362 dwelling units was within the permitted density range of 328-410 units. This standard is met. B. Development Standards. 1. Lot dimensions. The minimum lot area and lot width standards of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any lots, including those lots abutting right-of-way, with the following exception: Lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall meet the minimum lot area and lot width standards of the underlying base zone. Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. 2. Building height. The maximum building height standard of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any building on any lot, including those lots abutting right-of-way, with the following exception: Buildings on lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall be set back one additional foot for every two feet of height above the maximum height allowed on the side of the lot abutting the perimeter. Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. River Terrace East Multifamily 20 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 3. Setbacks. The setback standards of the underlying base zone shall not apply to any building on any lot, including those lots abutting right-of-way, except as follows: a. All buildings on lots along the eastern and northern perimeter of the River Terrace Plan District abutting existing residential development, or residentially-zoned land that is undeveloped or is in an easement or tract, shall meet the setback standard of the underlying base zone or the abutting zone… Response: The subject site is not located within the exception areas. This standard is not applicable. b. All buildings shall meet the minimum requirements of the Oregon Specialty Codes and the Oregon Fire Code. Response: All buildings within the River Terrace East multifamily site will be subject to the building and fire codes which are effective at the time of application for a building permit. c. All garages and carports shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet on the side of the lot from which vehicle access is taken from a public right-of-way. If vehicle access is taken from a private street or alley, this setback may be reduced to 0 feet where proper clearances for turning and backing movements are provided. Response: Each dwelling unit in the 8 residential-only buildings is provided with a garage. The garage faces are set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the back of walkways, as shown on Sheet P2.0. This standard is met. d. Where the applicant proposes to reduce the underlying base zone setbacks for buildings on lots not included in Subsection B.3.a above, the applicant shall specify the proposed setbacks on either a lot- by-lot or area-wide basis. Response: No reduction to the base zone setbacks is proposed. This standard is not applicable. 4. Planning Commission Discretion. Response: No exceptions to setbacks are requested. This standard is not applicable. C. Private Outdoor Area—Residential Use. The private outdoor area requirements of 18.350.070.D.5 shall only apply to multifamily development. Response: This standard is addressed under the requirements of 18.350.070.D. D. Shared Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Facility Areas—Residential Use. The shared outdoor recreation and open space requirements of 18.350.070.D.6 shall only apply to multifamily development. Response: This standard is addressed under the requirements of 18.350.070.D. E. Shared Open Space Facilities. The shared open space facility requirements of Subsection 18.350.070.D.13 shall not apply. In lieu of these requirements, the following open space requirements and development enhancements shall apply. River Terrace East Multifamily 21 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Response: These standards were addressed during the River Terrace East planned development review and are not applicable to the proposed development. F. Open Space Conveyance. The standards of Subsection 18.350.070.D.14 shall apply to the conveyance of open space in River Terrace. The standards of Subsection 18.810.080.B shall not apply. Response: This standard is superseded by the requirements of 18.350.070.D and is not applicable. G. Street Design Standards. The standards of Chapter 18.810 shall apply in addition to the specific provisions for public skinny streets, private streets, and private alleys in Subsections 18.660.080.D and E. Response: The street design standards of Subsection 18.810 are addressed below. H. Phased Development. Response: Phased development is not proposed. This standard is not applicable. I. Design Standards for Single-Family Dwelling Units and Duplexes. Response: The proposed development does not include any detached or attached single family residences. These standards are not applicable. J. Block Perimeter. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed a total of 1,600 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas, bodies of water, pre-existing development, or an arterial or collector street along which the city has identified a need to minimize the number of intersections. Response: Section 18.810.040 provides objectives for the design of blocks. The site circulation is provided by access aisles; no streets are proposed. In addition, the site is located adjacent to Roy Rogers Road, a collector street, and new intersections at this location are prohibited. This standard is not applicable. 18.660.080 Street Design A. Street Design –Arterial Streets Response: The site abuts SW Roy Rogers Road, which is a Washington County arterial street. The final street cross-sections were determined as part of the River Terrace East planned development concept plan approval. The application will provide the cross-sections required by the Final Order for casefile PDR2015-00006. This standard is met. B. Public Skinny Streets and Private Streets. Response: The River Terrace East planned development includes Street A, which will intersect with SW Roy Rogers Road to the southwest of the site. Sheet P6.1 illustrates the preliminary plan and profile for this street. The approved design for Street A is a skinny street that meets the skinny street options of Figure 18.810.6.B. This standard is met. River Terrace East Multifamily 22 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak F. CHAPTER 18.705 - ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 18.705.020 Applicability of Provisions Response: The proposal will result in the construction of new structures. These provisions are applicable. 18.705.030 General Provisions A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the city. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 2. Copies of the CWSs, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the city. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in 18.705.030.H and I shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. Response: A preliminary access plan has been included as Sheet P2.1. The southern access of the site connects directly to proposed Street A, which is a public local street. Street A intersects with Roy Rogers Road and provides access to the site. Direct access to Roy Rogers Road is not permitted and is not proposed. These standards are met. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N. Response: The proposed accesses will require curb cuts. The curb cuts will meet the standards of 18.810.030.N. This standard is met. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 1. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multifamily developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities. Response: The proposed development includes 141 dwelling units in 9 buildings. The individual dwellings are accessed through interior corridors, and each building has one primary entrance. As shown in Sheet P2.0, walkways connect each building to the parking area, common open space, and recreation facilities. This standard is met. 2. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs River Terrace East Multifamily 23 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, on-site walkways are separated from the parking areas and drive aisles on site by 6-inch curbs. The walkways are a minimum of four feet in width, are free from obstructions, and are ADA compliant. This standard is met. 3. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, other pervious paving surfaces, etc. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, the on-site walkways will be paved with hard concrete. These standards are met. G. Access management. 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the city and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility). Response: An access report prepared by Kittelson and Associates is included as Impact Study B in Section VI of this application narrative. This standard is met. 2. Driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Response: Roy Rogers Road is an arterial street; Street A to the south of the site is a local street. The proposed southern access is located approximately 250 feet from the Roy Rogers Road intersection, which exceeds the 150 feet minimum. This standard is met. 3. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. Response: Roy Rogers Road is an arterial street, and no driveway access is proposed to Roy Rogers Road. This standard is met. 4. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Response: No public streets are proposed within the multifamily site. This standard is not applicable. H. Minimum access requirements for residential use. 1. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots and multifamily residential uses shall not be less than as provided in Tables 18.705.1 and 18.705.2. Response: The proposed project includes 141 dwelling units. As shown on Sheet P2.1, the site will have two driveway access points: the northeastern access includes 24 feet of paving, two 6-inch curbs, and a 5-6 foot walkway (30-31 feet total); the southeastern access includes River Terrace East Multifamily 24 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 24 feet of paving, two 6-inch curbs, 18 inches of landscaping, and a 6-foot walk (32.5 feet total). Compliance with these standards is detailed below. These standards are met. Excerpt from Table 18.705.2 Standard Required Proposed Comments Dwelling Units 50-100 141 100 units is the highest number listed Minimum # of Driveways Required 2 2 This standard is met. Minimum Access Required 30 ft. 30-32.5 ft. This standard is met. Minimum Pavement Sidewalks, Etc. 24 ft., 6 in curbs, and 5 ft. walkway required 24 ft., 6 in. curbs, 5- 6 ft. walkway, 18 in landscaping (SE) This standard is met. 2. Vehicular access to multifamily structures shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. Response: Vehicular access to each structure is provided within 50 feet of the main access point. This standard is met. 3. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Response: The plans for the project’s internal circulation system have been reviewed with the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District’s plan reviewer in order that all applicable Uniform Fire Code provisions can be satisfied. This standard is met. G. CHAPTER 18.715 - DENSITY COMPUTATIONS 18.715.020 Density Calculation Response: The River Terrace East planned development contains 5.61 acres in the R-4.5 zone, 25.37 acres in the R-7 zone, and 12.94 acres in the R-25 zone. The PDR application proposed 211 single-family dwellings and 120-150 multifamily units. The Planning Commission found that the proposed unit count of 331-362 dwelling units was within the permitted density range of 328-410 units. This standard is met. H. CHAPTER 18.720 - DESIGN COMPATABILITY STANDARDS 18.720.020 Applicability of Provisions A. When provisions apply. These provisions apply to all multi-family and attached single-family residential projects in zoning districts R-4.5 through R-40 that abut property zoned for single-family residential development. Response: The proposed multifamily development site is zoned R-25 and abuts property zoned R-7, which is zoned for attached and detached single-family homes. These standards are applicable. River Terrace East Multifamily 25 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak B. Site design review. All residential development to which these provisions apply shall be subject to site design review. In addition to the design standards of this chapter, the development requirements of the underlying zone and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, shall apply Response: The provisions of this section are applicable to the subject site, and the requirements of the underlying R-25 Zone apply. The requirements of 18.350.070 supersede the requirements of Chapter 18.360. 18.720.030 Design Standards A. Density transition. When a multifamily or attached single-family project abuts property zoned for detached single-family, the following design standards shall apply: 1. Building height shall not exceed two stories or 25 feet within 30 feet of the property line or three stories or 35 feet within 50 feet of the property line. Response: Per 18.660.020 Applicability, in the event of a conflict between the standards and requirements of Chapter 18.660 River Terrace Plan District and other standards and requirements, the standards and requirements of Chapter 18.660 prevail. Per 18.660.070.B.2, the maximum building height of the underlying R-25 base zone shall not apply to this site. Therefore, there is no height limit applicable to this site. 2. Building planes for multifamily dwellings within 50 feet of the common property line(s) and abutting public rights-of-way shall be subject to the following standards: Response: See Sheets A4-5, A7-8, A10-13, and A15 for detailed architectural elevations. a. No building plane that faces the common property line shall exceed 960 square feet within 30 feet or 1,400 square feet within 50 feet of the property line; b. No building plane shall have a dimension greater than 40 feet in length or 35 feet in height; c. If more than one building plane faces a property line and building planes align at a common distance from the line, the building planes shall be horizontally separated by at least 20 feet. For purposes of this standard, “common distance” shall be defined as within 12 feet; d. Building plane is defined as a surface that includes a building wall that extends from the ground to the top of each wall of a structure. Response: No proposed buildings are located within 30 feet of a common property line. Two of the proposed buildings, a 12-plex and a 21/22-plex, are located within 50 feet of the eastern property line and are subject to these standards. Each of the subject building planes is less than 1,400 square feet. Though the buildings are both within 50 feet of the common property lines, the distances between planes exceed 20 feet. These standards are met. B. Front façades. All primary ground-floor common entries or individual unit entries of street frontage units shall be oriented to the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. The front elevation of large structures must be divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less. Projecting features such as porches, balconies, bays and dormer windows and roof pediments are encourages for structures facing a street to create visual interest. Response: The site has street frontage along the proposed Street A and SW Roy Rogers Road. The buildings are distributed throughout the site and oriented east-west to provide maximum River Terrace East Multifamily 26 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak solar access for all units. All primary ground-floor common entries for all buildings face the interior access drives. The front elevations of all structures are divided into smaller areas or planes of 500 square feet or less by the use of recesses, projections, material changes and bay windows. The following projecting features are being utilized: porches, balconies, bays, and roof pediments. This standard is met. C. Main entrance. Primary structures must be oriented with their main entrance facing the street upon which the project fronts. If the site is on a corner, it may have its main entrance oriented to either street or at the corner. Response: All buildings are oriented with their main entrance facing access drives. See Sheet P2.0. This standard is met. D. Unit definition. Each dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a roof dormer or bay windows on the street-facing elevation, or by providing a roof gable or porch that faces the street. Ground-level dwelling units shall include porches that shall be at least 48 square feet in area with no dimension less than six feet. Response: Each dwelling unit is emphasized with a balcony or porch and a roof gable. In many cases, units are also emphasized by bay windows. All ground-level units have approximately 60 sf porches with the smallest dimension being 6 feet. This standard is met. E. Roof lines. Roof-line offsets shall be provided at intervals of 40 feet or less to create variety in the massing of structures and to relieve the effect of a single, long roof. Roof line offsets shall be a minimum four-foot variation either vertically from the gutter line or horizontally. Response: Roof-line offsets are provided at intervals of 40 feet or less or the main elevations; the roof line offsets provide at least a 4-foot variation. This standard is met. F. Trim detail. Trim shall be used to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure’s street-facing elevation(s). Response: All buildings use trim on the roof lines, porches, windows and doors of all elevations. This standard is met. G. Mechanical equipment. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment, other than vents or ventilators, shall be located and constructed so as to be screened from ground-level view. Screening shall be integrated with exterior building design. Response: No roof-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed. This standard is not applicable. H. Parking. Parking and loading areas may not be located between the primary structure(s) and the street upon which the structure fronts. It there is no alley and motor vehicle access is from the street, parking must be provided: 1. In a garage that is attached to the primary structure; 2. In a detached accessory structure located at least 50 feet from the front property line; or 3. In a parking area at the side or rear of the site. Response: The site contains 9 buildings, none of which are the “primary” structure. As shown on Sheet P2.0, parking and loading areas are located to the side and rear of the clubhouse building, and to the interior of the site. These standards are met. River Terrace East Multifamily 27 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak I. Pedestrian circulation. 1. The on-site pedestrian circulation system shall be continuous and connect the ground-level entrances of primary structure(s) to the following: a. Streets abutting the site; b. Common buildings such as laundry and recreation facilities; c. Parking areas; d. Shared open space and play areas; e. Abutting transit stops; and f. Any pedestrian amenity such as plazas, resting areas and viewpoints. 2. There shall be at least one pedestrian connection to an abutting street frontage for each 200 linear feet of street frontage. Response: As shown on Sheet P2.0, the on-site pedestrian circulation system is continuous and connects the ground-level entrances of the structures on the site to the proposed Street A and SW Roy Rogers Road; the clubhouse building; parking areas; and shared open space. There are no abutting transit stops. Three pedestrian connections are provided to the abutting street frontages. The proposed Street A frontage is approximately 230 feet, and the SW Roy Rogers Road frontage is approximately 500 feet. One pedestrian connection, a sidewalk adjacent to the access drive, is proposed at the midway point of the Street A frontage. Additional connections are not feasible due to the 12-foot difference in grade between the western portion of the site and the sidewalk below. Two pedestrian connections are proposed to SW Roy Rogers Road: one at the southern and northern ends of the site. Additional pedestrian connections along the SW Roy Rogers Road frontage are not possible due to the significant difference in grade (up to 19.5 feet) between much of the site and street. These standards are met. I. CHAPTER 18.730 - EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.730.040 Additional Setback Requirements A. Distance between multifamily residential structure and other structures on site. 1. To provide privacy, light, air, and access to the multiple and attached residential dwellings within a development, the following separations shall apply: Response: See Sheet P2.3 for details. a. Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25-foot separation; Response: Building separation between windowed walls ranges from a minimum of 31 feet up to a maximum of 74 feet. This standard is met. b. Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15-foot separation; Response: During the architectural design of the buildings and units, a conscious effort was made to activate the end walls of buildings. Consequently, windowed unit walls do not face blank walls. This standard is met. c. Buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10-foot separation; River Terrace East Multifamily 28 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Response: The only blank walls belong to ground level garages. These garages face each other with distances similar to those of window-to-window separations (31-74 feet). This standard is met. d. Building separation shall also apply to buildings having projections such as balconies, bay windows and room projections; and Response: The minimum distance between balconies is 39 feet. The minimum distance between bays is also 39 feet. This standard is met. e. Buildings with courtyards to maintain separation of opposing walls as listed in subparagraphs a through c of this paragraph 1 for walls in separate buildings. Response: Courtyard and other open spaces have been provided between building walls. The separations range from 31 feet to 50 feet. This standard is met. 2. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. Response: A table and matrix have been provided on Sheet P2. 3 that detail required minimum separation distances between all buildings on the site. Four of the proposed buildings are 151 feet in length, and 5 of the buildings are 84 feet in length. Each of the buildings is 37 feet in height. As demonstrated in P2.3, which includes a Building Separation Table, the separation between buildings ranges from 30 to 34 feet (additional separation of 5 to 9 feet + base separation of 25 feet between windowed walls). This standard is met. 3. Driveways, parking lots, and common or public walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: a. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and Response: All proposed window wall separations from driveways, parking lots and walkways meet or exceed the minimum standards. The minimum separation proposed between any windowed walls and driveway/parking areas is 14 feet. The minimum separation proposed between any windowed walls and walkways is 5 feet. This standard is met. b. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least seven feet. Response: All proposed living room window separations from driveways, parking lots and walkways meet or exceed the minimum standards. The minimum separation between living room windows and driveways/parking lots is 14 feet. The minimum separation between living room windows and walkways is 9 feet. This standard is met. River Terrace East Multifamily 29 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak J. CHAPTER 18.745 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.020 Applicability A. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development that requires a Type I conditional use minor modification, a Type I site development review minor modification, any Type II land use review or any Type III land use review unless otherwise specified in any of the sections below. B. When urban forestry plan requirements concurrently apply. When the provisions of Chapter 18.790, Urban Forestry Plan, concurrently apply, any trees required by this chapter shall be included in the urban forestry plan and subject to all of the requirements in Chapter 18.790. C. Site plan requirements. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: This development is subject to Type III land use review, and the provisions of Chapter 18.790 concurrently apply. This requirement is applicable. The application submittal includes a site plan (Sheet P2.0) and an Urban Forestry Plan (Appendix D and Sheets TC.1 – TC.3). 18.745.040 Street Tree Standards A. Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), minor land partition (Type II), planned development (Type III), site development review (Type II) and subdivision (Type II and III) permits. B. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet. When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by rounding to the nearest whole number. C. Street trees required by this section shall be planted according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. D. Street trees required by this section shall be provided adequate soil volumes according to the street tree soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. E. Street trees required by this section shall be planted within the right-of-way whenever practicable according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than six feet from the right-of-way according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable. F. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that: 1. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the subject site; 2. The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the street tree planting and soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual if it were newly planted; and 3. The tree is shown as preserved in the tree preservation and removal site plan (per 18.790.030.A.2), tree canopy cover site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a concurrent urban forestry plan and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. G. In cases where it is not practicable to provide the minimum number of required street trees, the director may allow the applicant to remit payment into the urban forestry fund for tree planting and early establishment in an amount equivalent to the city’s cost to plant and maintain a street tree for three years (per the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual) for each tree below the minimum required. Response: The site has frontage along two streets: 758 feet along Roy Rogers Road and 250 feet along the proposed local street to the south (the existing frontage of 330 feet less the 30- foot entrance drive and site triangles). Per the preliminary landscape plans included as Sheets River Terrace East Multifamily 30 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak L1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, 19 street trees are required along the Roy Rogers Road frontage and 19 trees are proposed; 6 trees are required along the local street frontage and 6 are proposed. The Urban Forestry Plan attached as Appendix D and Sheets TC.1, TC.2, and TC.3 demonstrate that the soil volume standards are met for street trees and other site trees. The street trees will be planted within the public right-of-ways. These standards are met. 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. Response: The multifamily site is bordered by the R-7 zone to the east and north. It is separated from development to the west by SW Roy Rogers Road, an arterial, and from development to the south by a proposed open space tract. These provisions are applicable. B. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required…The specifications for this screening are as follows: i. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; ii. Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way; iii. Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; iv. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with the parking lot tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: There are 3 proposed parking areas on site: one resident parking area along the northern boundary of the site; one resident parking area located in the center of the site; and a visitor parking area located in the southeastern corner of the site. The resident parking areas are interior to the site, as well as between 12 and 19 feet above the street right-of-way elevation, and will not be visible from either Roy Rogers Road or adjacent local road. The visitor parking area will be visible from the local road right-of-way, and will be screened in accordance with this section. River Terrace East Multifamily 31 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Response: Refuse disposal areas and some service facilities will be visible from the resident parking area. Refuse containers and visible service facilities within the project will be screened from views by either a solid wood fence or CMU block enclosures between five and eight feet in height. This standard is met. 3. Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by the state building code. Response: The swimming pool will be enclosed as required by the state building code. This standard is met. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Response: Refuse containers within the project will be screened from views by 6 ft. tall CMU block enclosures. This standard is met. C. Buffer matrix. 1. The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts. Response: The multifamily development contains 141 units. The subject site is located adjacent to the R-7 Zone to the east. Per Table 18.745.1, a 10-feet buffer is required between a single-family zone and multifamily development of 5 or more units. A 10-feet perimeter buffer is proposed along the northern and eastern property lines. See Sheets L1.1, L1.2, and L1.3 for details. The buffer will be planted with a combination of trees, shrubs, and grass. This standard is met. K. CHAPTER 18.755 - MIXED SOLID WASTES AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.010 Purpose and Applicability A. Applicability. The mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and nonresidential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review; and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. Response: The proposal is for 9 multi-family residential buildings containing 5 or more units. This chapter is therefore applicable. 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance A. Alternative methods of compliance. An applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: River Terrace East Multifamily 32 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 1. Minimum standards; 2. Waste assessment; 3. Comprehensive recycling plan; or 4. Franchised hauler review and sign-off. B. Provisions. The following provisions apply to all four methods of demonstrating compliance: 1. Section 18.755.050, Location, Design and Access Standards, except as provided in 18.755.040.G; 2. The floor area of an interior or exterior storage area required by this chapter shall be excluded from the calculation of lot coverage and from the calculation of building floor area for purposes of determining minimum storage requirements. C. Minimum standards method. 1. Description of method. This method specifies a minimum storage area requirement based on the size and general use category of the new construction; 2. Typical application of method. This method is most appropriate when the specific use of a new building is not known. It provides specific dimensions for the minimum size of storage areas by general use category; 3. Application requirements and review procedure. The size and location of the storage area(s) shall be indicated on the site plan of any construction subject to this ordinance. Through the site plan review process, compliance with the general and specific requirements set forth below is verified; 4. General requirements. a. The storage area requirement is based on the predominant use(s) of the building, (i.e., residential, office, retail, wholesale/warehouse/ manufacturing, educational/institutional, or other). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies 20% or less of the floor area of the building, the floor area occupied by that use shall be counted toward the floor area of the predominant use(s). If a building has more than one of the uses listed herein and that use occupies more than 20% of the floor area of the building, then the storage area requirement for the whole building shall be the sum of the requirement for the area of each use. b. Storage areas for multiple uses on a single site may be combined and shared. c. The specific requirements are based on an assumed storage height of four feet for solid waste/recyclable. Vertical storage higher than four feet but no higher than seven feet may be used to accommodate the same volume of storage in a reduced floor space (potential reduction of 43% of specific requirements). Where vertical or stacked storage is proposed, the site plan shall include drawings to illustrate the layout of the storage area and dimensions of containers. Response: The applicant has selected the Minimum Standards method. The site is primarily multifamily with an accessory office use. No reduction of the floor space is requested. 5. Specific requirements. a. Multi-unit residential buildings containing 5-10 units shall provide a minimum storage area of 50 square feet. Buildings containing more than 10 residential units shall provide an additional five square feet per unit for each unit above 10. Response: The proposed development is a multifamily residential development containing 141 units. The storage areas for the site will be shared among the 9 buildings. Sheet P2.0 illustrates the size and location of the storage areas. Per subsection 5.a above, the site requires 705 square feet of storage area (50 square feet base + (5 square feet x 131 units) = 705 square feet). The site will contain four storage areas totaling 972 square feet: two “Type A” enclosures and two “Type B” enclosures. The Type A enclosures are located in central locations at the northwest corner of the first row of buildings and the northeast corner of the second row of buildings. Each River Terrace East Multifamily 33 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Type A enclosure has dimensions of 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep, and an area of 360 square feet. The Type B enclosures are located to the northwest of the clubhouse and at the northwest corner of the site. Each Type B enclosure has dimensions of 12.5 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and an area of 126 square feet. The total square footage of the four enclosures is 972 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 705 square feet. The project team submitted a preliminary site plan and trash enclosure plans to Waste Management, Inc., the franchised hauler for this site, on April 11, 2016. Comments from Waste Management, Inc. were received by e-mail on April 12, 2016. The hauler requested revisions to the proposed dimensions of the enclosures, which have been incorporated into the proposed plan. This standard is met. L. CHAPTER 18.765 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 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. Response: The proposal is for construction of a 141-unit multifamily development. This chapter is 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 in this chapter that show how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The application shall submit a site plan. The director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about the submittal requirement. Response: Sheets P2.0 and P2.1 show proposed parking, access, and circulation. This standard is met. B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 1. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: Response: The proposed parking is located on the development site. This standard is met. C. Visitor parking in multifamily residential developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. Response: The proposed development requires 203 parking spaces. An additional 30 spaces, or 15% above the minimum required, are provided throughout the site; each dwelling unit has a dedicated garage and driveway for parking, and surface parking areas are available for both resident and visitor use. Required bicycle parking facilities are located within each building. This standard is met. River Terrace East Multifamily 34 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak D. Disabled-accessible parking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the state building code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. Response: Disabled parking space are provided consistent with the state requirements. For parking lots with 201 to 300 spaces, 7 accessible spaces and 1 van space are required. Sheet P2.0 shows 3 surface spaces and 4 accessible-adaptable spaces within the parking garages, for a total of 7 accessible spaces. This standard is met. 18.765.040 General Design Standards A. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: 1. Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 3. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surface. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained; and 6. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. B. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. C. Parking space surfacing. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this subsection H, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt, concrete, or pervious paving surfaces. Any pervious paving surface must be designed and maintained to remain well-drained. D. Parking lot striping. 1. Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. E. Wheel stops. Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. F. Drainage. Off-street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the city engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single-family and duplex residences, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. G. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. H. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. I. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) River Terrace East Multifamily 35 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak Response: The number and size of the proposed access drives comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.705. The access drives will be marked and improved per the standards of this Section. See Sheet P2.1. The parking lots will be landscaped in accordance with this Chapter. See Appendix D Urban Forestry Plan and Sheets L1.1, L1.2, L1.3, and TC.1. The proposed parking areas are designed consistent with the applicable dimensional and design requirements of Figure 18.765.1, including parking space sizes and drive aisle widths required for a parking space orientation of 90 degrees. As permitted by this section’s allowance for up to 50% compact spaces, the proposed development plan provides for 52 of 234 on-site parking spaces to be compact spaces, or approximately 22% of the spaces proposed. Due the narrow width of the parking lots, dedicated parking lot lighting is not proposed. Exterior building lights will illuminate the parking lot surface. These standards are met. 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. Response: Enclosed bicycle parking is located within each building. Each 22-plex building contains 16 enclosed bicycle parking spaces, and each 12-plex building contains 6 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. This standard is met. B. Covered parking spaces. Response: No parking structure is proposed for the site. These standards are not applicable. C. Minimum bicycle parking requirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.768.2 in 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Response: Per Table 18.765.2, one bicycle parking space is required for every two multifamily dwelling units. 141 dwelling units are proposed and a minimum of 70 bicycle parking spaces are required; 88 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. 18.765.070 Minimum and M aximum Off-Street Parking Requirements A. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2. Response: The proposed development consists of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. Per Table 18.765.2, minimum off-street parking requirements are: River Terrace East Multifamily 36 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak • 1 parking space for each studio unit below 500 square feet in size • 1.25 parking space for each 1-bedroom unit • 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom unit There is no maximum number of parking spaces allowed for multifamily development. The proposed multifamily project will include 55 1-bedroom units; 64 2-bedroom units; and 22 3- bedroom units. Therefore, a minimum of 203 parking spaces are required. In addition, an additional 15% of the minimum required parking (30 spaces) must be provided as visitor parking facilities. A total of 234 parking spaces are required; 234 spaces are provided. The following tables summarize the applicable minimum off-street parking requirements. Parking Spaces Required per MFR Unit Number of Units Proposed Parking Spaces Required 1.25 spaces/1-bedroom unit 55 68.8 1.5 spaces/2-bedroom unit 64 96.0 1.75 spaces/3-bedroom unit 22 38.5 Subtotal 141 203 15% additional onsite parking required for visitors - 30 Total MFR Units/ Parking Spaces Required 141 units 234 Type of Parking Space Off-Street Parking Provided Tuck-under garages 67 2 Driveway 67 Surface parking Standard 45 Compact 52 ADA 7 (3 surface and 4 tuck-under) Total Off-Street Parking Spaces Provided 234 Total compact spaces 52 (22% of total) M. CHAPTER 18.790 - URBAN FORESTRY PLAN 18.790.020 Applicability The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations: A. The following land use reviews: 1. Conditional use (Type III); 2. Downtown design review (Type II and III); 3. Minor land partition (Type II); 4. Planned development (Type III); 2 Four of these spaces are ADA adaptable. River Terrace East Multifamily 37 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 5. Sensitive lands review (Type II and III); 6. Site development review (Type II); and 7. Subdivision (Type II and III). Response: The requirements of this chapter apply to site development review, and are applicable to this application. 18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall: 1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor (the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by planting street trees in open soil volumes only; Response: The urban forestry plan for the River Terrace East Multifamily project has been prepared by David Haynes, RLA, a registered landscape architect in the State of Oregon. Appendix D to this application narrative provides an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report. Sheets TC.1 and TC.2 provide the required tree canopy plan and calculations and soil volume specifications for trees to be planted. Sheet TC.3 provides a tree preservation and removal plan for trees adjacent to the site boundaries. 2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; Response: The Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report of Appendix D includes the results of an on-site assessment of the sizes, condition ratings, and preservation ratings for all of the existing trees on and immediately adjacent to the proposed development site portion of the subject property. Sheet TC.3 is a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan. Protective measures for trees to be retained are included on this plan. There are some trees within 25 feet of the subject property on the north boundary, and tree protection fencing will be installed to protect them from encroachment or damage. The required right-of-way/street improvements for SW Roy Rogers Road will necessitate the removal of several existing mature trees that are located close to the existing pavement along Roy Rogers Road. In addition, the multifamily site development that is proposed will necessitate the removal of all of the existing trees within the proposed development footprint on the site. Significant site grading will be necessary to make the site drain properly, and retaining trees on site is not possible. 3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and Response: The proposed tree canopy meets both the parking lot and site coverage standards. The total parking lot area on site is 20,709 square feet. The minimum parking lot tree canopy cover area required is 33% in the R-25 Zone. Sheets TC.1 and TC.2 provide for anticipated tree canopy coverage of the parking area to cover 10,465 square feet, or 50%, of the parking lot area. The total project site area is approximately 216,500 square feet. The minimum site tree canopy cover area in the R-25 zone is 33%. The proposed landscaping plan provides for River Terrace East Multifamily 38 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak total site tree canopy coverage of 79,785 square feet, or 36.9% of the site. The minimum 1,000 cubic feet of soil per tree standard for the Tree Canopy Site Plan has also been met. These standards are met. 4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual. Response: Appendix D includes an Urban Forestry Plan Supplemental Report prepared by David Haynes, RLA, which includes the required information and analysis required for such a report. N. CHAPTER 18.795 - VISION CLEARANCE AREAS Response: This section requires that clear vision areas be maintained between 3- and 8-feet in height at road/driveway and road/road intersections. These intersections include the road/driveway intersections at the northeastern and southeastern corners of the site. No landscaping, signs, or other improvements are proposed within the required clear vision triangles. O. CHAPTER 18.810 - STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Response: This application is for development and this chapter is applicable. Most of the requirements of this chapter were addressed by the River Terrace East planned development application and Final Order, and are not addressed below. 18.810.030 Streets Response: Per 18.810.030.CC, a traffic study is required for new development. Kittelson and Associates, Inc., have prepared memorandum to the April 2015 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) as amended by a July 2015 memo. The March 15, 2016, transportation analysis for the proposed multifamily development is included in this report as Impact Study Report B in Section VI of this report. The analysis did not identify any mitigation measures beyond those identified in the initial TIA. These standards are met. 18.810.040 Blocks Response: The on-site circulation is provided by access aisles; no streets are proposed. In addition, the site is located adjacent to Roy Rogers Road, a collector street, and new intersections at this location are prohibited. This standard is not applicable. River Terrace East Multifamily 39 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers Response: Wastewater collection for this area will be provided by the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard River Terrace Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Addendum (May 2014) defines the basin delineation and sewer service plan for the River Terrace East area (including the multifamily parcel). Public sewer infrastructure (pump station, sewer mains) is being constructed in the River Terrace Northwest Planned Development area west of Roy Rogers Road. This sewer infrastructure will provide service to the River Terrace East by an extension of the sewer main line across Roy Rogers Road at the location of the local road access just south of the multifamily site. The multifamily site will have a private, on-site conveyance system for sanitary sewer that will connect to a proposed public sewer line in interim access road south of the multifamily site. The extension of the public sewer line across Roy Rogers Road will be coordinated with the development schedule of the River Terrace East Planned Development multifamily and single family developments. The new sanitary sewer lift station being designed/constructed by Clean Water Services (currently under construction) will need to be operational prior to occupancy of any multifamily unit. In accordance with the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, wastewater will be pumped northward from the lift station to an existing sanitary manhole near the Scholls Ferry/Roy Rogers intersection and then to flow by gravity into the 21-inch Barrows Road sanitary sewer trunkline. Flows from this sanitary sewer drainage basin will ultimately reach the Durham Road Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Clean Water Services District. These standards are met. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage Response: The Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan is attached as Impact Assessment Report D in Section VI of this report. The plan outlines compliance with River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Otak, 2014), River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance (Tigard, 2015), CWS Design & Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (CWS, 2007), and CWS Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook (CWS, 2009). The River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within Master Plan Basin T2_7a. The stormwater management system for the River Terrace East multifamily development is proposed in a single facility located southwest of the site in a portion of the existing Washington County “additional” right-of-way on the east side of Roy Rogers Road. The design of the facility will accommodate the proposed runoff from the east side of the proposed roadway improvements on Roy Rogers Road (MSTIP project), and portions of the upstream basin adjacent to Roy Rogers Road. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility and will outfall to the existing drainage ditch to the south. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design is currently proposing some modifications to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and the approved River Terrace East Planned Development stormwater management plan to combine/revise some proposed regional facilities and account for detention of basin flows in the existing wetland/pond that is south and east of the multifamily parcel. The final stormwater plan for the area may lessen the detention volume River Terrace East Multifamily 40 L:\Project\17800\17857\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Tigard\2016-06-16 Final Completeness Submittal\2016-06-16 RTE_MF_ApplNarrFinal.docx otak requirements of the multifamily storm facility if there is additional storage volume available in the regional facility. Additional coordination and modelling will be completed with final design and resolution of regional stormwater facilities. These standards are met. 18.810.120 Utilities Response: This section requires the undergrounding of utilities and provides a fee in-lieu of undergrounding in certain situations. As shown on Sheet P3.0, the on-site utilities will be undergrounded. This standard is met. P. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS A neighborhood meeting was held on February 17, 2016, regarding the preliminary plans for the project. A copy of the letter, mailing labels, affidavit of posting and mailing, and meeting notes is provided in Appendix E to this report. IV. CONCLUSION The request for Planned Unit Concept Plan approval, Development Detailed Development approval, and Site Design Review approval to develop 141 multifamily residential units has been shown to be consistent with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code for the plans for the River Terrace East multifamily project. West Hills Development, therefore, respectfully requests approval of these applications. V. Appendices Appendix A Warrenty deeds confirming ownership of subject properties (Washington County Record #2006-000102) Appendix B Pre-application Conference Notes dated January 12, 2016 by the City of Tigard Staff CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) PRE-APP. MTG. DATE: January 12, 2016 9am STAFF AT PRE-APP.: Monica Bilodeau & Greg Berry Multi-Family RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Jerry Offer Owner: West Hills Development Phone: (503) 415-2330 Phone: 503-641-7342 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: East side of SW Roy Rogers Road TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): 2S106000 1400 and 1401 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: Planned Development – Detailed Plan Review (PDR) and Site Development Review (SDR) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Develop a 140 unit apartment community in nine, 3-story buildings. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-25 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.510.2) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 1,480 sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: None ft. Max. building height: 45 ft. Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. Side: 10 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Corner: 20 ft. from street. Side or Rear facing a more restrictive Zone: 30 ft. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 80 %. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 20 %. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: 2 Minimum access width: 30 ft with 24 ft paved and curbs and 5 ft walkway. Minimum pavement width: see above. All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas:--. WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.705) Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.715) – See example below. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site area: All sensitive lands areas including:  Land within the 100-year floodplain;  Slopes exceeding 25%;  Drainageways; and  Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Public right-of-way dedication:  Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or  Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or  If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. All land proposed for private Streets SEE NOTES FOR ESTIMATED DENSITY CALCULATIONS. EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Multi-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sq. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way 6,534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-way NET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet ÷ 3,050 (minimum lot area) ÷ 3,050 (minimum lot area) = 11.4 Units Per Acre (maximum) = 12.1 Units Per Acre (maximum) • The Development Code requires that the net site area exist for the next whole dwelling unit. NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. • Minimum Project Density is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETERMINE, CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM BY .8. SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730)  STREETS: -- feet from the centerline of --.  LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: R-7 to east of property  FLAG LOT: N/A___________.  MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments.18.730.040B BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: 10 feet along north boundary. 10 feet along east boundary. 10 feet along south boundary. 10 feet along west boundary. (Arterial St). IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: see notes. LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745, 18.765 and 18.705) STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Landscape parking areas shall include special design features with effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with the Urban Forestry Manual. RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal’s Service area. Pride Disposal can be reached at (503) 625-6177. PARKING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.765 & 18.705) ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED.  Single-family............ Requires: One (1) off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One (1) space per unit less than 500 square feet.  Multiple-family.........Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows:  Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches.  Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches.  Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. HANDICAPPED PARKING: All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, is mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CLEAN WATER SERVICES (CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to CWS R&O 07-20/USA Regulations - Chapter 3) PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director’s review. URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.C and the "Tree Canopy Requirements” Brochure) AN URBAN FORESTRY PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLWING TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Conditional Use (Type III); Downtown Design Review (Type II and III); Minor Land Partition (Type II); CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section Planned Development (Type III); Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); Site Development Review (Type II); and Subdivision (Type II and III). The plan needs to be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or landscaped architect. Percentage of mature canopy cover required: 33+% for the overall development site (Refer to Appendix 2-6 in Urban Forestry Manual for a list of trees with mature canopy cover areas) An urban forestry plan shall: - Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor (the project arborist); - Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in Section 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; - Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in Section 10, part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and - Meet the supplemental report standards in Section 10, part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. TREE CANOPY FEE. If the effective percentage of tree canopy cover cannot be met, the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. 18.790.040- Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option In lieu of providing payment of a tree canopy fee when less than the standard effective tree canopy cover required by Section 10, part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual will be provided, an applicant may apply for a discretionary urban forestry plan review. The discretionary urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modify an already approved urban forestry plan, any tree preservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval, or any tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by another chapter in this title. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES (Refer to Code Section 18.790.050.C.) To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees and significant tree groves, the director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Use of the flexible standards shall be requested by the project arborist or landscape architect as part of the land use review process. The flexible standards are only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. Appropriate species of trees in good condition and suitable for preservation receive a 200 percent credit based on their existing canopy area. Refer to Section 11- Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual for submittal requirements. APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.030.F.) A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall:  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 boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division.  Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section 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. BLOCKS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.040) The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2,000 FEET (1,600 FEET FOR RIVER TERRACE) measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (Conditional Use) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) 18.340 (Director’s Interpretation) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) 18.350 (Planned Development) 18.640 (Durham Quarry Design Standards) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.705 (Access/Egress/Circulation) 18.780 (Signs) 18.370 (Variances/Adjustments) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.785 (Temporary Use Permits) 18.380 (Zoning Map/Text Amendments) 18.715 (Density Computations) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.798 (Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.660 (River Terrace Plan District) 18.430 (Subdivisions) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: 1. PDR is a Type IIIPC procedure. The initial application requires 3 copies of the submittal. Packets must include the materials found on the Basic Submittal Requirements sheet. The first round of completeness review may be up to 30 days. Once the application is deemed complete, the review period begins. Review periods are approximately 8-10 weeks. A 20 day notice of public hearing date shall be sent out and 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing a notice in the newspaper and posting on the site shall take place. 2. Redesign outdoor open space to be useable. Four story buildings? 3. Street connectivity. Does not appear to meet block perimeter. Redesign the onsite circulation. 4. Screening is required for the parking lot, trash collection areas and service facilities such as gas meters, A/C units, etc. 5. Orient parking towards Roy Rogers. 6. High quality visual and noise buffer along Roy Rogers. Walls are permitted up to 6 feet on an arterial street. Landscaping and screening along Roy Rogers. 7. On-site screening to the north, screening from the PGE station Section 18.350..070.D.2 8. Exterior elevations, offsets shall occur every 30 feet. 9. A minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section 10. In lieu of shared open space facilities the development shall provide parks, trails, and/ or open space. 11. The development shall provide at least three development enhancements listed in 18.660.070.E.2 12. See attached notes from Development Engineering. 13. See attached estimates for TDT and Parks SDC Submission Requirements: In addition to the requirements in 18.390.040 the application for the conceptual development plan must include: 1. Existing site conditions analysis 2. A site plan 3. Grading plan 4. Landscape plan 5. Urban forestry plan 6. Architectural elevations 7. Deed Estimated Transportation Development Tax: See estimate attached Parks System Development Charges: See estimate attached Application fees: Planned Development Detailed Planned Review $2,771 PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS • All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The cashier closes at 4:30 PM. • The application must include the completed Land Use Permit Application Checklist. • Maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to 8½" x 11". One, 8½" x 11" map of a proposed project shall also be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. • The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. • The administrative decision will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. • This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS • Plans for building and other related permits will not be accepted for review until a land use approval has been CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 Residential Application/Planning Division Section issued and the Public Facility Improvement permit has been submitted. • Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. • These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION YOU WILL NEED TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE ZONING COUNTER (503-718-2421) TO MAKE YOUR COMPLETE SUBMITTAL. PLEASE MAKE THE APPOINTMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, ONCE YOU HAVE ALL SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS. PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: 503-718-2427 EMAIL: monicab@tigard-or.gov Appendix C Clean Water Services Water Quality Sensitive Areas Service Provider Letter No. 15-001056 dated July 9, 2015 From: Amber Wierck [mailto:WierckA@CleanWaterServices.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:10 PM To: Matt Kuziensky <mkuziensky@anchorqea.com> Subject: RE: Questions on Existing SPL No. 15-001056 Hi Matt, I have checked our database and it looks like the property you are referring to, tax lot 1400, has been documented in our system. The existing SPL or 15-001056 should suffice. Thank you, Amber Wierck, PWS | Environmental Review Project Manager Clean Water Services | Development Services 2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy | Hillsboro OR 97123 engage permits | news | facebook | twitter From: Matt Kuziensky [mailto:mkuziensky@anchorqea.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:59 PM To: Amber Wierck <WierckA@CleanWaterServices.org> Subject: Questions on Existing SPL No. 15-001056 Hello Amber, I have a question for you on existing SPL No. 15-001056. SPL No. 15-001056 was issued to the Polygon Northwest Company on July 9, 2015 for the River Terrace East development on tax lots 2S1060001101, 2S1060001000, 2S1060003800, 2S1060001401, 2S1060003400, and 2S10600014 in the city of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. As shown on the attachment, the project site included a lot on the west side that was proposed for future development of approximately 150 multi-family units (see Section 2.0 of our June 2015 Natural Resource Assessment Addendum: River Terrace East and Ralston-Ferris Properties). This area did not contain any jurisdictional sensitive areas or vegetated corridors. The layout for this future development was not shown on the development figures included in the SPL because it had yet to be designed at the time the site assessment was submitted. West Hills Development (a different applicant than listed on the SPL) is now looking to move forward with a multi-family development on this portion of the project site. Given that no impact to sensitive areas or vegetated corridors would occur as a result of the project, can it be covered under the existing SPL or would we need to either 1) amend the existing SPL, or 2) get a new SPL for the multi-family development? As I noted previously, the multi-family project would be undertaken by a different applicant than the rest of the River Terrace East project. Please let me know how CWS would like us to handle this. Thanks, Matt Matt Kuziensky, PWS | ANCHOR QEA, LLC Managing Wetlands Scientist CWS File Number 15-001056 Service Provider Letter This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 07-20). Jurisdiction: Tigard Review Type: Tier 2 Analysis Site Address 16808 SW Friendly LN SPL Issue Date: July 09, 2015 / Location: Sherwood, OR 97140 SPL Expiration Date: July 08, 2017 Applicant Information: Owner Information: Name Name Company POLYGON NORTHWEST COMPANY Company POLYGON NORTHWEST COMPANY Address 109 EAST 13TH ST Address 109 EAST 13TH ST VANCOUVER, WA 98660 VANCOUVER, WA 98660 Phone/Fax Phone/Fax E-mail: Fred.Gast@PolygonHomes.com E-mail: Fred.Gast@PolygonHomes.com Tax lot ID Development Activity 2S1060001101, 2S1060001000, 2S1060003800, 2S1060001401, 2S1060003400, 2S1060001400 River Terrace East Pre-Development Site Conditions: Post Development Site Conditions: Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Sensitive Area Present: On-Site Off-Site Vegetated Corridor Width: 0-50 Vegetated Corridor Width: 0-140 Vegetated Corridor Condition: Good/ Degraded Enhancement of Remaining Vegetated Corridor Required: Square Footage to be enhanced: 29,228 Encroachments into Pre-Development Vegetated Corridor: Type and location of Encroachment: Square Footage: Roadway and Water Quality Facility (Permanent Impacts; Mitigation Required) 49,223 Stormwater Conveyance Ditch and Site Construction (Temporary Impacts; Mitigation/ Planting-in-place) 3,049 Mitigation Requirements: Type/Location Sq. Ft./Ratio/Cost On-site 13,504/ 1:1 Off-site/ 2S1060001500, 2S1060001801 47,480/ 1.5 – 2:1 Off-site/ / 2S1060001500, 2S1060001801/ surplus to meet Tier 2 Public Benefit Section 3.07.4.c.7. 9,409 Conditions Attached Development Figures Attached (3) Planting Plan Attached Geotech Report Required This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. 15-001056 X X X X X X X Page 1 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 This section cites the CWS R&O 27 guidelines specific to Alternatives Analysis requirements. 3.07.4. c.1. The proposed encroachment area is mitigated in accordance with Section 3. 08. Proposed project impacts to vegetated corridors will be mitigated by expanding and enhancing existing vegetated corridors both on and off of the project site. On-site mitigation will replace the loss of existing vegetated corridors through preservation of already established forested areas around Wetland C that are rated in good condition and through enhancement of the degraded vegetated corridors that surround this wetland to a good condition. This mitigation will be used to compensate for impacts to the vegetated corridor of Wetland C. Impacts to the vegetation corridors of Wetland A, Wetland B, and the Off-site Roadside Ditch will be mitigated at an off-site location at the adjacent River Terrace Northwest development site. The resource on the River Terrace Northwest provides much greater function, and further buffering this area would provide great benefit to that resource. Off-site mitigation will preserve existing good condition vegetated corridors and enhance degraded condition corridors along off-site portions of the Unnamed Intermittent Stream at ratios of 1.5: 1 for impacted corridors in degraded or marginal condition and 2: 1 for impacted corridors in good condition per the requirements of Section 3.08.2(a) of R&O 07-20. Overall, the proposed mitigation will expand the overall vegetative corridor around a stream and wetland system that drains directly into the Tualatin River, creating a wider and more effective protective zone for these resources. 3.07.4. c.2. The replacement mitigation protects the functions and values of the Vegetated Corridor and Sensitive Area. As noted in the previous section, enhancement of degraded corridors and preservation of existing corridors in good condition protects the function of the water quality sensitive areas and preserves their value. Mitigation through enhancement of degraded areas as a replacement of the loss of vegetated corridors associated with encroachments exchanges degraded areas for good vegetated corridors. Additionally, the on-site mitigation areas expand Wetland C's vegetative corridors in two locations, creating a wider and more effective protective zone for this wetland. The proposed off-site mitigation expands the vegetated corridor downstream of Wetland C and around the Unnamed Intermittent Stream, which flows directly to the Tualatin River, and enhances the functional capacity of this corridor, therefore providing additional water quality benefits to the river. 3.07.4. c.3. Enhancement of the replacement area, if not already in Good condition, and either the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the site or the first 50 feet of width closest to the resource, whichever is less, to a Good corridor condition. Approximately 0.762 acres (33,209 square feet) of on-site vegetated corridor rated as degraded will be enhanced to good condition. This acreage includes the temporary impact areas to be replaced and the remaining existing degraded vegetated corridors on-site to be enhanced. Approximately 0.679 acres (29,578 square feet) of on-site vegetated corridor is rated in good condition and will be preserved. 3.07.4. c.5. Location of the development and site planning minimizes incursion into the Vegetated Corridor. Lot configuration and siting was designed to minimize impacts to vegetated corridors around water quality sensitive areas. The siting of stormwater treatment facilities and conveyance improvements, and the dedication of right-of- way for the future continuance of River Terrace Boulevard to the south, has been sited to impact the most degraded portions of the on-site vegetated corridors. Some impacts to vegetated corridors rated in good condition were unavoidable due to the siting of water quality facilities. Alternatives with fewer impacts did not provide adequate size or were not downgradient to allow for gravity flow. In total, site planning impacts minimally disrupt the integrity of the vegetated corridor. 3.07.4. c.6. No practicable alternative to the location of the development exists that will not disturb the Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor. The applicant considered revisions to the previous site plan to avoid and minimize impacts to the existing good condition vegetated corridors and water quality sensitive areas. Under the current site plan, these avoidance and minimization measures have been primarily directed at Wetland C, the highest quality and most functional wetland on the project site. The current plan places the majority of development outside of the vegetated corridor of Page 2 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 Wetland C, providing the greatest reduction of impacts while allowing development and required supporting infrastructure (e.g., local streets and stormwater facilities). Some limited encroachment into the wetland and its vegetated corridor is still required to provide sufficient stormwater treatment services and publically preferred neighborhood road access (e.g., roundabout) to the residential development. Alternatives that would completely avoid or minimize impacts to Wetland A and its vegetated corridor were also evaluated (see Alternatives 2 and 3). These options were determined to be impracticable given the design requirements of the transportation and stormwater systems, the economic viability of this portion of the development, and the location and small size of the wetland. The proposed road alignment of River Terrace Boulevard that would impact the western end of the Wetland A vegetated corridor cannot be changed due to design constraints related to sight distance, intersection spacing, and the intersection alignment with Scholls Ferry Road. The proposed residential roadway that would impact portions of Wetland A and its vegetated corridor also cannot be changed without significantly impacting the number and value of residential building lots in this portion of the development. Furthermore, there is no other suitable location for the northern water quality facility, which would impact the eastern portion of the wetland and its vegetated corridor. While it is possible to avoid the lot impacts to Wetland A, the wetland that would remain in this area would be surrounded by roads and housing, further reducing its already limited functional capacity. Impacting this resource under the applicable state and federal permits and mitigating at an approved mitigation bank in the Tualatin River Basin would provide a much better public benefit to water quality than attempting to preserve a low-functioning remnant of this system on the project site. Other unavoidable impacts under the current development plan include two small temporary impacts to the vegetated corridor of the ROW Ditches (Roadside Ditch and Connector Ditch). These impacts would total approximately 0.04 acre and are required to construct the new stormwater system. Following construction, the impact areas would be restored in place to their pre-construction grades and enhanced to good condition. 3.07.4. c.7. The proposed encroachment provides public benefits. The public will benefit from the improvement of overall water quality through the enhancement of degraded condition vegetated corridors to good condition, the preservation of additional (net positive acreage) riparian vegetated corridor beyond the minimal requirements, and the treatment of previously untreated stormwater discharge by the new water quality facilities. The off-site mitigation is viewed as a public benefit by further protecting an existing good condition resource offset by impacts to a highly degraded resource. The benefits of preserving additional existing good condition vegetated corridor and planting additional degraded vegetated corridor to a direct tributary to the Tualatin River include improved water quality, greater wildlife habitat adjacent to a public path, and additional recreation opportunities provided by greater open space. In addition, pesticide and herbicide application in association with agricultural farming will cease with project development, thereby further improving water quality for public benefit. Impacts to water quality sensitive areas will be mitigated at an approved mitigation bank in the Tualatin River basin in accordance with Section 404/Removal-Fill Permit process. Impacts to Wetland A and mitigating at an approved mitigation bank in the Tualatin River Basin will provide improved public benefit to water quality than attempting to preserve this low-functioning wetland on the project site. In order to comply with Clean Water Services water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: 1. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area or Vegetated Corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed in R&O 07-20, Chapter 3. 2. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the Vegetated Corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved Page 3 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 plan. During construction the Vegetated Corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by R&O 07-20, Section 3.06.1 and per approved plans. 3. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide Clean Water Services or its designee (appropriate city) with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. 4. An approved Oregon Department of Forestry Notification is required for one or more trees harvested for sale, trade, or barter, on any non-federal lands within the State of Oregon. 5. Prior to ground disturbance an erosion control permit is required. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, in accordance with Clean Water Services' Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. 6. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from Clean Water Services or its designee is required pursuant to Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. 7. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with R&O 07-20, Section 5.10. 8. Removal of native, woody vegetation shall be limited to the greatest extent practicable. 9. The water quality facility shall be planted with Clean Water Services approved native species, and designed to blend into the natural surroundings. 10. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by Clean Water Services, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 11. The Vegetated Corridor width for sensitive areas within the project site shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide, as measured horizontally from the delineated boundary of the sensitive area. 12. For Vegetated Corridors up to 50 feet wide, the applicant shall enhance the entire remaining Vegetated Corridor to meet or exceed good corridor condition as defined in R&O 07-20, Section 3.14.2, Table 3-3. 13. Removal of invasive non-native species by hand is required in all Vegetated Corridors rated ""good."" Replanting is required in any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet using low impact methods. The applicant shall calculate all cleared areas larger than 25 square feet prior to the preparation of the required Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. 14. Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction, the applicant shall provide Clean Water Services with a Vegetated Corridor enhancement/restoration plan. Enhancement/restoration of the Vegetated Corridor shall be provided in accordance with R&O 07-20, Appendix A, and shall include planting specifications for all Vegetated Corridor, including any cleared areas larger than 25 square feet in Vegetated Corridor rated ""good."" 15. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the Vegetated Corridor shall be removed per methods described in Clean Water Services' Integrated Pest Management Plan. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native tree and shrub species. 16. Clean Water Services shall be notified 72 hours prior to the start and completion of enhancement/restoration activities. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in Landscape Requirements (R&0 07-20, Appendix A). 17. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with R&O 07-20, Section 2.11.2. If at any time during the warranty period the landscaping falls below the 80% survival level, the owner shall reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity and the two year maintenance period shall begin again from the date of replanting. 18. Performance assurances for the Vegetated Corridor shall comply with R&O 07-20, Section 2.06.2, Table 2-1 and Section 2.10, Table 2-2. Page 4 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 19. For any developments which create multiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership, Clean Water Services SHALL require that the sensitive area and Vegetated Corridor be contained in a separate tract and subject to a ""STORM SEWER, SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE AND DETENTION EASEMENT OVER ITS ENTIRETY"" to be granted to Clean Water Services. FINAL PLANS 20. Final construction plans shall include landscape plans. In the details section of the plans, a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials is required. Plantings shall be tagged for dormant season identification and shall remain on plant material after planting for monitoring purposes. 21. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, responsible party contact information, and dates (minimum two times per year, by June 1 and September 30). 22. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the sensitive area and the Vegetated Corridor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition). Sensitive area boundaries shall be marked in the field. 23. Protection of the Vegetated Corridors and associated sensitive areas shall be provided by the installation of permanent fencing and signage between the development and the outer limits of the Vegetated Corridors. Fencing and signage details to be included on final construction plans. This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS-approved site plan is attached. Please call (503) 681-3653 with any questions. Amber Wierck Environmental Plan Review Attachments (3) Page 5 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 Page 6 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 Page 7 of 8 CWS File Number 15-001056 Page 8 of 8 Impact Studies D Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan dated June 16, 2016, by Otak, Inc. River Terrace East Multi-family Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan June 16, 2016 Submitted to: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97224 Prepared by: Otak, Inc. 808 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 287-6825 Tammi Connolly, PE Water Resources Engineer Jeremy Tamargo, EIT Water Resources Designer Otak Project No. 17857 This page intentionally left blank Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan River Terrace East Multi-family Washington County, Oregon PROJECT SUMMARY Date: June 16, 2016 Washington County Casefile: Clean Water Services Project No. Corps Project Number: DSL Permit Number: Delineation Number: Project Type: Residential Development Project Location: Washington County, Oregon Latitude/Longitude: 45° 25’ 30” N; 122° 51’ 00” W Plan Prepared By: Otak, Inc. Stormwater Manuals Cited: Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management, June 2007. City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards for River Terrace, July 2015. This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t i otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Site Description................................................................................................................................................. 1 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Drainage Basins ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2 Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Land Slopes ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Hydrologic Soil Group .............................................................................................................................. 4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quantity ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Conveyance ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table of Contents R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y ii otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Tables Table 1: Swale Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2: Flow Frequency Results ................................................................................................................... 6 Figures Figure 1A: River Terrace Master Plan Figure 1A – Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Area A) Figure 1B: River Terrace Master Plan Figure 1C – Proposed Zoning Figure 2: Existing Drainage Basins Figure 3: Proposed Drainage Basins Figure 4: Proposed Drainage Basins - Offsite Appendices Appendix A: Hydrology Appendix B: Water Quality Calculations Appendix C: Water Quantity Calculations Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 1 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Introduction The River Terrace East Multi-family project is a proposed residential development in Tigard, Oregon. The 4.95 acre development will consist of 141 residential units in nine buildings along the western boundary of the proposed River Terrace East subdivision. The project will also include private roadways, sidewalks, private driveways, utilities, and a stormwater management system. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility. Background The River Terrace East Multi-family development project is located within the River Terrace Community: a master planned region in the City of Tigard. The River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Master Plan) divided the area into regional drainage basins, each of which is to include a regional stormwater management facility (see Figures 1A-1B). The River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within Master Plan Basin T2_7a. Design Criteria Development of the project area will follow four sets of design criteria: • River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Otak, 2014) • River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance (Tigard, 2015) • CWS Design & Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (CWS, 2007) • CWS Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook (CWS, 2009) Site Description The proposed River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within the City of Tigard and the River Terrace Community, bordered by a power substation to the north and SW Roy Rogers Road to the west (see Vicinity Map). The proposed development is located at 13240 SW Roy Rogers Road, which is identified as tax lots 1400 and 1401 of the Washington County Tax Assessor’s Map 2S106. The River Terrace East Multi-family property is currently farmland with one single-family dwelling, a barn and a gravel driveway located on the property. Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 330 feet in the northeastern corner to 277 feet at the southwest corner of the property. The proposed development will add approximately 3.71 acres of new impervious surface to the Tualatin River watershed. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 2 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Vicinity Map Soils Existing onsite soils in the northern portion of the property consist of silty loams classified as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C, while the southern portion of the property consists of Aloha silt loams classified as HSG C/D soils. For a conservative stormwater management approach, these soils were classified as HSG D soils in the TRUST modeling exercise. The area is underlain by clayey residual soils derived from the basalt bedrock, identified as various types of silt loam. These soil types generally exhibit low to moderate infiltration rates and relatively high runoff rates. Drainage Basins Existing Conditions Runoff from the 4.95 acre River Terrace East Multi-family property currently drains generally to the southwest (see Figure 1). The existing ground cover within the property consists primarily of agricultural land, with a minimal amount of impervious surface from a residential rooftop, a barn Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 3 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx and a gravel driveway. Existing slopes range from approximately 5 percent at the southern end of the property up to approximately 9 to 12 percent at the northern end of the property. The stream channel located south of the property shows signs of degradation and incision, which was likely caused by undetained flows released by developed properties located upstream of the site. Proposed Conditions Stormwater runoff from the site will continue to drain south towards the existing stream channel and wetland area. Drainage basins have been delineated for all runoff which will be collected and conveyed to the proposed stormwater management facility. These post-development drainage basins are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The River Terrace East Multi-family project area was designated as stormwater management Strategy Area A. Strategy Area A areas utilize a conveyance system to collect and drain stormwater to one regional stormwater facility which meets both water quality treatment and water quantity requirements. A total of 12.53 acres will drain to the proposed stormwater management facility, of which 9.83 acres will be impervious surface. Approximately 3.71 acres of new impervious area from the proposed River Terrace East Multi-family project site will be routed to the stormwater facility, while an additional 6.11 acres of impervious area from three offsite basins will also be conveyed to the facility (see Appendix A).The proposed facility is an extended dry basin with two water quality swales located within the facility. The combined stormwater facility, in conjunction with the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development, will meet water quality and detention requirements for both the onsite impervious areas as well as the three offsite basins. Hydrology As required by the City of Tigard’s River Terrace Master Plan, analysis of the runoff flows in each drainage basin was performed using the Tualatin River Urban Stormwater Tool (TRUST). TRUST is a continuous simulation hydrologic modeling tool which implements a flow-duration based design standard. The model routes local rainfall data from a more than 50 year period of record though the input drainage basins. The Lower Tualatin Pump Station gage applies to the River Terrace East site. For the TRUST analysis, areas tributary to each regional stormwater facility were treated as individual basins. Each drainage basin was delineated by pervious and impervious areas, and then overlain by land use cover, land slope, and hydrologic soil group information from GIS data. Land Use Land use data used in TRUST modeling is obtained from a GIS database, which identifies land cover types in the River Terrace planning area from 2002 prior to development in the area. This land Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 4 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx use data reflects pre-development ground cover conditions in the following categories: • Impervious • Wetland • Lawn • Pasture • Forest In the TRUST pre-developed scenario, the basin land cover was modeled according to the GIS categories listed above. To represent post-developed conditions in the Mitigated scenario, all pervious areas were input as Lawn, and all roadways, sidewalks, and rooftops were input as Impervious. Land Slopes Land slope data is also from a GIS database developed for the River Terrace planning area. LIDAR data reflecting predevelopment surface grades for the River Terrace area was analyzed to delineate the area into the following slope categories: • Flat (0-5% slope) • Moderate (5-15% slope) • Steep (>15% slope) Hydrologic Soil Group The hydrologic soil group database in GIS was obtained from the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) for the River Terrace planning area. Hydrologic soil groups range from A soils which consist of gravelly sands with a high rate of water transmission, to D soils which consist of clays with very slow infiltration rates. Water Quality The City of Tigard’s River Terrace standards and CWS standards require water quality treatment for runoff from new impervious areas, in order to help improve the water quality in downstream creeks. Runoff from the water quality storm event is generated by 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in a four-hour period. Two onsite vegetated swales, located within the proposed extended dry basin above the 10% inundation water surface elevation, have been designed to meet water quality standards. The East Swale has been designed to treat runoff from the proposed onsite roadways, sidewalks, residential units as well as two offsite basins to the north. The West Swale has been designed to treat runoff from the offsite right-of-way improvements, including SW Roy Rogers Road. Table 1 summarizes the design parameters for the two water quality swales. Water quality flow rate and swale sizing calculations are included in Appendix B. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 5 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Table 1: Swale Design Parameters East Swale West Swale Bottom Width (ft) 5 2 Side Slopes (xH:xV) 4:1 4:1 Depth (ft) 1.5 1.5 Flow Depth (in) 5.5 4.0 Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.005 Length (ft) 119 100 Water Quality Flowrate (cfs) 0.70 0.19 Residence Time (minutes) 9 9 Peak Velocity (fps) 0.22 0.19 Water Quantity Stormwater detention is required for River Terrace East Multi-family project to mitigate for the increased runoff rates resulting from development of the site. The Master Plan has previously identified the general location and size of the regional facilities for the River Terrace Community. The three sets of design standards being followed require various levels of detention: • CWS requires that the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year post-development rates will not exceed their respective 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year pre-development runoff rates. • City of Tigard River Terrace standards requires flow duration matching for storm event frequencies between 50 percent of the 2-year storm event to the 10-year event, and the peak discharge flow rate during the 25-year event to be limited to the pre-developed 25-year peak runoff rate. By following the City of Tigard’s water quantity standards, CWS standards will also be met. Flow duration curves were computed for the proposed extended dry basin using the TRUST software. TRUST creates flow duration curves for pre-developed and mitigated flows for over 50 years of flow data and compares the results. The storage volumes and flow control structures were modified in TRUST until the extended dry basin met the flow duration and flow frequency standards for events between 50 percent of the 2-year and the 10-year event, and the 25-year event (see Appendix C). Flow control will be achieved through a standard CWS flow control structure on the pond outlet pipes. Details of the flow control structure design will be included in the final River Terrace East Multi-family Stormwater Management Plan. Table 2 summarizes the flow frequency results for the proposed extended dry basin. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 6 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx Table 2: Flow Frequency Results Recurrence Interval Pre-developed Flow (cfs) Mitigated Flow (cfs) 50% of the 2-year 0.43 0.26 2-year 0.86 0.52 10-year 1.46 1.12 25-year 1.75 1.56 A total of 82,067 cubic feet of storage is required to meet water quantity requirements for the onsite basin as well as the three offsite basins. Since the onsite extended dry basin only contains 48,918 cubic feet of storage, the additional storage volume will be provided within the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development. The point-of-compliance for both the multi-family development and the remainder of River Terrace East is the culvert beneath SW Roy Rogers Road, which has been modeled in TRUST by others. Conveyance During final design, the stormwater conveyance networks will be sized using the 25-year, 24-hour storm event with the condition that the hydraulic grade lines remains at least one-foot below the rim elevations at manholes and catch basins, per CWS standards. The conveyance analysis will also verify the capacity of the catch basins and determine a system-wide emergency overflow route should system components fail during a 100-year storm event. Storm outfalls will be armored to protect channel banks. Conclusions The proposed River Terrace East Multi-family development will meet or exceed stormwater requirements set by CWS and the City of Tigard. The development will consist of 141 residential units in nine buildings and will create approximately 3.71 acres of impervious area. An onsite extended dry basin, in conjunction with the detention facility located at the River Terrace East planned development, will meet detention requirements for the proposed development as well the three offsite basins. Two swales, located within the onsite extended dry basin, will meet water quality requirements. The conveyance system will be sized during final design to convey the 25-year, 24- hour storm event while maintaining a minimum of one foot of freeboard. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan R i v e r T e r r a c e E a s t M u l t i - f a m i l y 7 otak L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Preliminary Drainage Report\17857 RTEast_PrelimSWMP.docx References CWS, 2007. Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management, Clean Water Services, June 2007. CWS, 2009. Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook, Clean Water Services, July 2009. Otak, 2014. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan, Otak, Inc., September 2014. Tigard, 2015. River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance, City of Tigard, April 13, 2015. This page intentionally left blank F i g u r e s This page intentionally left blank River Terrace Stormwater Management PlanFigure 4A: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area A)River Terrace EastMulti-familyFigure 1A This page intentionally left blank T3T3 T4T4 SW ROY ROGERS RDSW BULL MOUNTAIN RD SW 164TH AVESW 161ST AVESW SCHOLLS FERRY RD T2_6WQ2_5ac T5_6b WQ2_7a WQ3_2A WQ2_5b WQ4_4a WQ4_4b WQSMBWQ2_7b WQ3_2b WQ5_6c BasinT2_7a37.7ac Basin T3_2a 33.4ac BasinT2_5a32.9ac Basin T5_6b 29.6ac Basin T4_4a 28.8ac BasinT2_6a26acBasinT2_5b31.5ac Basin T5_6c 25.5ac Basin T8_4b 38.2ac Basin T8_4a 19.9ac BasinT2_7b16.7ac BasinT2_6b16.1ac Basin T4_4b 14.9ac BasinSMB10.4ac Basin T8_6 8.2ac Basin T3_2b 7.3ac BasinT2_5c9ac Basin T5_6a 6.1ac Basin T8_3f 17.2ac Basin T9_3a 25.4acBasin T7_3a 14.3ac River Terrace Stormwater Management Plan 0 1,000 Feet ± Data on this map is from Washington County and Metro's RLIS database. This information was developed at multiple scales and accuracies. No warranty is made with this map. Figure 4B: Stormwater Concept Plan Diagram (Strategy Area B) Legend River Terrace Study Area Existing or Future Street Proposed Subbasins Overland Flow Direction 10 ft. Contour Line Regional Stormwater Facility Water Quality and Quantity Water Quantity Only Sensitive Areas Significant Wetlands Inventoried Wetlands Natural Resource Buffers Existing Drainageway Stormwater Conveyance Pipes #With Street LIDA #No Street LIDA Swales/Ditches #With Street LIDA #No Street LIDA Printing Date: 9/8/2014 Document Path: L:\Project\16800\16851\GIS\WNR\Fig4-StormwaterConceptPlanDiagram.mxd Figure 1B River Terrace EastMulti-family This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank A p p e n d i c e s This page intentionally left blank A p p e n d i x A — H y d r o l o g y This page intentionally left blank Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon (River Terrace East Mutli-family) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/29/2016 Page 1 of 4502977050298205029870502992050299705030020503007050301205030170502977050298205029870502992050299705030020503007050301205030170511410511460511510511560511610511660511710 511410 511460 511510 511560 511610 511660 511710 45° 25' 30'' N 122° 51' 15'' W45° 25' 30'' N122° 51' 0'' W45° 25' 16'' N 122° 51' 15'' W45° 25' 16'' N 122° 51' 0'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 30 60 120 180 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,210 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Oregon Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 18, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 8, 2010—Aug 23, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon (River Terrace East Mutli-family) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/29/2016 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Washington County, Oregon (OR067) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Aloha silt loam C/D 7.2 53.7% 7B Cascade silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes C 0.0 0.1% 11B Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes C 0.4 3.3% 11C Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 7 to 12 percent slopes C 3.0 22.6% 11D Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 12 to 20 percent slopes C 1.5 11.3% 14 Cove clay D 0.4 2.7% 30 McBee silty clay loam C 0.8 6.3% Totals for Area of Interest 13.3 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon River Terrace East Mutli-family Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/29/2016 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Washington County, Oregon River Terrace East Mutli-family Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/29/2016 Page 4 of 4 Basin Areas17857 River Terrace East Multi-familyExisting ConditionsBasin Basin Area (sf) Basin Area (ac)Contributing Sidewalk (sf)Contributing Roadway (sf)Contributing Roof (sf)Contributing Impervious Area (sf)Contributing Impervious Area (ac)Pervious Area (ac)Onsite215,8334.9500000.004.95Offsite - RTE89,7282.0607,34907,3490.171.89Offsite - SUB114,9182.640113,5680113,5682.610.03Offsite - ROW92,0192.1165,444065,4441.500.61Subtotal512,49811.770186,3610186,3614.287.49Proposed ConditionsBasin Basin Area (sf) Basin Area (ac)Contributing Sidewalk (sf)Contributing Roadway (sf)Contributing Roof (sf)Contributing Impervious Area (sf)Contributing Impervious Area (ac)Pervious Area (ac)Onsite227,0135.2125,00176,17160,631161,8033.711.50Offsite - RTE89,7282.066,38628,92624,46959,7811.370.69Offsite - SUB114,9182.640113,5680113,5682.610.03Offsite - ROW114,1712.6213,81379,100092,9132.130.49Subtotal545,83012.5345,200297,76585,100428,0659.832.70 This page intentionally left blank 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family TRUST Input - Existing Conditions Sum of Area_Ac HydrolGrp landuse Slope Total C impervious Flat 0.130 Moderate 0.231 Steep 0.063 impervious Total 0.424 lawn Flat 0.232 Moderate 2.746 Steep 0.318 lawn Total 3.295 pasture Flat 0.008 Moderate 0.034 Steep 0.082 pasture Total 0.124 C Total 3.844 D forest Moderate 0.014 forest Total 0.014 impervious Flat 0.106 Moderate 0.275 Steep 0.069 impervious Total 0.450 lawn Flat 0.581 Moderate 1.767 Steep 0.209 lawn Total 2.557 D Total 3.022 Grand Total 6.865 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family TRUST Input - Proposed Conditions Sum of Area_Ac HydrolGrp Land Use Slope Total C Impervious Flat 0.301 Moderate 2.317 Steep 0.385 Impervious Total 3.003 Pervious Flat 0.072 Moderate 0.748 Steep 0.104 Pervious Total 0.924 C Total 3.927 D Impervious Flat 0.451 Moderate 1.514 Steep 0.188 Impervious Total 2.153 Pervious Flat 0.241 Moderate 0.568 Steep 0.102 Pervious Total 0.910 D Total 3.063 Grand Total 6.991 A p p e n d i x B — W a t e r Q u a l i t y C a l c u l a t i o n s This page intentionally left blank Water Quality Calculations 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family Impervious Area East Swale IA 7.69 ac Proposed Impervious (Onsite + Offsite RTE & SUB) 335,152 ft2 West Swale IA 2.13 ac Proposed Impervious (Offsite ROW) 92,913 ft2 CWS Standards Water Quality Volume and Flow: WQV = 0.36 in x IA / 12 in/ft (CWS, 4.05.06) WQF = WQV/14400 (CWS, 4.05.06)(4 hours) Water Quality Volume and Flow East Swale WQV 10,055 ft3 Water Quality Volume Proposed Impervious WQF 0.70 ft3/s Water Quality Flow (Onsite + Offsite RTE & SUB) West Swale WQV 2,787 ft3 Water Quality Volume Proposed Impervious WQF 0.19 ft3/s Water Quality Flow (Offsite ROW) This page intentionally left blank Onsite Swale (East Swale) 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family User-Supplied Data Variable Name Unit Side Slope 1 SS1 4 SS1:1 Side Slope 2 SS2 4 SS2:1 Swale Width W 5 feet Lengthwise Slope S 0.005 feet/foot Peak Flow Rate Qpeak 0.70 cfs Swale Height Height 0.5 feet Manning Coefficient n 0.24 Computed Data Variable Name Unit Depth d 5.52 inches Cross-sectional Area A 3.14 sf Wetted Perimeter WP 8.79 feet Hydraulic Radius R 0.36 feet Computed Peak Qpkcalc 0.69 cfs Flow Rate Computed Peak Vpkcalc 0.22 ft/sec Velocity Computed Length L 119 feet Height d W SS1 SS2 11 S Qpeak = Peak flow rate, cfs Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet Onsite Swale (West Swale) 17857 River Terrace East Multi-family User-Supplied Data Variable Name Unit Side Slope 1 SS1 4 SS1:1 Side Slope 2 SS2 4 SS2:1 Swale Width W 2 feet Lengthwise Slope S 0.005 feet/foot Peak Flow Rate Qpeak 0.19 cfs Swale Height Height 0.5 feet Manning Coefficient n 0.24 Computed Data Variable Name Unit Depth d 4.04 inches Cross-sectional Area A 1.13 sf Wetted Perimeter WP 4.78 feet Hydraulic Radius R 0.24 feet Computed Peak Qpkcalc 0.19 cfs Flow Rate Computed Peak Vpkcalc 0.17 ft/sec Velocity Computed Length L 90 feet * *Adjust length to 100 feet to meet minimum requirements. Height d W SS1 SS2 11 S Qpeak = Peak flow rate, cfs Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet A p p e n d i x C — W a t e r Q u a n t i t y C a l c u l a t i o n s This page intentionally left blank TRUST PROJECT REPORT 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:17857_RTE_MF Site Name:River Terrace East MF Site Address: City: Report Date:4/29/2016 Gage:Lower Tualatin Pump Station Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2014/09/30 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.00 Version Date:2016/03/03 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use RTE MF_Ex Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat 0.337 C, Pasture, Mod 0.531 C, Pasture, Steep 0.112 C, Lawn, Flat 0.858 C, Lawn, Mod 5.07 C, Lawn, Steep 0.702 D, Forest, Mod 0.015 D, Pasture, Flat 0.269 D, Pasture, Mod 0.231 D, Pasture, Steep 0.036 D, Lawn, Flat 0.581 D, Lawn, Mod 1.769 D, Lawn, Steep 0.21 Pervious Total 10.721 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 0.322 IMP MOD 0.621 IMP STEEP 0.132 Impervious Total 1.075 Basin Total 11.796 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use RTE MF_MIT Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.325 C, Lawn, Mod 1.224 C, Lawn, Steep 0.156 D, Lawn, Flat 0.345 D, Lawn, Mod 0.703 D, Lawn, Steep 0.142 Pervious Total 2.895 Impervious Land Use acre IMP FLAT 1.771 IMP MOD 6.543 IMP STEEP 0.932 Impervious Total 9.246 Basin Total 12.141 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater EDB 1 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing EDB 1 Bottom Length:174.72 ft. Bottom Width:43.68 ft. Depth:7.5 ft. Volume at riser head:1.8840 acre-feet. Side slope 1:3 To 1 Side slope 2:3 To 1 Side slope 3:3 To 1 Side slope 4:3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height:6.5 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Notch Type:Rectangular Notch Width:0.173 ft. Notch Height:1.362 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter:2.659 in.Elevation:0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Extended Dry Basin Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0833 0.177 0.014 0.055 0.000 0.1667 0.180 0.029 0.078 0.000 0.2500 0.182 0.044 0.095 0.000 0.3333 0.185 0.060 0.110 0.000 0.4167 0.187 0.075 0.123 0.000 0.5000 0.190 0.091 0.135 0.000 0.5833 0.193 0.107 0.146 0.000 0.6667 0.195 0.123 0.156 0.000 0.7500 0.198 0.140 0.166 0.000 0.8333 0.200 0.156 0.175 0.000 0.9167 0.203 0.173 0.183 0.000 1.0000 0.206 0.190 0.191 0.000 1.0833 0.208 0.207 0.199 0.000 1.1667 0.211 0.225 0.207 0.000 1.2500 0.214 0.243 0.214 0.000 1.3333 0.216 0.261 0.221 0.000 1.4167 0.219 0.279 0.228 0.000 1.5000 0.222 0.297 0.235 0.000 1.5833 0.224 0.316 0.241 0.000 1.6667 0.227 0.335 0.247 0.000 1.7500 0.230 0.354 0.253 0.000 1.8333 0.233 0.373 0.259 0.000 1.9167 0.235 0.393 0.265 0.000 2.0000 0.238 0.412 0.271 0.000 2.0833 0.241 0.432 0.276 0.000 2.1667 0.244 0.453 0.282 0.000 2.2500 0.247 0.473 0.287 0.000 2.3333 0.249 0.494 0.293 0.000 2.4167 0.252 0.515 0.298 0.000 2.5000 0.255 0.536 0.303 0.000 2.5833 0.258 0.557 0.308 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 7 2.6667 0.261 0.579 0.313 0.000 2.7500 0.264 0.601 0.318 0.000 2.8333 0.267 0.623 0.323 0.000 2.9167 0.270 0.645 0.327 0.000 3.0000 0.272 0.668 0.332 0.000 3.0833 0.275 0.691 0.336 0.000 3.1667 0.278 0.714 0.341 0.000 3.2500 0.281 0.737 0.345 0.000 3.3333 0.284 0.761 0.350 0.000 3.4167 0.287 0.785 0.354 0.000 3.5000 0.290 0.809 0.358 0.000 3.5833 0.293 0.833 0.363 0.000 3.6667 0.296 0.858 0.367 0.000 3.7500 0.299 0.883 0.371 0.000 3.8333 0.302 0.908 0.375 0.000 3.9167 0.305 0.933 0.379 0.000 4.0000 0.308 0.959 0.383 0.000 4.0833 0.311 0.985 0.387 0.000 4.1667 0.314 1.011 0.391 0.000 4.2500 0.318 1.037 0.395 0.000 4.3333 0.321 1.064 0.399 0.000 4.4167 0.324 1.091 0.403 0.000 4.5000 0.327 1.118 0.407 0.000 4.5833 0.330 1.145 0.410 0.000 4.6667 0.333 1.173 0.414 0.000 4.7500 0.336 1.201 0.418 0.000 4.8333 0.339 1.229 0.421 0.000 4.9167 0.343 1.257 0.425 0.000 5.0000 0.346 1.286 0.429 0.000 5.0833 0.349 1.315 0.432 0.000 5.1667 0.352 1.344 0.438 0.000 5.2500 0.355 1.374 0.460 0.000 5.3333 0.359 1.404 0.490 0.000 5.4167 0.362 1.434 0.526 0.000 5.5000 0.365 1.464 0.566 0.000 5.5833 0.368 1.495 0.608 0.000 5.6667 0.372 1.526 0.654 0.000 5.7500 0.375 1.557 0.701 0.000 5.8333 0.378 1.588 0.750 0.000 5.9167 0.382 1.620 0.800 0.000 6.0000 0.385 1.652 0.850 0.000 6.0833 0.388 1.684 0.901 0.000 6.1667 0.392 1.717 0.956 0.000 6.2500 0.395 1.749 1.018 0.000 6.3333 0.398 1.783 1.083 0.000 6.4167 0.402 1.816 1.150 0.000 6.5000 0.405 1.850 1.219 0.000 6.5833 0.409 1.884 1.605 0.000 6.6667 0.412 1.918 2.300 0.000 6.7500 0.415 1.952 3.167 0.000 6.8333 0.419 1.987 4.114 0.000 6.9167 0.422 2.022 5.048 0.000 7.0000 0.426 2.058 5.877 0.000 7.0833 0.429 2.093 6.535 0.000 7.1667 0.433 2.129 6.998 0.000 7.2500 0.436 2.165 7.319 0.000 7.3333 0.440 2.202 7.719 0.000 7.4167 0.443 2.239 8.038 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 8 7.5000 0.447 2.276 8.342 0.000 7.5833 0.450 2.313 8.635 0.000 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:47 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:10.721 Total Impervious Area:1.075 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.895 Total Impervious Area:9.246 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.863133 5 year 1.230691 10 year 1.463622 25 year 1.745121 50 year 1.945754 100 year 2.139041 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.518011 5 year 0.837741 10 year 1.11749 25 year 1.564196 50 year 1.975726 100 year 2.464976 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 1.193 1.343 1950 0.439 0.376 1951 1.445 0.640 1952 0.821 0.411 1953 0.954 0.428 1954 1.566 0.406 1955 0.915 0.342 1956 1.862 2.076 1957 0.488 0.330 1958 0.660 0.413 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 10 1959 0.667 0.398 1960 0.439 0.318 1961 0.983 0.830 1962 0.708 0.417 1963 1.092 0.608 1964 1.448 0.550 1965 0.836 1.302 1966 1.247 0.439 1967 0.587 0.388 1968 0.895 0.644 1969 1.166 0.426 1970 1.258 0.387 1971 0.824 0.472 1972 1.189 0.813 1973 0.894 0.433 1974 1.074 0.995 1975 0.723 0.370 1976 1.006 0.412 1977 0.345 0.355 1978 1.608 1.159 1979 0.647 0.370 1980 1.104 0.421 1981 1.641 2.079 1982 1.578 0.860 1983 1.346 0.432 1984 0.855 0.529 1985 0.791 0.613 1986 0.339 0.304 1987 0.865 0.686 1988 0.648 0.575 1989 0.752 0.357 1990 0.736 0.422 1991 0.659 0.379 1992 0.838 0.400 1993 0.964 0.426 1994 0.482 0.395 1995 1.434 2.577 1996 1.724 1.932 1997 0.929 2.097 1998 0.595 0.349 1999 0.840 0.704 2000 0.436 0.755 2001 0.393 0.303 2002 1.380 0.401 2003 1.030 0.428 2004 0.390 0.366 2005 0.326 0.411 2006 0.804 0.400 2007 0.689 0.586 2008 0.435 0.663 2009 0.921 1.009 2010 0.930 0.356 2011 0.753 0.392 2012 0.535 0.474 2013 1.354 0.895 2014 1.555 0.403 Ranked Annual Peaks 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 11 Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.8617 2.5767 2 1.7244 2.0967 3 1.6413 2.0786 4 1.6076 2.0761 5 1.5776 1.9325 6 1.5658 1.3434 7 1.5545 1.3024 8 1.4478 1.1595 9 1.4453 1.0087 10 1.4341 0.9950 11 1.3796 0.8948 12 1.3536 0.8598 13 1.3464 0.8297 14 1.2582 0.8128 15 1.2465 0.7550 16 1.1926 0.7039 17 1.1893 0.6862 18 1.1659 0.6631 19 1.1037 0.6444 20 1.0915 0.6401 21 1.0744 0.6132 22 1.0298 0.6076 23 1.0058 0.5855 24 0.9830 0.5750 25 0.9642 0.5500 26 0.9536 0.5292 27 0.9302 0.4738 28 0.9288 0.4720 29 0.9214 0.4387 30 0.9146 0.4331 31 0.8947 0.4317 32 0.8943 0.4282 33 0.8650 0.4277 34 0.8547 0.4259 35 0.8398 0.4256 36 0.8376 0.4216 37 0.8356 0.4213 38 0.8235 0.4169 39 0.8212 0.4128 40 0.8044 0.4116 41 0.7910 0.4110 42 0.7529 0.4106 43 0.7517 0.4064 44 0.7363 0.4034 45 0.7227 0.4009 46 0.7083 0.4001 47 0.6895 0.3997 48 0.6667 0.3979 49 0.6602 0.3949 50 0.6592 0.3920 51 0.6479 0.3880 52 0.6466 0.3867 53 0.5946 0.3788 54 0.5865 0.3763 55 0.5354 0.3705 56 0.4878 0.3703 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 12 57 0.4816 0.3657 58 0.4393 0.3567 59 0.4388 0.3561 60 0.4360 0.3550 61 0.4347 0.3486 62 0.3926 0.3423 63 0.3905 0.3301 64 0.3453 0.3175 65 0.3386 0.3043 66 0.3265 0.3026 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 13 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.4316 767 688 89 Pass 0.4420 715 594 83 Pass 0.4524 677 534 78 Pass 0.4628 642 507 78 Pass 0.4733 602 475 78 Pass 0.4837 576 445 77 Pass 0.4941 545 427 78 Pass 0.5045 517 406 78 Pass 0.5150 486 380 78 Pass 0.5254 457 362 79 Pass 0.5358 437 345 78 Pass 0.5462 409 332 81 Pass 0.5567 391 322 82 Pass 0.5671 363 305 84 Pass 0.5775 346 291 84 Pass 0.5879 320 275 85 Pass 0.5984 301 260 86 Pass 0.6088 292 251 85 Pass 0.6192 277 244 88 Pass 0.6296 261 234 89 Pass 0.6401 247 220 89 Pass 0.6505 237 208 87 Pass 0.6609 230 204 88 Pass 0.6713 215 197 91 Pass 0.6818 208 186 89 Pass 0.6922 200 176 88 Pass 0.7026 191 173 90 Pass 0.7130 184 168 91 Pass 0.7235 178 158 88 Pass 0.7339 172 153 88 Pass 0.7443 164 149 90 Pass 0.7547 158 143 90 Pass 0.7652 150 136 90 Pass 0.7756 145 135 93 Pass 0.7860 135 132 97 Pass 0.7964 129 130 100 Pass 0.8069 124 126 101 Pass 0.8173 111 119 107 Pass 0.8277 105 115 109 Pass 0.8381 101 108 106 Pass 0.8486 99 102 103 Pass 0.8590 94 98 104 Pass 0.8694 90 94 104 Pass 0.8798 87 89 102 Pass 0.8903 85 85 100 Pass 0.9007 82 82 100 Pass 0.9111 81 80 98 Pass 0.9215 76 77 101 Pass 0.9320 72 76 105 Pass 0.9424 71 73 102 Pass 0.9528 69 71 102 Pass 0.9632 67 68 101 Pass 0.9737 64 64 100 Pass 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 14 0.9841 60 62 103 Pass 0.9945 57 59 103 Pass 1.0049 56 57 101 Pass 1.0154 54 54 100 Pass 1.0258 52 52 100 Pass 1.0362 50 51 102 Pass 1.0466 50 50 100 Pass 1.0571 49 48 97 Pass 1.0675 49 46 93 Pass 1.0779 47 46 97 Pass 1.0883 46 41 89 Pass 1.0988 43 38 88 Pass 1.1092 41 37 90 Pass 1.1196 40 35 87 Pass 1.1300 40 32 80 Pass 1.1405 38 30 78 Pass 1.1509 37 29 78 Pass 1.1613 36 27 75 Pass 1.1717 34 27 79 Pass 1.1822 34 25 73 Pass 1.1926 32 25 78 Pass 1.2030 30 23 76 Pass 1.2134 29 22 75 Pass 1.2239 29 22 75 Pass 1.2343 29 21 72 Pass 1.2447 29 21 72 Pass 1.2551 28 21 75 Pass 1.2656 27 21 77 Pass 1.2760 26 21 80 Pass 1.2864 25 21 84 Pass 1.2968 25 20 80 Pass 1.3072 24 19 79 Pass 1.3177 24 19 79 Pass 1.3281 24 17 70 Pass 1.3385 24 16 66 Pass 1.3489 23 14 60 Pass 1.3594 22 14 63 Pass 1.3698 20 13 65 Pass 1.3802 18 13 72 Pass 1.3906 18 13 72 Pass 1.4011 17 13 76 Pass 1.4115 16 13 81 Pass 1.4219 16 13 81 Pass 1.4323 15 13 86 Pass 1.4428 14 12 85 Pass 1.4532 11 12 109 Pass 1.4636 11 12 109 Pass 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 15 Water Quality Drawdown Time Results Pond: EDB 1 Days Stage(feet)Percent of Total Run Time 1 1.304 4.2821 2 2.670 1.2830 3 4.106 0.2957 4 N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A Maximum Stage:6.291 Drawdown Time:03 16:08:10 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 16 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 17 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:14:59 PM Page 18 Mitigated Schematic 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 19 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 17857_RTE_MF.wdm MESSU 25 Pre17857_RTE_MF.MES 27 Pre17857_RTE_MF.L61 28 Pre17857_RTE_MF.L62 30 POC17857_RTE_MF1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 4 PERLND 5 PERLND 6 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 11 PERLND 13 PERLND 14 PERLND 15 PERLND 16 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 RTE MF_Ex MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 4 C, Pasture, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 20 5 C, Pasture, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 6 C, Pasture, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 9 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 11 D, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 13 D, Pasture, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 14 D, Pasture, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 15 D, Pasture, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 D, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 14 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 21 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 4 0 6 0.06 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 5 0 6 0.06 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 6 0 6 0.06 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 9 0 6 0.05 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 11 0 4 2 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 13 0 4 1.8 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 14 0 4 1.8 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 15 0 4 1.8 100 0.15 0.5 0.996 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 18 0 4 1 100 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.7 13 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.5 14 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.5 15 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.5 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 18 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 4 0.15 0.8 0.3 4 0.7 0.4 5 0.15 0.8 0.3 4 0.7 0.4 6 0.15 0.7 0.3 4 0.5 0.4 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.6 0.25 4 0.5 0.25 11 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 13 0.15 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.6 14 0.15 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.6 15 0.15 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.6 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 18 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 4 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 22 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 IMP/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 IMP/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** RTE MF_Ex*** PERLND 4 0.337 COPY 501 12 PERLND 4 0.337 COPY 501 13 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 23 PERLND 5 0.531 COPY 501 12 PERLND 5 0.531 COPY 501 13 PERLND 6 0.112 COPY 501 12 PERLND 6 0.112 COPY 501 13 PERLND 7 0.858 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 0.858 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 5.07 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 5.07 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.702 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.702 COPY 501 13 PERLND 11 0.015 COPY 501 12 PERLND 11 0.015 COPY 501 13 PERLND 13 0.269 COPY 501 12 PERLND 13 0.269 COPY 501 13 PERLND 14 0.231 COPY 501 12 PERLND 14 0.231 COPY 501 13 PERLND 15 0.036 COPY 501 12 PERLND 15 0.036 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 0.581 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.581 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 1.769 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 1.769 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 0.21 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 0.21 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.322 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 0.621 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 0.132 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 24 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 25 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2014 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 17857_RTE_MF.wdm MESSU 25 Mit17857_RTE_MF.MES 27 Mit17857_RTE_MF.L61 28 Mit17857_RTE_MF.L62 30 POC17857_RTE_MF1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 16 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 EDB 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 7 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 9 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 D, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 D, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 D, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 26 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 7 0 6 0.05 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 8 0 6 0.05 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 9 0 6 0.05 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 16 0 4 1 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 17 0 4 1 100 0.05 0.5 0.996 18 0 4 1 100 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 17 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 18 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.35 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.7 0.25 4 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.6 0.25 4 0.5 0.25 16 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 17 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 18 0.1 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 27 ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 7 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMP/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 IMP/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 IMP/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 28 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** RTE MF_MIT*** PERLND 7 0.325 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 8 1.224 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 9 0.156 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 16 0.345 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 17 0.703 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 18 0.142 RCHRES 1 2 IMPLND 1 1.771 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 2 6.543 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 3 0.932 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 7 0.325 COPY 1 12 PERLND 8 1.224 COPY 1 12 PERLND 9 0.156 COPY 1 12 PERLND 16 0.345 COPY 1 12 PERLND 17 0.703 COPY 1 12 PERLND 18 0.142 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 1.771 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 2 6.543 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 3 0.932 COPY 1 15 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 EDB 1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 29 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.175209 0.000000 0.000000 0.083333 0.177722 0.014705 0.055387 0.166667 0.180246 0.029621 0.078328 0.250000 0.182781 0.044747 0.095932 0.333333 0.185329 0.060085 0.110773 0.416667 0.187887 0.075635 0.123848 0.500000 0.190457 0.091400 0.135669 0.583333 0.193039 0.107379 0.146539 0.666667 0.195632 0.123573 0.156657 0.750000 0.198236 0.139985 0.166160 0.833333 0.200852 0.156613 0.175148 0.916667 0.203480 0.173460 0.183697 1.000000 0.206119 0.190527 0.191865 1.083333 0.208769 0.207814 0.199699 1.166667 0.211431 0.225322 0.207238 1.250000 0.214104 0.243053 0.214511 1.333333 0.216789 0.261007 0.221546 1.416667 0.219486 0.279185 0.228365 1.500000 0.222193 0.297588 0.234985 1.583333 0.224913 0.316218 0.241425 1.666667 0.227643 0.335074 0.247696 1.750000 0.230386 0.354159 0.253813 1.833333 0.233139 0.373472 0.259786 1.916667 0.235905 0.393016 0.265625 2.000000 0.238681 0.412790 0.271338 2.083333 0.241470 0.432797 0.276933 2.166667 0.244269 0.453036 0.282417 2.250000 0.247080 0.473509 0.287797 2.333333 0.249903 0.494216 0.293078 2.416667 0.252737 0.515160 0.298266 2.500000 0.255583 0.536340 0.303365 2.583333 0.258440 0.557757 0.308380 2.666667 0.261308 0.579413 0.313314 2.750000 0.264188 0.601309 0.318172 2.833333 0.267080 0.623445 0.322957 2.916667 0.269982 0.645823 0.327672 3.000000 0.272897 0.668443 0.332320 3.083333 0.275823 0.691306 0.336904 3.166667 0.278760 0.714414 0.341426 3.250000 0.281709 0.737767 0.345889 3.333333 0.284669 0.761366 0.350296 3.416667 0.287641 0.785212 0.354647 3.500000 0.290624 0.809306 0.358946 3.583333 0.293619 0.833650 0.363194 3.666667 0.296626 0.858243 0.367393 3.750000 0.299643 0.883088 0.371545 3.833333 0.302672 0.908184 0.375650 3.916667 0.305713 0.933534 0.379711 4.000000 0.308765 0.959137 0.383730 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 30 4.083333 0.311829 0.984995 0.387706 4.166667 0.314904 1.011109 0.391642 4.250000 0.317991 1.037480 0.395540 4.333333 0.321089 1.064108 0.399399 4.416667 0.324198 1.090995 0.403221 4.500000 0.327319 1.118141 0.407007 4.583333 0.330452 1.145549 0.410758 4.666667 0.333596 1.173217 0.414475 4.750000 0.336751 1.201148 0.418160 4.833333 0.339918 1.229343 0.421812 4.916667 0.343097 1.257802 0.425433 5.000000 0.346287 1.286526 0.429023 5.083333 0.349488 1.315517 0.432583 5.166667 0.352701 1.344775 0.438859 5.250000 0.355925 1.374301 0.460624 5.333333 0.359161 1.404096 0.490706 5.416667 0.362408 1.434161 0.526302 5.500000 0.365667 1.464498 0.566001 5.583333 0.368937 1.495106 0.608869 5.666667 0.372219 1.525988 0.654213 5.750000 0.375512 1.557143 0.701482 5.833333 0.378817 1.588574 0.750218 5.916667 0.382133 1.620280 0.800029 6.000000 0.385461 1.652263 0.850572 6.083333 0.388800 1.684524 0.901540 6.166667 0.392151 1.717064 0.956070 6.250000 0.395513 1.749883 1.018736 6.333333 0.398886 1.782983 1.083653 6.416667 0.402271 1.816364 1.150741 6.500000 0.405668 1.850029 1.219928 6.583333 0.409076 1.883976 1.605345 6.666667 0.412495 1.918208 2.300429 6.750000 0.415926 1.952726 3.167676 6.833333 0.419369 1.987530 4.114833 6.916667 0.422823 2.022621 5.047982 7.000000 0.426288 2.058001 5.877485 7.083333 0.429765 2.093670 6.535349 7.166667 0.433253 2.129629 6.998895 7.250000 0.436753 2.165879 7.319055 7.333333 0.440264 2.202421 7.719552 7.416667 0.443787 2.239257 8.038250 7.500000 0.447321 2.276386 8.342877 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.8 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 31 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 32 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 33 Mitigated HSPF Message File 17857_RTE_MF 4/29/2016 3:15:00 PM Page 34 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2016; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Appendix E Neighborhood Meeting Documents I:CommunityDcvclopment\Forms\Pre-appPacket Updated 7/7/2015 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THE FOLLOWING NOTICE SHALL BE READ TO ATTENDEES AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. This meeting is regarding River Terrace East Multi-family, located at south of SW Scholls Ferry Road and east of SW Roy Rogers Road and is being held as required by the City of Tigard development review process. The purpose of this meeting is to inform neighbors of the project as currently planned. This meeting is nor a decision forum and is not to approve or disapprove the project in whole or in part. It is to share information regarding the project and to solicit constructive input from neighbors and affected property owners. Application for the project being discussed here has not yet been submitted to the City. Therefore, the project will be at various stages of planning and some details may not be available at this time. Property owners of record within 500 feet should have received neighborhood meeting information and a list of frequently asked questions along with the notice of this meeting. This meeting is not attended by city staff in order to encourage dialogue between the developer and affected neighbors. Your comments and questions will be taken down and submitted with the application for consideration by the city planning staff. Property owners within 500 feet will be notified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code. For questions regarding the development review process, please contact the City of Tigard Planning Department. For project details, you will need to contact the developer. \\Lkoae01\proj\Project\17800\17857\Admin\Meetings\Neighborhood Meeting Feb2016\NeighborhoodMtgLetter_02-03-16.doc February 3, 2016 Re: Neighborhood Meeting on Proposed Development Dear Neighbor: My company, Otak, Inc., is representing Arbor Custom Homes/West Hills Development with regard to a development proposal near property that you own. We are considering requesting Planned Development approval from the City of Tigard to develop an approximately 140 unit multi-family apartment community including nine 3-story buildings on the site illustrated on the enclosed map. The site is located south on the east side of SW Roy Rogers Road just south of the PGE substation. The subject site includes tax lots 1400 and 1401 of Washington County Assessors Map 2S106000. The site is planned for residential use by the City of Tigard’s River Terrace Community Plan and is zoned R-25. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary approvals for this project, we would like to take the opportunity to discuss our proposal with you at a meeting to be held on: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at the Alberta Rider Elementary School Library 14850 SW 132nd Terrace, Tigard, OR 97224 Please note that the preliminary plans for the project may be modified prior to submittal of the application to the City of Tigard. We welcome your comments on our plans for this proposal. We look forward to discussing the proposal with you. Please feel free to call me at 503-415-2330 or email me at jerry.offer@otak.com if you have questions or comments regarding the informational meeting or the development proposal. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated Jerry Offer Senior Planner Enclosures: Project Vicinity Map Meeting Location Map Neighborhood Meeting Information Handout I:CommunityDcvclopment\Forms\Pre-appPacket Updated 7/7/2015 Neighborhood Meeting Information The City of Tigard requires developers to hold a neighborhood meeting to notify affected property owners about their proposed development. This is done as part of the development review process for most land use applications. Below are some frequently asked ques tions about the neighborhood meeting process. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospec tive developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your op portunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the city. Sometimes it takes awhile before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be seve ral months between the neigh borhood meeting and the submittal o f an application. Once an application is submitted to the city, staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes a pproximately 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. Property owners within 500 feet will be notified af ter a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws a nd the development code. WHAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues a nd address other changes necessitated by the development or s taff. If the project is significa ntly different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code (also known as the Community Development Code). Review the city’s development code to familiarize yourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted. A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard Public Library, on the city's web site at www.tigard-or.gov, or a copy may be purchased by contacting our records department www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/public_records.php. You may also contact city planning staff by calling 503.718.2421and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list of questions that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. I:CommunityDcvclopment\Forms\Pre-appPacket Updated 7/7/2015 Typical Questions to Help Ensure Common Neighborhood Concerns are Considered The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your area. Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS  What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal?  Will the decision on the application be made by city staff, Tigard Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing)  At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input?  Has a pre-application conference been held with City of Tigard staff?  Have a ny prelin1ina ry requiremen ts been a ddressed or h ave a n y critical iss ues been iden tified?  What city plan ner did you s pea k wi th regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the la nd use case a nd the one to con tact for ad ditional information). STREETS  Will there be a traffic study done? What is the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary?  What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed?  Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths?  What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ZONING AND DENSITY  What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning?  Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone?  How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY  What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans?  Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? TREES AND LANDSCAPING  What is the urban forestry plan and how will the applicable development requirements be met?  What are the landscaping plans? W hat buffering or fencing is required and /or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  How do I request more information or a follow-up meeting from/with the applicant? I: \CURPLN\Masters\Pre-Application Conference Packet\Neighborhood Meeting lnformation_Questions.doc Updated 3/25/2013 Meeting Minutes L:\Project\17800\17857\Admin\Meetings\Neighborhood Meeting Feb2016\Neighbormtgminutes021716.doc 808 SW Third Avenue Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 The meeting was opened at 6:30 PM by planning consultant Jerry Offer of Otak, Inc. Since the attendees and the project team knew each other, introductions were dispensed with. One of the attendees, Don Roshak, said that he was not really at the meeting to discuss the proposed apartments. He said that he had looked at the concept plans on display, and that he had no issues or questions. He said that he just wanted to talk with the project team about questions affecting other portions of the River Terrace East project. The another attendee, Jim Lang of Pacific Community Design – engineers for River Terrace East developer Polygon Homes, said that he was there for similar purposes and that he also felt that there was no need to go on with the meeting regarding the proposed apartments. Therefore, the meeting was ended at 6:35 PM. Besides Mr. Offer, the project team in attendance at the meeting included Brad Hosmar of Arbor Custom Homes and engineer Mike Peebles of Otak, Inc. Meeting: West Hills Development/Arbor Custom Homes River Terrace ApartmentsProperties Project No.: 172857 Meeting Date: February 17, 2016 Meeting Time: 6:30 p.m. Location: Alberta Ryder Elementary School – Library Attendees: 2 people were in attendance, excluding the prospective applicant's representatives. A list of attendees is attached. Minutes By: Jerry Offer This information has been recorded in accordance with our applicable standard of professional care. If we do not receive any comments within five days of receipt, we will finalize these minutes as drafted for the project file. Impact Studies A Geotechnical Engineering Multifamily Report dated March 25, 2016, by Hardman Geotechnical, Inc. 10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Tel (503) 530-8076 Portland, Oregon 97223 Cell (503) 575-5634 March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 Dan Grimberg / Miriam Wilson West Hills Development 735 SW 158th Street Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Copy: Mike Peebles, Otak, Inc. Via e-mail with hard copies mailed on request Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RIVER TERRACE EAST – MULTIFAMILY SITE TIGARD, OREGON This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study conducted by Hardman Geotechnical Services Inc. (HGSI) for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site development. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a 2.5 acre irregularly shaped property located southeast of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Roy Rogers Road in Sherwood, Oregon (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). This multifamily site is in the southwest portion of the overall River Terrace East neighborhood. A single family home with barn currently occupies the site. The site is gently sloping to the south and is covered by a pasture and a few trees. A preliminary layout plan for the multifamily site indicates nine separate buildings will be constructed, with appurtenant underground utilities, driveways and parking. Site access will be from River Terrace East interior streets, from the east. Planned grading includes cuts and fills up to about 6 feet deep. REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING The subject site lies within the Portland Basin, a broad structural depression situated between the Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. The Portland Basin is a northwest-southwest trending structural basin produced by broad regional downwarping of the area. The Portland Basin is approximately 20 miles wide and 45 miles long and is filled with consolidated and unconsolidated sedimentary rocks of late Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene age. Gannet and Caldwell (1998) map the site area as being underlain by Pleistocene-age Alluvium and Glacial- Outburst Flood Sediments and Holocene Alluvial Deposits. These materials are described as “silt, sand and gravel deposited primarily by late Pleistocene glacial-outburst floods, but also including glaciofluvial sediments from the Cascade Range” and “sand, gravel, and silt deposits along channels and flood plains of the present day drainage system”, respectively. The catastrophic flood deposits are associated with repeated glacial outburst flooding of the Willamette Valley, the last of which occurred about 10,000 years ago (Madin, 1990). The lower, eastern portion of the site is mapped as Continental Sedimentary Rocks. This geologic unit March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 2 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. is the main basin filling unit of the Willamette Lowland and consists of sand, gravel, sandstone, conglomerate siltstone, and mudstone derived primarily from the Cascade Range and Columbia River drainage (Gannett and Caldwell, 1998). At least three major seismic source zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes are known to exist in the region. These include the Portland Hills Fault Zone, Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone. These potential earthquake source zones are included in the determination of seismic design values for structures, as presented in the Seismic Design section. FIELD EXPLORATION The site-specific exploration for this study was conducted on March 14, 2016 and consisted of seven test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-7) excavated to depths of approximately 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. It should be noted that exploration locations were determined in the field by pacing or taping distances from apparent property corners and other site features shown on the plans provided. As such, the locations of the explorations should be considered approximate. Explorations were conducted under the full-time observation of HGSI personnel. Soil samples obtained from the borings were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in relatively air-tight plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence was recorded. Soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Summary test pit logs are attached to this report. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual borehole logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The following discussion is a summary of subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations. For more detailed information regarding subsurface conditions at specific exploration locations, refer to the attached test pit logs. Also, please note that subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations, as discussed in the Uncertainty and Limitations section below. Soil On-site soils are anticipated to consist of clayey silt belonging to the Willamette Formation as described below. Clayey Silt – Underlying approximately 10 inches of topsoil, all test pits encountered clayey silt. These soils were typically medium stiff to hard stiff and were brown to light brown with gray and orange mottling. The test pits terminated in this soil unit at roughly 10 feet. This silt unit was interpreted as belonging to the Willamette Formation. Groundwater At the time of our explorations, groundwater was not encountered beneath the site. Minor to moderate seepage was encountered at depths ranging from about 3 to 6 feet in TP-2 through TP-6. This is perched groundwater resulting from the unusually wet winter months prior to our field exploration. Regional March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 3 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. geologic mapping (Snyder, 2008) indicates that static groundwater is present at a depth of about 100 feet below the existing ground surface at the site. In our experience, it is not uncommon to encounter thin perched groundwater zones within the Willamette Formation in this area, particularly during the wet season. The groundwater conditions reported above are for the specific date and locations indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Furthermore, it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in land use and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study indicate that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Recommendations are presented below regarding site preparation, engineered fill, wet weather earthwork, spread footing foundations, below grade structural retaining walls, concrete slabs-on-grade, perimeter footing drains, seismic design, excavating conditions and utility trench backfill, and erosion control considerations. Site Preparation The areas of the site to be graded should first be cleared of vegetation and any loose debris; and debris from clearing should be removed from the site. Organic-rich topsoil should then be removed to competent native soils. We anticipate that the average depth of topsoil stripping will be 6 to 12 inches over most of the site. The final depth of stripping removal may vary depending on local subsurface conditions and the contractor’s methods, and should be determined on the basis of site observations after the initial stripping has been performed. Stripped organic soil should be stockpiled only in designated areas or removed from the site and stripping operations should be observed and documented by HGSI. Existing subsurface structures (tile drains, old utility lines, septic leach fields, etc.) beneath areas of proposed structures and pavement should be removed and the excavations backfilled with engineered fill. There is potential for old fills to be present on site in areas beyond our explorations. Where encountered beneath proposed structures, pavements, or other settlement-sensitive improvements, undocumented fill should be removed down to firm inorganic native soils and the removal area backfilled with engineered fill (see below). HGSI should observe removal excavations (if any) prior to fill placement to verify that overexcavations are adequate and an appropriate bearing stratum is exposed. In construction areas, once stripping has been verified, the area should be ripped or tilled to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in-place prior to the placement of engineered fill. Exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by HGSI. For large areas, this evaluation is normally performed by proof-rolling the exposed subgrade with a fully loaded scraper or dump truck. For smaller areas where access is restricted, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing the soil with a steel probe. Soft/loose soils identified during subgrade preparation should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition or over- excavated and replaced with engineered fill, as described below. The depth of overexcavation, if required, should be evaluated by HGSI at the time of construction. If present, existing drywells should be removed or demolished in place. Portions of a drywell deeper than 8 feet should be backfilled with controlled density fill (CDF), which is essentially a lean mix concrete consisting of water, sand and cement. We recommend use of “excavatable” CDF so that future excavations can be made through the dry well backfill if any new utilities or other excavations are needed in the affected areas. Above a depth of 8 feet, at the contractor’s option, backfill may consist of granular material such as “reject rock,” recycled concrete or similar material approved by HGSI. The granular backfill should be placed in lifts no thicker than about 18 inches and compacted with a “hoe-pac” excavator attachment to a March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 4 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. minimum of 90 percent of Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). This backfill specification should also be used for any basements or other depressions that require fill during the demolition process. Engineered Fill In general, we anticipate that on-site soils will be suitable for use as engineered fill in dry weather conditions, provided they are relatively free of organics and are properly moisture conditioned for compaction. Imported fill material must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. On-site soils may be wet or dry of optimum; therefore, we anticipate that moisture conditioning of native soil will be necessary for compaction operations. Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. Engineered fill should be periodically observed and tested by the project geotechnical engineer or his representative. Typically, one density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd3, whichever requires more testing. Wet Weather Earthwork The on-site soils are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet-weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications. • Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic; • The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water; • Material used as engineered fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less than about 7 percent fines. The fines should be non-plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on-site soils may be performed to facilitate wet weather placement; • The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials; • Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site drainage is achieved; and March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 5 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. • Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion. If cement or lime treatment is used to facilitate wet weather construction, HGSI should be contacted to provide additional recommendations and field monitoring Spread Footing Foundations Shallow, conventional isolated or continuous spread footings may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded on competent native soils, or compacted engineered fill placed directly upon the competent native soils. We recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for designing spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or engineered fill. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by a factor of 1.33 for short term transient conditions such as wind and seismic loading. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Minimum footing widths should be determined by the project engineer/architect in accordance with applicable design codes. Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended herein, and for the foundation loads anticipated, we estimate total settlement of spread foundations of less than about 1 inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil of less than about ½ inch. We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are applied. Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structure to lateral forces. Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding resistance of its base or footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the buried portions of the structure. For use in design, a coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the footing and subgrade soils. Passive earth pressure for buried portions of structures may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 390 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming footings are cast against dense, natural soils or engineered fill. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values do not include a safety factor. The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure computations unless it is protected by pavement or slabs on grade. Footing excavations should be trimmed neat and the bottom of the excavation should be carefully prepared. Loose, wet or otherwise softened soil should be removed from the footing excavation prior to placing reinforcing steel bars. HGSI should observe foundation excavations prior to placing crushed rock, to verify that adequate bearing soils have been reached. Due to the high moisture sensitivity of on-site soils, construction during wet weather may require overexcavation of footings and backfill with compacted, crushed aggregate. Below-Grade Structural Retaining Walls Lateral earth pressures against below-grade retaining walls will depend upon the inclination of any adjacent slopes, type of backfill, degree of wall restraint, method of backfill placement, degree of backfill compaction, drainage provisions, and magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads. At-rest soil pressure is exerted on a retaining wall when it is restrained against rotation. In contrast, active soil pressure will be exerted on a wall if its top is allowed to rotate or yield a distance of roughly 0.001 times its height or greater. If the subject retaining walls will be free to rotate at the top, they should be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 35 pcf for level backfill against the wall. For restrained walls, an at-reset equivalent fluid pressure of 54 pcf should be used in design, again assuming level backfill against the wall. These values assume that the recommended drainage provisions are incorporated, and hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to develop against the wall. During a seismic event, lateral earth pressures acting on below-grade structural walls will increase by an incremental amount that corresponds to the earthquake loading. Based on the Mononobe-Okabe equation March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 6 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. and peak horizontal accelerations appropriate for the site location, seismic loading should be modeled using the active or at-rest earth pressures recommended above, plus an incremental rectangular-shaped seismic load of magnitude 5H, where H is the total height of the wall. For design of retaining wall footings, the allowable bearing pressure and friction coefficient values listed above in Structural Foundations are applicable. We assume relatively level ground surface below the base of the walls. As such, we recommend passive earth pressure of 390 pcf for use in design, assuming wall footings are cast against competent native soils or engineered fill. If the ground surface slopes down and away from the base of any of the walls, a lower passive earth pressure should be used and HGSI should be contacted for additional recommendations. The above recommendations for lateral earth pressures assume that the backfill behind the subsurface walls will consist of properly compacted structural fill, and no adjacent surcharge loading. If the walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall, the walls should be designed for the additional horizontal pressure. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure of 0.3 times the surcharge pressure should be added. The recommended equivalent fluid densities assume a free-draining condition behind the walls so that hydrostatic pressures do not build up. This can be accomplished by placing a 12-inch wide zone of crushed drain rock containing less than 5 percent fines against the walls. A 3-inch minimum diameter perforated, plastic drain pipe should be installed at the base of the walls and connected to a sump to remove water from the crushed drain rock zone. The drain pipe should be wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or other as approved by the geotechnical engineer) to minimize clogging. The above drainage measures are intended to remove water from behind the wall to prevent hydrostatic pressures from building up. Additional drainage measures may be specified by the project architect or structural engineer, for damp-proofing or other reasons. HGSI should be contacted during construction to verify subgrade strength in wall keyway excavations, to verify that backslope soils are in accordance with our assumptions, and to take density tests on the wall backfill materials. Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Preparation of areas beneath concrete slab-on-grade floors should be performed as recommended in the Site Preparation section. Care should be taken during excavation for foundations and floor slabs, to avoid disturbing subgrade soils. If subgrade soils have been adversely impacted by wet weather or otherwise disturbed, the surficial soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to engineered fill specifications. Alternatively, disturbed soils may be removed and the removal zone backfilled with additional crushed rock. For evaluation of the concrete slab-on-grade floors using the beam on elastic foundation method, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kcf (115 pci) should be assumed for the soils anticipated at subgrade depth. This value assumes the concrete slab system is designed and constructed as recommended herein, with a minimum thickness of crushed rock of 8 inches beneath the slab. Interior slab-on-grade floors should be provided with an adequate moisture break. The capillary break material should consist of ODOT open graded aggregate per ODOT Standard Specifications 02630-2. The minimum recommended thickness of capillary break materials on re-compacted soil subgrade is 8 inches. The total thickness of crushed aggregate will be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction, and should be verified visually by proof-rolling. Under-slab aggregate should be compacted to at least 90% of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 or equivalent. March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 7 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. In areas where moisture will be detrimental to floor coverings or equipment inside the proposed structure, appropriate vapor barrier and damp-proofing measures should be implemented. A commonly applied vapor barrier system consists of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier placed directly over the capillary break material. With this type of system, an approximately 2-inch thick layer of sand is often placed over the vapor barrier to protect it from damage, to aid in curing of the concrete, and also to help prevent cement from bleeding down into the underlying capillary break materials. Other damp/vapor barrier systems may also be feasible. Appropriate design professionals should be consulted regarding vapor barrier and damp proofing systems, ventilation, building material selection and mold prevention issues, which are outside HGSI’s area of expertise. Perimeter Footing Drains Due to the potential for perched surface water above fine grained deposits such as those encountered at the site, we recommend the outside edge of perimeter footings be provided with a drainage system consisting of 4-inch minimum diameter perforated PVC pipe embedded in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of clean, free-draining sand and gravel or 1”- ¼” drain rock. The drain pipe and surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non-woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved equivalent) to minimize the potential for clogging and/or ground loss due to piping. Water collected from the footing drains should be directed into the local storm drain system or other suitable outlet. A minimum 0.5 percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non-perforated pipe outlet. The footing drains should include clean-outs to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Down spouts and roof drains should collect roof water in a system separate from the footing drains in order to reduce the potential for clogging. Roof drain water should be directed to an appropriate discharge point well away from structural foundations. Grades should be sloped downward and away from buildings to reduce the potential for ponded water near structures. Seismic Design Structures should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described in the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, with applicable Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) revisions. We recommend Site Class D be used for design per the OSSC, Table 1613.5.2. Design values determined for the site using the USGS (United States Geological Survey) Seismic Design Tool utility are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1. Recommended Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters (2009 IRC) Parameter Value Location (Lat, Long), degrees 45.424, -122.853 Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values (MCE, Site Class B): Short Period, Ss 0.955 g 1.0 Sec Period, S1 0.425 g Soil Factors for Site Class D: Fa 1.118 Fv 1.575 SDs = 2/3 x Fa x Ss 0.712 g SD1 = 2/3 x Fv x S1 0.446 g March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 8 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. Potential seismic impacts also include secondary effects such as soil liquefaction, fault rupture potential, and other hazards as discussed below: • Soil Liquefaction Potential – Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose, granular soils located below the water table. On-site soils consist of generally of very stiff to hard clayey silt, underlain by basalt bedrock. Permanent ground water table lies about 100 feet below ground surface, and, therefore, soils under the project site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. It is our opinion that special design or construction measures are not required to mitigate the effects of liquefaction. • Fault Rupture Potential – Based on our review of available geologic literature, we are not aware of any mapped active (demonstrating movement in the last 10,000 years) faults on the site. During our field investigation, we did not observe any evidence of surface rupture or recent faulting. Therefore, we conclude that the potential for fault rupture on site is low. • Seismic Induced Landslide – We anticipate that engineered retaining walls will be used to support the existing cut slope along the northeast property line. Such retaining walls should be designed using the seismic ground motion parameters tabulated above. With the engineered wall(s) in place, the potential for slope instability and seismic induced landslide on site is considered low to very low. • Effects of Local Geology and Topography – In our opinion, no additional seismic hazard will occur due to local geology or topography. The site is expected to have no greater seismic hazard than surrounding properties and the Tigard area in general. Excavating Conditions and Utility Trench Backfill We anticipate that on-site soils can be excavated using conventional heavy equipment such as trackhoes. Weathered bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depth of our test pit explorations, 10 feet bgs. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The existing native soils classify as Type B Soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1H:1V may be assumed for planning purposes. This cut slope inclination is applicable to excavations above the water table only. Flatter temporary excavation slopes will be needed if groundwater is present, or if significant thicknesses of sandy soils are present in excavation sidewalls. Perched groundwater conditions often occur over fine-grained native deposits such as those beneath the site, particularly during the wet season. If encountered, the contractor should be prepared to implement an appropriate dewatering system for installation of the utilities. At this time, we anticipate that dewatering systems consisting of ditches, sumps and pumps would be adequate for control of groundwater where encountered during construction conducted during the dry season. Regardless of the dewatering system used, it should be installed and operated such that in-place soils are prevented from being removed along with the groundwater. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. March 25, 2016 HGSI Project No. 16-1992 16-1992 River Terrace East Multifamily-GR 9 HARDMAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC. Utility trench backfill should consist of ¾”-0 crushed rock, compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtained by Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thick nesses for a ¾”-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration-induced damage. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended relative compaction is achieved. Typically, one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 200- lineal-foot section of trench. Erosion Control Considerations Fine grained soils on steep slopes are susceptible to erosion. Erosion during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan, which should include judicious use of bio-bags, silt fences, or other appropriate technology. Where used, erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re-vegetating exposed areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed- mulch-fertilizer mixture. UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the owner and his/her consultants for use in design of this project only. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HGSI should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by explorations. Recommendations for design changes will be provided should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HGSI executed these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical engineering at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. Base Map: USGS Beaverton Quadrangle Map, from US Topo, 2014 VICINITY MAP Project No. 16-1992 River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon FIGURE 1 Project: Legend Approx. Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Approximate Site Location TP-6 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN Project No. 16-1992 FIGURE 2 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Legend Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location Base map provided by: Otak ` TP-5 TP-4 TP-3 TP-2 TP-1 Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.00 1 >4 >4 2.75 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Medium stiff to very stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Hard, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10 feet No groundwater or seepage encountered Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.75 2 2.5 3.5 2.5 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Stiff to very stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Very stiff, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10 feet Low seepage encountered at 3 feet Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.75 3 >4 >4 3.25 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Medium stiff to very stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Hard, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10 feet Low seepage encountered at 2.5 to 3 feet Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.75 4 >4 >4 1.0 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Medium stiff to stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Hard, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10 feet Moderate seepage encountered at 3 feet Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.75 5 >4 3.0 1.5 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Medium stiff to hard, Clayey Silt, brown, moist to slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet Moderate seepage encountered from 2-6 feet Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.25 6 >4 >4 3.25 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many fine roots (top soil) Medium stiff to very stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Hard, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 10 feet Low seepage encountered at 3 feet Material Description Depth (ft)MoistureContent (%)PocketPenetrometer(tons/ft2)LOG OF BACKHOE / EXCAVATOR TEST PIT Test Pit No. TP- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 12 Project No. 16-1992 Project: River Terrace East Tigard, Oregon Date Excavated: 3-14-16 Logged By: IDM LEGEND Water Level at Time of Excavation S-1 Soil Sample Depth Interval and DesignationSampleIntervalGroundwaterSampleDesignation10110 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite B-5 Portland, OR 97223 (503) 530-8076 1.5 7 >4 >4 3.5 Medium stiff, Silt, dark brown, moist, many large roots (top soil) Medium stiff to very stiff, Clayey Silt, brown, moist Hard, Clayey Silt, light brown with orange and gray mottling, slightly moist Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet No groundwater or seepage encountered Impact Studies B Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum dated March 15, 2016, by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\19850 - RIVER TERRACE EAST APARTMENTS\REPORT\DRAFT\19850 APARTMENT UPDATE FOR RIVER TERRACE EAST.DOCX MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2016 Project #: 19850 To: Kim McMillan, City of Tigard Jinde Zhu and Naomi Vogel, Washington County Dan Grimberg, West Hills Mike Peebles, OTAK From: Julia Kuhn, PE and Zachary Bugg Project: River Terrace East Subject: Transportation Analysis The following memorandum amends the previous traffic studies conducted for the River Terrace East neighborhood. We originally performed a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for River Terrace East in April 2015 (Reference 1). We amended the TIA with a memo dated July 13, 2015 to reflect a new residential unit count proposed at that time. Our July 2015 memo reflected a joint application by West Hills and Polygon Northwest for the new neighborhood in River Terrace. West Hills now plans to submit a separate land use application with only the apartment component of the project. Access to the proposed 141 apartments will be provided solely a local street connection to SW Roy Rogers Road. No access will be provided directly to SW Scholls Ferry Road until the properties to the east and north develop and provide the connection. To address the impacts of the only the apartments proposed at River Terrace East, we analyzed the transportation impacts at the following intersections:  SW Roy Rogers Road/SW Scholls Ferry Road;  SW Roy Rogers Road/Local Street Access for the apartment; and,  SW Roy Rogers Road/SW Bull Mountain Road. Given that the background traffic conditions are unchanged from those studied in April 2015, this memorandum focuses on the impact of the apartments under year 2016 total traffic conditions. Based on the updated analysis herein, this amendment upholds and is consistent with t he conclusions and recommendations associated with the development of the River Terrace East neighborhood documented within the April TIA and July 2015 memo. No additional mitigation measures are needed to facilitate the apartments. River Terrace East Project #: 19850 March 15, 2016 Page 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Proposed Development Figure 1 illustrates the proposed site plan. As shown, access to the River Terrace East apartments will be provided via a local street connection to SW Roy Rogers approximately 1,200 feet south of SW Scholls Ferry Road. Trip Generation Trip estimates for the proposed River Terrace East neighborhood were based on trip rates obtained from the standard reference Trip Generation, 9th Edition (Reference 2). Table 1 presents the trip generation estimate. Table 1 Estimated Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Size (Units) Total Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Apartments 220 141 940 70 15 55 85 55 30 For the purposes of the supplemental analysis, the same trip distribution patterns shown in the previous analyses were applied. The assignment of the site-generated trips to the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours is shown in Figure 2. 2016 Total Traffic Conditions The total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the study intersections will operate with the traffic generated by the proposed neighborhood. The estimated site-generated traffic volumes were added to the estimated year 2016 background traffic volumes to arrive at the total traffic volumes.1 Figure 3 shows the traffic operations at the study intersections under total traffic conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. A comparison of the results shown in Figure 3 with those reflected in the July 2015 supplemental memorandum did not reveal any changes in the level-of-service anticipated at the off-site or access intersections. As such, the findings and conclusions of the previous analyses remain the same. Further, as shown in Figure 3, the local street intersection with SW Roy Rogers Road meets the County’s standards for unsignalized intersections. 1 The 2016 background traffic volumes were developed as part of the 2015 reports. River Terrace East Project #: 19850 March 15, 2016 Page 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Left-Turn Warrant Analysis Per Washington County’s analysis procedures, we evaluated the need for a southbound left-turn lane at the local street/SW Roy Rogers intersection. Based on the volumes shown in Figure 3, a southbound left-turn lane is warranted. The design and construction of the left-turn lane should be consistent with the 175th Avenue – Roy Rogers Road Design plans being developed by Washington County, to the extent possible. Right-Turn Warrant Analysis Per Washington County’s analysis procedures, we evaluated the need for a northbound right-turn lane at the local street/SW Roy Rogers intersection. Based on the volumes shown in Figure 3, a northbound right-turn lane is not warranted with only development of the proposed apartments as the right-turn volume is 15 or fewer vehicles during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Recommendations The findings and recommendations included in the April 2015 TIA and July 2015 memorandum remain valid. In addition, the following measures are recommended specifically for the proposed River Terrace East apartments:  SW Roy Rogers Road should be widened to provide a 100-foot southbound left-turn lane at the proposed local street/SW Roy Rogers intersection serving the apartments. These improvements should be consistent with the 175th Avenue – Roy Rogers Road Design plans being developed by Washington County, to the extent possible.  On-site landscaping, signage, and any above ground utilities should be located and maintained to ensure adequate intersection sight distance at the internal local street, neighborhood route, and collector street intersections provided in conjunction with site development. Note that provision of a northbound right-turn lane at the local street/SW Roy Rogers intersection is not warranted with development of only the apartments at River Terrace East. Please let us know if you need any additional information regarding this amendment to the April 2015 TIA. References 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. River Terrace East Transportation Impact Study. April 27, 2015. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 9th Edition. 2012. Appendix A Year 2016 Total Traffic Conditions Worksheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Roy Rogers Road/175th Avenue & Scholls Ferry Road 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday AM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 359 381 275 341 78 345 429 439 52 419 8 Future Volume (vph) 5 359 381 275 341 78 345 429 439 52 419 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 3471 1583 3400 3419 1703 1827 1553 1736 1855 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1504 3471 1583 3400 3419 1703 1827 1553 1736 1855 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 378 401 289 359 82 363 452 462 55 441 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 54 0 16 0 0 0 117 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 378 347 289 425 0 363 452 345 55 448 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 20% 4% 2% 3% 3% 1% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 12% Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.3 19.7 44.8 13.5 31.9 25.1 48.5 62.0 7.4 30.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.3 19.7 44.8 13.5 31.9 25.1 48.5 62.0 7.4 30.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.18 0.41 0.12 0.30 0.23 0.45 0.57 0.07 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 18 632 656 424 1008 395 819 890 118 528 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.11 0.12 c0.09 0.12 c0.21 0.25 0.05 0.03 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.60 0.53 0.68 0.42 0.92 0.55 0.39 0.47 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 52.9 40.6 23.7 45.2 30.7 40.5 21.8 12.6 48.4 36.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 1.5 0.8 4.5 0.3 25.9 0.8 0.3 2.9 12.1 Delay (s) 61.2 42.1 24.5 49.7 31.0 66.4 22.6 12.9 51.3 48.6 Level of Service E D C D C E C B D D Approach Delay (s) 33.2 38.4 31.6 48.9 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 108.1 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Roy Rogers Road & Roy Rogers Rd Site Access 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday AM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 16 0 41 0 1157 5 10 1067 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 16 0 41 0 1157 5 10 1067 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 17 0 44 0 1231 5 11 1135 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2432 2393 1135 2390 2390 1234 1135 1236 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2432 2393 1135 2390 2390 1234 1135 1236 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 *6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 54 100 80 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 17 34 249 37 34 218 623 571 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 0 0 17 44 0 1236 11 1135 Volume Left 0 0 17 0 0 0 11 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 44 0 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 37 218 1700 1700 571 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.20 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.67 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 25 12 0 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 165.9 25.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 Lane LOS A A F D B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 64.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Roy Rogers Road & SW Bull Mountain Rd 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday AM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 13 0 166 0 980 22 140 951 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 13 0 166 0 980 22 140 951 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 14 0 177 0 1043 23 149 1012 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2530 2376 1012 2353 2353 1043 1012 1066 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2530 2376 1012 2353 2353 1043 1012 1066 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 33 100 37 100 77 cM capacity (veh/h) 6 27 293 21 28 280 693 654 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 0 14 177 1043 23 149 1012 Volume Left 0 14 0 0 0 149 0 Volume Right 0 0 177 0 23 0 0 cSH 1700 21 280 693 1700 654 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.67 0.63 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 30 63 0 0 14 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 344.1 37.6 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 Lane LOS A F E B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 60.1 0.0 1.6 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 121.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Roy Rogers Road/175th Avenue & Scholls Ferry Road 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday PM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 7 387 437 502 328 66 357 417 444 136 523 16 Future Volume (vph) 7 387 437 502 328 66 357 417 444 136 523 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 3574 1568 3433 3422 1770 1863 1615 1787 1856 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 3574 1568 3433 3422 1770 1863 1615 1787 1856 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 399 451 518 338 68 368 430 458 140 539 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 11 0 0 0 68 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 399 400 518 395 0 368 430 390 140 554 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 14% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 3 1 6 3 8 1 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 23.2 52.2 21.8 43.6 29.0 55.6 77.4 15.0 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 23.2 52.2 21.8 43.6 29.0 55.6 77.4 15.0 41.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.39 0.16 0.32 0.22 0.41 0.58 0.11 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 16 616 608 556 1108 381 769 928 199 573 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.11 c0.14 c0.15 0.12 c0.21 0.23 0.07 0.08 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.65 0.66 0.93 0.36 0.97 0.56 0.42 0.70 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 51.9 33.9 55.7 34.8 52.3 30.1 16.0 57.7 45.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.0 2.4 2.6 22.6 0.2 36.8 0.9 0.3 10.7 29.2 Delay (s) 84.2 54.2 36.4 78.3 35.0 89.1 31.0 16.3 68.4 75.0 Level of Service F D D E C F C B E E Approach Delay (s) 45.1 59.2 42.7 73.7 Approach LOS D E D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.6 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Roy Rogers Road & Roy Rogers Rd Site Access 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday PM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 11 0 22 0 1198 14 38 1414 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 11 0 22 0 1198 14 38 1414 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 11 0 23 0 1235 14 39 1458 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2794 2785 1458 2778 2778 1242 1458 1249 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2794 2785 1458 2778 2778 1242 1458 1249 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 *6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 46 100 89 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 10 18 161 20 18 215 470 564 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 0 0 11 23 0 1249 39 1458 Volume Left 0 0 11 0 0 0 39 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 23 0 14 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 20 215 1700 1700 564 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.11 0.00 0.73 0.07 0.86 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 25 6 0 0 4 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 313.3 23.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A F C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 117.4 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Roy Rogers Road & SW Bull Mountain Rd 3/14/2016 2016 Total Traffic Conditions 2/25/2015 Weekday PM Peak Period Synchro 9 Report axm Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 1 9 0 113 1 1100 45 178 1237 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 1 9 0 113 1 1100 45 178 1237 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 1 9 0 116 1 1134 46 184 1275 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2895 2825 1275 2780 2779 1134 1275 1180 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2895 2825 1275 2780 2779 1134 1275 1180 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 *6.4 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 44 100 53 100 69 cM capacity (veh/h) 4 12 206 16 13 247 551 595 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 1 9 116 1135 46 184 1275 Volume Left 0 9 0 1 0 184 0 Volume Right 1 0 116 0 46 0 0 cSH 206 16 247 551 1700 595 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.56 0.47 0.00 0.03 0.31 0.75 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 23 37 0 0 21 0 Control Delay (s) 22.6 387.1 31.9 0.1 0.0 13.7 0.0 Lane LOS C F D A B Approach Delay (s) 22.6 57.5 0.1 1.7 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 140.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Impact Studies C Memorandum “Impact Assessment Report – River Terrace East Mutlifamily” dated April 21, 2016, by Otak, Inc. Memorandum 808 SW 3rd Avenue Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 Noise Impacts The proposed River Terrace East multifamily development is anticipated to have similar general types and intensities of noise impacts as any other typical multifamily development in the City of Tigard. Noises which would be associated with the proposed project include traffic-related noises from vehicles within the development, laundry exhaust, lawn and other grounds maintenance equipment noise, and occasional music and other resident-related noises. Construction related noises will be temporary in nature and should occur prior to occupancy of homes on lots close to the site. The proposed development site is separated from planned residential development on neighboring properties by wetlands to the south, SW Roy Rogers Road to the west, the PGE Substation site to the north, and a substantial portion of the remainder of the River Terrace east planned development site to the east. The portion of the River Terrace East planned development to the east of the apartments’ site is planned for attached single-family development. Noise and other possible impacts between the proposed multi-family and the approved, but as yet unbuilt, attached single-family developments are not anticipated to be significant. Automobile traffic on SW Roy Rogers Road to the west of the multi-family development site provides a substantial level of ambient noise. The proposed development plan for River Terrace East multifamily includes a buffer of landscaping between SW Roy Rogers Road and the proposed development. Odors and Air Emissions Multifamily residential development typically results in odors and emissions such as car exhaust, laundry exhaust, barbecuing odors, and construction and lawn care equipment exhausts and odors. No odor or emission effects are anticipated from recreation and open space components of the multi-family use on the site under the proposed plan. Recreation and open space uses should be generally compatible with the adjacent uses. To: City of Tigard From: Li Alligood, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Peebles, P.E., Civil Engineer Date: April 21, 2016 Subject: Impact Assessment Report – River Terrace East Multifamily City of Tigard Page 2 Impact Assessment Report – River Terrace East Multifamily April 21, 2016 L:\Project\17800\17857\Planning\Application Submittal 2016-04-27\ImpactC_ImpactAssessmentRpt_2016-04-21.docx Lighting Impacts Typical lighting impacts associated with multifamily residential development are related to interior residential lighting, building entry lights, outdoor security lighting, and parking lot illumination. The parking lot illumination will meet City of Tigard standards, which are intended to address undesirable impacts. Transit Availability There is no public transit available within 1 mile of the site. Schools The River Terrace East multi-family site is located within the Beaverton School District. The School District has been informed about the proposed development plans for the site and the anticipated dates of occupancy of the River Terrace East multifamily units. Parks The River Terrace East multifamily site will be served by City of Tigard parks. An approximately 0.5-acre neighborhood park is proposed to be provided within the River Terrace East development in Tract L. In addition, the proposed development will provide a 6-foot wide multi-use path along the northern edge of the site. Transportation See the enclosed Transportation Impact Study prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Utilities The Preliminary Utility Plan for the project is included as Sheet P3.0 of the plan set. Sanitary Sewer: Wastewater collection for this area will be provided by the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard River Terrace Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Addendum (May 2014) defines the basin delineation and sewer service plan for the River Terrace East area (including the multifamily parcel). Public sewer infrastructure (pump station, sewer mains) is being constructed in the River Terrace Northwest Planned Development area west of Roy Rogers Road. This sewer infrastructure will provide service to the River Terrace East by an extension of the sewer main line across Roy Rogers Road at the location of the local road access just south of the multifamily site. The multifamily site will have a private, on-site conveyance system for sanitary sewer that will connect to a proposed public sewer line in interim access road south of the multifamily site. The extension of the public sewer line across Roy Rogers Road will be coordinated with the development schedule of the River Terrace East Planned Development multifamily and single family developments. The new sanitary sewer lift station being designed/constructed by Clean Water Services (currently under construction) will need to be operational prior to occupancy of any multifamily unit. In accordance with the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, wastewater will be pumped northward from the lift station to an City of Tigard Page 3 Impact Assessment Report – River Terrace East Multifamily April 21, 2016 L:\Project\17800\17857\Planning\Application Submittal 2016-04-27\ImpactC_ImpactAssessmentRpt_2016-04-21.docx existing sanitary manhole near the Scholls Ferry/Roy Rogers intersection and then to flow by gravity into the 21-inch Barrows Road sanitary sewer trunkline. Flows from this sanitary sewer drainage basin will ultimately reach the Durham Road Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Clean Water Services District. Water: Public water supply for the River Terrace East development (including the proposed apartments) will be provided by the City of Tigard. The River Terrace East planned development site is within the 410 Pressure Zone as shown on Map 12: Water Systems Improvements of the River Terrace Community Plan. A water transmission main is being constructed within the River Terrace Northwest Planned Development that serves as the trunkline that was planned to be constructed within SW Roy Rogers Road as required for development within River Terrace per the River Terrace Water System Master Plan Addendum. The River Terrace Northwest has stubbed public waterline infrastructure to the River Terrace East project at the local access road off Roy Rogers Road and will provide 8-inch public water main lines within the proposed public streets of the River Terrace East Planned Development to create a looped system, including a connection to the Luke Lane water line stub to the east. Fire hydrants will be installed as directed by City of Tigard and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District. The water system within the boundary of the multifamily site will be a private water system with separate domestic and fire water lines routed through the site. The private lines will have a connection point to the public waterline in the adjacent public street and separated from the public system by the required backflow prevention devices and metering. Based on additional design and modelling of the proposed 410 pressure zone area shown in the River Terrace Water Master Plan Addendum (January 2014), it has been determined that the proposed domestic water pressure within portions of the River Terrace East Planned Development (including the multifamily development) may not be adequate to meet plumbing code and City standard. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design has worked with the City of Tigard to propose a solution to provide a “regional” water booster pump station to increase domestic water pressure until development south of River Terrace East allows a connection to the higher (550) pressure zone. The northern buildings on the multifamily site (FF elevation above 300), may need a domestic water booster. This may be provided as a separate on-site private booster for the individual buildings, or the site may be connected to the “regional” water booster system in the River Terrace East subdivision. The design/construction of the multifamily water system will be coordinated design and timing of the public water booster system. Flows and pressures for fire protection appear to be adequate from the 410 service zone without additional booster pump. Storm Drainage: See the enclosed Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan. The plan outlines compliance with River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan (Otak, 2014), River Terrace Stormwater Management Standards Official Interim Guidance (Tigard, 2015), CWS Design & Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Management (CWS, 2007), and CWS Low Impact City of Tigard Page 4 Impact Assessment Report – River Terrace East Multifamily April 21, 2016 L:\Project\17800\17857\Planning\Application Submittal 2016-04-27\ImpactC_ImpactAssessmentRpt_2016-04-21.docx Development Approaches Handbook (CWS, 2009). The River Terrace East Multi-family development is located within Master Plan Basin T2_7a. The stormwater management system for the River Terrace East multifamily development is proposed in a single facility located southwest of the site in a portion of the existing Washington County “additional” right-of-way on the east side of Roy Rogers Road. The design of the facility will accommodate the proposed runoff from the east side of the proposed roadway improvements on Roy Rogers Road (MSTIP project), and portions of the upstream basin adjacent to Roy Rogers Road. The stormwater management system will include a combined water quality treatment and detention facility and will outfall to the existing drainage ditch to the south. Polygon Homes/Pacific Community Design is currently proposing some modifications to the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan and the approved River Terrace East Planned Development stormwater management plan to combine/revise some proposed regional facilities and account for detention of basin flows in the existing wetland/pond that is south and east of the multifamily parcel. The final stormwater plan for the area may lessen the detention volume requirements of the multifamily storm facility if there is additional storage volume available in the regional facility. Additional coordination and modelling will be completed with final design and resolution of regional stormwater facilities. Appendix D Urban Forestry Plan dated April 26, 2016, prepared by Otak, Inc. L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Urban Forestry Plan\17857-Tree Plan Narrative_2016-04-22.docx Technical Memorandum To: City of Tigard From: David Haynes, PLA Copies: File Date: April 22, 2016 Subject: Supplemental Tree Plan Report – River Terrace East Multifamily Project #: 17857 Project Summary This Tree Plan Report covers the River Terrace East multifamily parcel, located east of SW Roy Rogers Road and south of the PGE substation. The development will include 141 multifamily dwelling units in nine buildings on a 4.97 acre site. The subject property includes Tax lots 1400 and 1401 of Washington County on Tax Map 2S1 6. The zoning for this lot is R-25, and it lies within the River Terrace Plan District. The property owner is Arbor Homes, LLC, c/o West Hills Development, 735 SW 158th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97006. This report supplements the Tree Plan sheets (TC.1 through TC.2) submitted for this project and includes a narrative section and data tables required by the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Manual which includes the Proposed Tree Inventory with parking lot shade and soil volume. Specifications Existing Tree Inventory: There are no significant trees existing on the site. No tree protection or preservation specifications apply. Soil Characteristics: The soils on the site are Aloha Silt Loam and Cornelius/Kinton Silt Loams and are considered to be adequate for tree planting, growth and vitality. Other than soil testing and amending to provide sufficient nutrient levels, no special measures are anticipated for improving these soils. 808 SW Third Ave. Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 River Terrace East - Multifamily Page 2 Tree Plan Report 4/22/16 L:\Project\17800\17857\ProjectDocs\Reports\Urban Forestry Plan\17857-Tree Plan Narrative_2016-04-22.docx Proposed Trees: There are 177 trees proposed to be planted throughout the site. Each of the trees is assigned a number that can be found on both the plan sheet and in the Appendix of this report. There are attributes listed for each tree. Parking Lot Canopy Coverage: The total parking lot area for the project is 20,709 square feet. The total qualifying mature tree canopy area directly over parking lot provided is 10,465 square feet or 50% coverage. The minimum Parking Lot mature canopy coverage of 33% (6,834 square feet) has been met. Overall Site Canopy Coverage: The total project site area is approximately 216,500 square feet. The proposed canopy cover is 79,785sf or 36.9% of the site. The minimum site canopy coverage of 33% (71,445 square feet) has been met. Street Trees: The Roy Rogers Rd frontage has a curb length of 758’ linear feet which calls for 19 street trees at 40-foot spacing. The proposed number of street trees on this frontage is 26, which meets the standard. The tree species along Roy Rogers Rd. will be Dove Tree (Davidia involucrate). The proposed local street bordering the site to the south has a curb length of 250’ linear feet which calls for 6 street trees at 40-foot spacing. The proposed number of street trees on this frontage is 7, which meets the standard. The tree species proposed for this frontage will be Yulan Magnolia (Magnolia denudate). Two trees that are not on the Tigard Tree List are proposed on the property. They are: 1) Street and site tree: Butterfly Magnolia, Magnolia ‘Butterflies’; height 15’ – 20’; spread: 15’. Size information is from the Missouri Botanical Garden website, www.missouribotanicalgarden.org, accessed 3/28/16. 2) Site tree: Dawn Redwood, Metasequoia glyptostroboides, height 60’, spread 25’. Size information is from Michael Dirr, Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, 5th Edition, p. 662. Height is assumed to be in the middle of the range cited by Dirr. Signature of Approval I hereby attest that: 1. The Tree Preservation and Removal site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; 2. The Tree Canopy site plan meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual; and 3. The Supplemental Report meets all of the requirements in Section 10, Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ______________________________________________ David D. Haynes, PLA Appendix Tree Data Table Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD001 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0 35' 35'002 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'003 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'004 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'005 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'006 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'007 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'008 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'009 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'010 Cladrastis kentuckia YELLOWWOOD >1000 0 >1000 962 0 0% 35' 35'011 Pinus sylvestria JUNE SNOW DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 12650 0% 50' 40'012 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE 3450 0 3450 2454 276 11% 65' 50'013 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 2157 0 2157 2454 177 7% 25' 25'014 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 1770 0 1770 2454 176 7% 25' 25'015 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE 1725 0 1725 2454 727 30% 65' 50'016 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 1770 0 1770 2454 186 8% 25' 25'017 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 1869 0 1869 2454 143 6% 25' 25'018 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE 1995 0 1995 2454 712 29% 65' 50'019 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 2217 0 2217 2454 88 4%25' 25'020 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 2478 0 2478 2454 116 5% 25' 25'021 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE 1785 0 1785 2454 228 9%65' 50'022 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 1256 0 0% 50' 40'023 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 1256 0 0% 50' 40'024 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 1256 0 0% 50' 40'025 Pinus sylvestria JUNE SNOW DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 12560 0% 50' 40'026 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'027 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 894 321 1215 177 0 0% 20' 15'028 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 2049 405 2454177 0 0% 20' 15'029 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 1974 393 2367177 0 0% 20' 15'030 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1659 261 1920 177 0 0% 20' 15'031 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1509 216 1725 177 0 0% 20' 15'032 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1371 171 1542 177 0 0% 20' 15'033 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1542 216 1758 177 0 0% 20' 15'Page 1 of 6 Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD034 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1644 216 1860 177 0 0% 20' 15'035 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 2352 270 2622177 0 0% 20' 15'036 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2529 414 2943 491 0 0% 40'25'037 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2199 486 2685 491 0 0% 40'25'038 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 2082 516 2598177 0 0% 20' 15'039 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 1338 504 1842177 0 0% 20' 15'040 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 852 318 1170 177 0 0% 20' 15'041 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'042 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'043 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'044 Pinus sylvestria JUNE SNOW DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 12560 0% 50' 40'045 Cornus nuttallii PACIFIC DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0%40' 30'046 Cornus nuttallii PACIFIC DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0%40' 30'046 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'047 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'048 Pinus sylvestria JUNE SNOW DOGWOOD >1000 0 >1000 12650 0% 50' 40'049 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'050 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'051 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'052 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'053 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'054 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'055 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'056 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'057 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'058 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'059 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'060 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'061 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'062 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 2454 33814% 65' 50'063 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'064 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 852 318 1170 177 0 0% 20' 15'065 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1323 432 1755 177 0 0% 20' 15'Page 2 of 6 Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD066 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 2079 486 2565 177 0 0% 20' 15'067 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2202 486 2688 491 0 0% 40'25'068 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2082 318 2400 491 0 0% 40'25'069 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1401 198 1599 177 0 0% 20' 15'070 Ostrya virginiana AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM 1002 0 1002 491 166 34% 35' 30'071 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 840 378 1218 177 0 0% 20' 15'072 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1059 324 1383 177 0 0% 20' 15'073 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1059 324 1383 177 0 0% 20' 15'075 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'076 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'077 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'078 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'079 Acer macrophyllum BIGLEAF MAPLE 1863 0 1863 2454 317 13% 65' 50'080 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'081 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'082 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD 2073 45 2118 1963 890 45% 65' 50'083 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD 1533 45 1578 1963 881 45% 65' 50'084 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'085 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'086 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'087 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 0 177 00% 20' 15'088 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'089 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'090 Acer truncatum x A. platanoides PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 35' 35'091 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 270 1152 177 0 0% 20' 15'092 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 270 1152 177 0 0% 20' 15'093 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 270 1152 177 0 0% 20' 15'094 Ostrya virginiana AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM 1914 0 1914 491 167 34% 35' 30'095 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 1215 318 1533177 0 0% 20' 15'096 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 1392 432 1824177 0 0% 20' 15'097 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 2085 486 2571177 0 0% 20' 15'098 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2076 414 2490 491 0 0% 40'25'099 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 1836 270 2106 491 0 0% 40'25'Page 3 of 6 Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD100 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 1530 147 1677177 0 0% 20' 15'101 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'102 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'103 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'104 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1407 198 1605 177 0 0% 20' 15'105 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2085 342 2427 491 0 0% 40'25'106 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 2226 486 2712 491 0 0% 40'25'107 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 2103 474 2577 177 0 0% 20' 15'108 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 2280 504 2784 177 0 0% 20' 15'109 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1797 417 2214 177 0 0% 20' 15'110 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 1521 288 1809 491 0 0% 40'25'111 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 1500 252 1752 491 0 0% 40'25'112 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1662 384 2046 177 0 0% 20' 15'113 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1836 468 2304 177 0 0% 20' 15'114 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 1633 468 2101 177 0 0% 20' 15'115 Magnolia 'Butterflies' BUTTERFLY MAGNOLIA 940 384 1324 177 0 0% 20' 15'116 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'118 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'119 Cercidiphyllum japonicum KATSURA >1000 0 >1000 1256 462 37% 40' 40'120 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD 1317 108 1425 1963 1510 77% 65' 50'121 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD 1308 54 1362 1963 574 29% 65' 50'122 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'123 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD >1000 0 >1000 1963 1029 52% 65' 50'124 Pseudotsuga menziesii DOUGLAS FIR >1000 0 >1000 1570 00% 180' 40'125 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 144 1026 177 0 0% 20' 15'126 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 144 1026 177 35 20% 20' 15'127 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE 882 144 1026 177 35 20% 20' 15'128 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'129 Syringa reticulata JAPANESE LILAC TREE >1000 0 >1000177 0 0% 20' 15'130 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE 1200 66 1266 1256 515 41% 50' 40'131 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR 1200 66 1266 491 0 0% 40' 25'132 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'133 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'Page 4 of 6 Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD134 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'135 Acer rubrum RED MAPLE 1329 0 1329 1256 219 17% 50' 40'136 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'137 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'138 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'139 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD >1000 0 >1000 1963 249 13%65' 50'140 Gymnocladus dioicus SOURWOOD >1000 0 >1000 1963 249 13%65' 50'141 Metasequoia glyptostroboides DAWN REDWOOD >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 60' 25'142 Metasequoia glyptostroboides DAWN REDWOOD >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 60' 25'143 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'144 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'145 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'146 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'147 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'148 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'149 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'150 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'151 Pseudotsuga menziesii DOUGLAS FIR >1000 0 >1000 1570 00% 180' 40'152 Pseudotsuga menziesii DOUGLAS FIR >1000 0 >1000 1570 00% 180' 40'153 Pseudotsuga menziesii DOUGLAS FIR >1000 0 >1000 1570 00% 180' 40'154 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 1454 0 0% 25' 25'155 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'156 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'157 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'158 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'159 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'160 Thuja plicata WESTERN RED CEDAR >1000 0 >1000 884 0 0% 100' 30'161 Metasequoia glyptostroboides DAWN REDWOOD >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 60' 25'162 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'163 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'164 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'165 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'166 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'Page 5 of 6 Tree Data TableTREE # BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON-NAMEOPEN SOIL cu.ft.COVER- ED SOIL cu.ft.TOTAL SOIL VOLUMECANOPY SFCANOPY OVER PRKG s.f.% OVER PRKG LOTHEIGHTSPREAD167 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'168 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'169 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'170 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'171 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'172 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'173 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'174 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'175 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'176 Davidia involucrata DOVE TREE 1500 0 1500 707 0 0% 35' 30'177 Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD >1000 0 >1000 2454 0 0% 25' 25'178 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'179 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'180 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'181 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'182 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'183 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'184 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'185 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'186 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'187 Magnolia denudata YULAN MAGNOLIA >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0%35' 30'188 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'189 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'190 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'191 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'192 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'193 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'194 Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE >1000 0 >1000 707 0 0% 30' 30'195 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'196 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'197 Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR >1000 0 >1000 491 0 0% 40'25'Total Qualifying Mature Tree Canopy Area: 10,465(Sum of Canopy Area over Parking Lots)Page 6 of 6 1A61A6148' - 6 1/2"30' - 8 1/2"(16 BIKE PARKING STALLS)UTILITY METERLOCATIONFIRE SPRINKLER CLOSET4" / 1'-0"1A61A6150' - 9 1/2"56' - 6"4" / 1'-0"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:37:41 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016KB, SM17857A122-Plex FloorPlans - UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016N0'4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A11LEVEL 00 - 22 PLEX - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A12LEVEL 01 - 22 PLEX - UPHILL 5' - 0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"1A61A6150' - 6 1/2"57' - 6"4" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"1A61A6Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:37:57 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016KB, SM17857A222/21 -PlexFloor Plans -Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A21LEVEL 02/03 - 22/21 PLEX - UPHILL/DOWNHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A22ROOF - 22/21 PLEX - UPHILL/DOWNHILL (16 BIKE PARKING STALLS)2A62A630' - 8 1/2"151' - 0 1/2"FIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETSTORAGEUTILITY METERLOCATION4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"2A62A6150' - 6 1/2"57' - 6"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:37:58 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A321-Plex FloorPlans - DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A31LEVEL 00 - 21 PLEX - DOWNHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A32LEVEL 01 - 21 PLEX DOWNHILL COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFINGFIBER CEMENT FASCIAFIBER CEMENT TRIMFIBER CEMENT PANELMETAL RAILINGVINYL WINDOWFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGFIBER CEMENT SHINGLESBRICK VENEERUTILITY METER LOCATIONMIDPOINT OF ROOF37' - 7"FIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETCopyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:38:28 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A422-PlexElevations -UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4122 PLEX - UPHILL - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4222 PLEX - UPHILL - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4322 PLEX - UPHILL - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4422 PLEX - UPHILL - EAST ELEVATION COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFINGFIBER CEMENT FASCIAFIBER CEMENT TRIMFIBER CEMENT PANELMETAL RAILINGVINYL WINDOWFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGFIBER CEMENT SHINGLESBRICK VENEERUTILITY METER LOCATIONFIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETMIDPOINT OF ROOF37' - 7"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:38:57 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A521-PlexElevations -DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A5121 PLEX - DOWNHILL - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A5221 PLEX - DOWNHILL - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A5321 PLEX - DOWNHILL - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A5421 PLEX - DOWNHILLL - WEST ELEVATION UNITUNITUNITGARAGEHALLHALLHALLUNITUNITUNITHALLUNITUNITUNITGARAGEHALLHALLHALLUNITUNITUNITHALLCopyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:38:58 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A622/21-PlexSections -Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A6122 PLEX - UPHILL - SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A6221 PLEX - DOWNHILL - SECTION Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:39:28 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A721/22-PlexPerspectives -Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE:A7122 PLEX - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE:A7222 PLEX - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 2SCALE:A7321 PLEX - DOWNHILL - PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE:A7421 PLEX - DOWNHILL - PERSPECTIVE 2 1A121A1281' - 9"30' - 8 1/2"(6 BIKE PARKING STALLS)1A121A1283' - 8 1/2"55' - 0"4" / 1'-0"FIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATION1A121A1282' - 9"56' - 6"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"1A121A1210" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:39:45 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016KB, SM17857A812-Plex FloorPlans -Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A81LEVEL 00 - 12 PLEX - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A82LEVEL 01 - 12 PLEX - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A83LEVEL 02/03 - 12 PLEX - UPHILL/DOWNHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A84ROOF - 12 PLEX - UPHILL/DOWNHILL 2A122A1280' - 8 1/2"54' - 0 1/2"FIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATIONSTORAGE(6 BIKE PARKING STALLS)2A122A1282' - 9"56' - 6"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:39:46 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A912-Plex FloorPlans - DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A91LEVEL 00 - 12 PLEX DOWNHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A92LEVEL 01 - 12 PLEX DOWNHILL COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFINGFIBER CEMENT FASCIAFIBER CEMENT TRIMFIBER CEMENT PANELMETAL RAILINGVINYL WINDOWFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGBRICK VENEERFIBER CEMENT SHINGLESFIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATIONMIDPOINT OF ROOF37' - 5 1/2"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:40:08 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A1012-PlexElevations -UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A10112 PLEX - UPHILL - NORTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A10212 PLEX - UPHILL - SOUTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A10312 PLEX - UPHILL - EASTSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A10412 PLEX - UPHILL - WEST COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFINGFIBER CEMENT FASCIAFIBER CEMENT TRIMFIBER CEMENT PANELMETAL RAILINGVINYL WINDOWFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGFIBER CEMENT SHINGLESBRICK VENEERFIRE SPRINLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATIONMIDPOINT OF ROOF37' - 5 1/2"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:40:27 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A1112-PlexElevations -DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A11112 PLEX - DOWNHILL - SOUTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A11212 PLEX - DOWNHILL - NORTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A11312 PLEX - DOWNHILL - EASTSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A11412 PLEX - DOWNHILL - WEST UNITUNITUNITGARAGEHALLHALLHALLUNITUNITUNITHALLUNITUNITUNITGARAGEHALLHALLHALLUNITUNITUNITHALLCopyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:40:28 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A1212-Plex Sections- Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A12112 PLEX - UPHILL - SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A12212 PLEX - DOWNHILL - SECTION Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:40:44 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A1312-PlexPerspectives -Uphill/DownhillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE:A13112 PLEX - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE:A13212 PLEX - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 2SCALE:A13312 PLEX - DOWNHILL - PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE:A13412 PLEX - DOWNHILL - PERSPECTIVE 2 (6 BIKE PARKING STALLS)FIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATIONOFFICE40OFFICE41STOR42LOBBY43MULTI-PURPOSE4484' - 3 1/2"55' - 0"MAINTENANCEGARAGE3A163A1610" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"3A163A163" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"3 1/2" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"3A163A1656' - 6"84' - 3 1/2"4" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"8" / 1'-0"8" / 1'-0"3A163A164" / 1'-0"Copyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:41:08 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A147-Plex/ClubhouseFloor Plans -UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A141LEVEL 01 - 7 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A143LEVEL 03 - 7 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A144ROOF - 7 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILLSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A142LEVEL 02 - 7 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILL COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFINGFIBER CEMENT FASCIAFIBER CEMENT TRIMFIBER CEMENT PANELMETAL RAILINGVINYL WINDOWFIBER CEMENT LAP SIDINGBRICK VENEERMIDPOINT OF ROOF34' - 2 1/2"FIBER CEMENT SHINGLESBRICK VENEERFIRE SPRINKLER CLOSETUTILITY METER LOCATIONCopyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:41:28 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A157-Plex/ClubhouseElevations -UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1517 PLEX - CLUBHOUSE - NORTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1527 PLEX -CLUBHOUSE - SOUTHSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1537 PLEX - CLUBHOUSE - EASTSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1547 PLEX - CLUBHOUSE - WEST UNITUNITGARAGEHALLHALLHALLUNITMULTI-PURPOSECopyright 2016 ©Project NumberChecked ByDrawn ByDesigned ByDateRevisions# Date Description735 SW 158th Ave.,Beaverton, OR 97006If this drawing is less than 24" x 36", it hasbeen reduced. Scale accordingly.Plot Date:Revit File:Sheet NumberBBBB, KB, SM808 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 300Portland, OR 97024Phone 503.287.6825Fax 503.415.2304Otak Architects, IncHanmiGlobal Partnerotak®11 x 17 - Center, Zoom 47% | 24 x 36 - Center, Zoom 100% | Vector High,Greyscale4/26/2016 9:41:37 AMC:\Users\kellyb\Documents\River Terrace East 2_kelly.buchanan.rvtRIVER TERRACEEASTEAST SIDE OF SWROY ROGERS RDTIGARD, ORWest HillsDevelopment03/31/2016Author17857A167-Plex/ClubhouseSection &Perspectives -UphillLand Use Submittal - April 26th, 2016SCALE:A1617 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 1SCALE:A1627 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILL - PERSPECTIVE 2SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1637 PLEX/CLUBHOUSE - UPHILL - SECTION